1 / 28

Innovation surveys: design, implementation, lessons learnt

This article discusses the importance of measuring innovation, the challenges faced in collecting innovation data, and the experiences and methods used in innovation surveys. It covers conceptual backgrounds, experiences with surveys, methodological aspects, and the use of survey data. The article also highlights opportunities and limitations in innovation data collection.

twetzel
Télécharger la présentation

Innovation surveys: design, implementation, lessons learnt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Innovation surveys: design, implementation, lessons learnt Micheline Goedhuys

  2. Why do we need to measure innovation? • Scarcity of data in general, on innovation in particular • Lack of policy tools for benchmarking • Insufficient monitoring and evaluation of policies • Nature of innovation calls for firm-level information DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  3. Structure of session: • Conceptual background • Experiences with innovation surveys • Methodological aspects • Use of innovation survey data • Opportunities and limitations to innovation data collection: key issues DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  4. 1. Conceptual background • linear view that science, research and discovery underlie innovation (science push) • innovation measured by science indicators: • R&D • engineers • patenting • bibliometrics, publications, citation indices • surveys (USA, 1960s) collecting R&D, patent data; DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  5. 1. Conceptual background End 1980s, 1990s ‘activity approach’: • investigating the ‘black box’ • innovation results from interaction firm-market, learning, feedback (chain-link model of Kline and Rosenberg 1986) • need for indicators capturing non-R&D activities and incremental change • development of surveys asking firms about their innovation process DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  6. 1. Conceptual background • Harmonisation of survey efforts in the ‘Oslo Manual’, 1992, 1997, 2005 • basis for Community Innovation Surveys • innovation is measured as : an activity (R&D, industrial design, acquisition of machinery, external technology, training) and an output (introduction of product or process innovations) Features: new-to-the-firm, significant improvements DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  7. 2. Experiences : CIS • CIS-1: 1990-92; first regional effort to collect innovation data; 13 European countries, • CIS-2: 1994-1996; 17 countries • CIS-3: 1998-2000; more firms, more questions, services, organisational change, 29 countries • CIS-light: 2000-2002, limited set of questions, 18 countries • CIS-4: 2002-2004: 29 countries, organisational innovation and effect • CIS-2006: 2004-2006; 29 countries; no data available yet • CIS-2008: 2006-2008 DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  8. 2. Experiences : Latin America • Need of information to monitor the impacts of economic reforms (trade liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation, FDI,etc). • Source: Crespi, 2007 DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  9. 2. Experiences : Latin America • Specific nature of innovation in Latin American countries: • Importance of incremental innovation; organisational and marketing innovation; • Importance of innovation embodied in machinery and equipment (dissemination) • Less private and more informal R&D • Fragmented flows of information DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  10. 2. Experiences : Latin America • Need for changes to the survey instrument : Bogotá Manual to complement OSLO Manual. • from innovations to firm-level innovative activities and technology efforts • human resources, capabilities • enlarged data need on organisational, delivery and design innovations • lack of centralised agency, different questionnaires and sampling methodologies DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  11. 2. Experiences : Latin America • Second wave of Innovation surveys: 10 countries; 2000-2001; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago and Uruguay • more of uniformity but without common questionnaire and sampling methodologies • revision of Bogotá Manual and Annex to Oslo Manual (2005). DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  12. 2. Experiences : Latin America • Third wave of Innovation surveys: • 5 countries; 2003-2005; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay • A lot of exit and a core group of countries with “consolidated” routines (but still with institutional problems and financial issues). • ECLAC-RICYT-OAS network (2006) to create a harmonized “core” questionnaire (plus access to micro-data) DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  13. 2. Experiences : Asia, Africa In Southeast Asia: • Malaysia (3), Taiwan (1), Singapore (1), Thailand (2), China, India… In Africa: • South Africa (2) • Planning to conduct an innovation survey in 20+ countries (NEPAD survey) DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  14. 2. Agenda: ongoing debate to design innovation surveys to the context of developing countries • concept of innovation : organisational, packaging, delivery, design innovations, waste management techniques, … • trade off between country/regional design and benchmarking options • increasing policy relevance • inclusion of services and resource-based sectors DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  15. 3. Methodological aspects : questionnaire content • Basic information: name, location, industry, ownership, year established… • Firm performance: sales, employment, … • Innovation activities: Investment, Training, intra-mural and external R&D, …and expenditures • Innovation outputs (product/process/organisational) • Sources of information for innovation • Cooperation for innovation • Government policy or incentives affecting innovation DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  16. 3. Methodological aspects : questionnaire content • Objectives, goals or reasons for innovating • Impact of innovations on firm performance • Obstacles to innovation DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  17. 3. Methodological aspects • Organisation: national statistics agency, MOST, universities, consultants • Reference period: 2 or 3 years (mostly 3) • Participation: voluntary, compulsary (in Latin America) DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  18. DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  19. DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  20. 3. Methodological aspects • Survey modalities: postal, PTEF follow up, personal interview, telephone interview, online questionnaire, CATI • Sector coverage: initially manufacturing, increasingly services, resource based industries • Firm size: cutoff points: 5, 10, 20 or 50 workers DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  21. 4. Use of innovation surveys • by academics and researchers • Innovation and firm performance • Identify determinants/constraints to innovation • Innovation strategies • Regional and country studies • Industry studies • Innovation patterns over time • Developing innovation indicators: measurement issues DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  22. 4. Use of innovation surveys • for policy making: • Indicators for benchmarking • Mapping innovation ; innovation in new sectors • Assessing trends • Monitoring specific policy instruments DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  23. Uses 20 Indicators Cross-country comparisons, industry comparisons changes over time consensus on policy action uses CIS based indicators % SMEs with in-house innovative activities % SMEs that collaborate on innovation total innovation expenditures as % sales % new-to-market products/sales % new-to-firm products/sales 4. Example: European innovation scoreboard DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  24. 5. Opportunities and limitations • Innovation surveys have become key research inputs of modern innovation studies (Crespi, 2007) DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  25. 5. Opportunities and limitations • Heterogeneity across questionnaires and methodologies remains and is even on the rise due to broadening concept of innovation, scope, … • Lots of country studies, little cross-country comparisons in developing countries • This limits the use of survey data as benchmarking tool (e.g. Crespi, 2007) DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  26. 5. Opportunities and limitations • On the questionnaire: • Need for the development of harmonized guidelines with a core set of questions • Optional policy-relevant questions can be added for policy monitoring • Methodology for country benchmarking: • Preferably common sampling methodology: size cut-off point, industry coverage, … • Compulsory common (length of) reference period, and participation mode DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  27. 5. Opportunities and limitations • Dissemination of non-aggregated micro-data is crucial • Assessing trends: need for panel data • Need of involvement of stakeholders from the start • Need for strong coordination mechanism DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

  28. Useful links: • For a download of the CIS-4 questionnaire: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file9688.pdf • Oslo Manual: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/OSLO/EN/OSLO-EN.PDF • Bogotá manual: http://www.ricyt.edu.ar/interior//difusion/pubs/bogota/bogota_eng.pdf • NEPAD study: • http://www.nepadst.org/doclibrary/pdfs/innopolicy_aug2004.pdf DEIP, Amman June, 10-12 2008

More Related