A Data-Driven Research and Innovation Performance Report Based on IPO Model for Malaysia Higher Education Institutions

This paper demonstrates a systematic method for preparing higher education institution (HEI) a data-driven research and innovation (R&I) performance report based on implementation of the proposed R&I Ecosystem Framework. The ecosystem framework is an Input-Process-Output (IPO) Model and has adopted elements in the Malaysia Research Assessment (MyRA). The method of performance report is designed to present performance achievement levels, enabling relevant stakeholders to plan and implement appropriate action plans. The study begins with mapping MyRA criteria to the proposed ecosystem framework, which encompass input, process, and output, to form a complete and holistic R&I ecosystem view. Data for each criteria were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, and visual representations such as radar charts, statistical graphs, pie charts, and bell curve charts were prepared for reporting. The application of this IPO-based framework, coupled with strategic data visualization techniques, moves data-driven R&I performance reporting beyond descriptive accounting to become a powerful diagnostic and strategic tool. The results identified strengths and weaknesses (gaps) in specific R&I criteria, aiding top management and relevant responsibility R&I offices in formulating actionable plans to bridging the performance gaps and ultimately enhancing the HEI's overall R&I ecosystem, directly supporting the national agenda for improved R&I excellence and global competitiveness.

Research and Innovation, Performance Reporting, Data Analysis

1. Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G., (2019). Knowledge Management in Entrepreneurial Universities: A Structured Literature Review and Avenue for Future Research Agenda. Management Decision. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Gill, S. K., Dhir, A., Singh, G., & Vrontis, D., (2022). Transformative Quality in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): Conceptualisation, scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Selten, F., Neylon, C., Huang, C.-K., & Groth, P., (2020). A longitudinal analysis of university rankings. Quantitative Science Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Camilleri, Mark Anthony, (2020). Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education. Management in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Roshidi, S. R. A., Omar, M. F., & Jamil, J. M., (2021). An Analytic Approach to Measure R&D Performance for Public University. International Journal of Technology Management and Information System. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ta, G. C., Halim, S. A., Azman, N., Komoo, I., & Mokhtar, M., (2021). Evaluating research performance of research institutes within Malaysian universities: an alternative assessment framework. Tertiary Education and Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Docampo, D., & Bessoule, J.-J., (2019). A new approach to the analysis and evaluation of the research output of countries and institutions. Scientometrics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Nasir, K., Razaki, M. M., Kamil, F. A., Razak, N. A., & Yahya, T. B. T., (2024). Implementation of Research Assessment Instruments by Malaysia Research Assessment (MyRA) in Malaysian HEIs: Role, Challenges and Strategies. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ashaari, M. A., Amran, A., Ahmad, N. H., Bakri, H., & Nazri, S., (2020). Big Data Analytics Technology Capability and Data-Driven Decision Making in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Framework. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Nudurupati, S. S., Garengo, P., & Bititci, U. S., (2021). Impact of the changing business environment on performance measurement and management practices. International Journal of Production Economics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Yusriani, S., Suja’i, A., Fadhil, A., Pamungkas, C. R., Nurbaeti, N., Prambudi, I., Ismiwati, R., Perangin-angin, D., & Effendy, A., (2023). Performance Measurement Knowledge: A Comprehensive Literature Review. Proceeding of The International Seminar on Business, Economics, Social Science and Technology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X., & Qi, W., (2012). Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chinta, R., Kebritchi, M., & Ellias, J., (2016). A conceptual framework for evaluating higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Subiyakto, A., & Ahlan, A. R., (2014). Implementation of input-process-output model for measuring information system project success. TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mezmir, E. A., (2020). Qualitative data analysis: An overview of data reduction, data display, and interpretation. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
• Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
• A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
• The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
• Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria