Fine answer dear @Raoof! I would add that in different countries there are different approaches and criteria for research productivity measurement. Faculty productivity emphasizes the strengths of institutional research activity! Some of the factors that influence RP are number of students graduated, the applicability of research, cooperation with industry, the quality of curricula, flexibility... Only longitudinal research may bring relevant results about HERP!

I heard that efficiency analysis is used for schools but this method is more convenient for primary and secondary schools.

The following formula (Research output score)  is suggested by:

Richard Woottoen: Health Res Policy Syst. 2013; 11: 2.

R=g+p+s

grant points (g),

publication points (p),

PhD supervision points (s),

For simplicity, these variables are given equal weighting, although obviously other weighting schemes could be used, as required.

Fine answer dear @Raoof! I would add that in different countries there are different approaches and criteria for research productivity measurement. Faculty productivity emphasizes the strengths of institutional research activity! Some of the factors that influence RP are number of students graduated, the applicability of research, cooperation with industry, the quality of curricula, flexibility... Only longitudinal research may bring relevant results about HERP!

Dear All even Total RG Score and Total Impact Points of the institutions are also giving a fare idea about the research productivity of that institutions. Thanks

Interesting question. 

Government and funding agencies use those ranking information for strategy planning whereas universities use their ranking for marketing purposes.

Several instances I have seen about "World Univeristy Ranking" by Times Higher Education.  See the following link. It contains latest ranking along with their methodology

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/

Apart from above, several other ranking systems also available 

Academic Ranking of World Universities

QS World University Rankings

Leiden Ranking

U-Map

U-Multirank

Webometrics

SCImago Institutions Ranking

Almost all of them used the follow as basics for their calculation

Research Quality and its impact towards generating income and reputation

Research  articles published and Citations, Funding attracted from Government and Industrial sectors, Quality and international standard of their staff members (in turn reflected from their research), Awards received by staffs or Institution 

Measuring research - A guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools is fine resource by RAND corporation!

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1217.html

Three faculty and four students conducted a systematic review of Scholarly Productivity in Health Professions.  Below are the results and conclusions for this study:

Scholarly productivity of faculty in health professions: A systematic review

• Kara Collins, Erin Hock, Laura Horvath and Dawn Long
• Indiana University Master of Science in Occupational Therapy
• Faculty Advisors: Janet Everly, EdD, OTR and Elaine Fess, MS, OTR, CHT, FAOTA, and Thomas Fisher, PhD, OTR, CCM FAOTA
• Indiana University School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences

Results: "Within the 51 articles, 54 different faculty productivity outcome variables were identified. When the inclusion criteria and time formats for these variables were integrated the number of outcome variables expanded to 389. 78.4% of the articles did not report reliability of test instruments. 68.6% did not report any validity of the instruments and 19.6% reported content validity based on expert opinion.

The MacDermid’s Guidelines test-retest reliability had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability for internal consistency ranging from .831 to .982. ANOVA found only one article pair had a significant difference between the test-retest sessions; there was no statistical difference between the scores for the other four article pairs. For the 51 articles assessed the highest possible score using MacDermid’s Guidelines was 48. The scores ranged from 33.5 to 13.0 with the top 2 ranking articles measuring productivity by counting publications. The article with the highest journal impact score (52.59) also had the highest number of citations in the citation index (106)".

Conclusion: "Throughout this systematic review, 90 years of information was reviewed. Only 1 article of the 51 assessed, addressed the validity of productivity measurement. It is apparent that studies are needed that specifically address the actual measurement tools. For nearly a century, there has been a lack of evidence regarding the measurement of faculty productivity. A uniform way of measuring productivity is desperately needed due to its implications on promotion and tenure of faculty members, school performance, and for evidence based practice within health professions".

Dear @A.H. Sequeira , this is a case study from one University that apply SCI VAL.

The role of research metrics at a top-ranked global university: The University of Queensland

With SciVal, UQ Library’s Research Outputs and Impact team is able to analyze the latest data from disparate data sets across the university’s systems. As a result, they have increased the frequency and speed with which they can produce research intelligence reports. Their rich analyses are drawing the attention of more and more staff at the university, and demand for bibliometric data has seen a sizeable increase...

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/179225/UQ_3_HR.pdf

Dear @A.H. Sequeira, this is relevant contribution regarding your issue.

MAPPING SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE TOOL!

"Mapping Scientific Excellence Tool web application visualizes scientific excellence worldwide in several subject areas. For each institution (university or research-focused institution), the estimated probabilities of (i) publishing highly cited papers (Best Paper Rate) or (ii) publishing in the most influential journals (Best Journal Rate) are shown. Both probabilities, which can be adjusted by covariates, range from blue (high probability) through grey (average) to red (low probability) at a circle. The circle size corresponds to the institutional number of papers...

The web application is based on the results of multilevel logistic regression models. Multilevel models provide a very easy way to compare institutions, that is, whether they differ statistically significantly in their performance. In the models, the effect of single covariates (such as the gross domestic product of a country in which an institution is located) on institutional performance is examined and visualized...

The Web application is based on Scopus data collected for the SCImago Institutions Ranking. To obtain reliable data in terms of geo-coordinates and performance metrics, we only consider those institutions that have published at least 500 articles, reviews and conference papers in the publication period. Institutions with fewer than 500 papers in a category are not considered..."

Nice article! We may check our institutions!

https://danube-inco.net/object/document/17485