Transcript Document

Measuring Innovation
The 3rd Community Innovation Survey in Portugal
Manuel João Bóia
[email protected]
Innovation and Technology Transfer
MSc Engineering Design
17 October 2003
Outline
1.
The Community Innovation Survey
2.
Students Presentations
3.
Results (CIS 3),

4.
Innovative Enterprises by Sector and CIS Trajectories in
the European Context

Input vs. Output of Innovation in Europe

Some Innovation Characteristics

Other Strategic and Organizational Important Changes

Innovation Sources

Innovation Barriers
Lessons Learned and Conclusions
CIS 3
1.1
Portugal
Survey Target Population
•
All Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employees
Survey Sample
•
Initial Sample: 4727 firms stratified by firm size and sector
(INE–1999 Data)
•
Corrected sample: 4127 firms
Sectors Surveyed
•
Mining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale Trade and a
selection of industries in the Service Sector
CIS 3
1.2
Portugal
Innovation Definition Used:
•
Market introduction of a product (Good or Service) new or significantly
improved, or the introduction of new or significantly improved processes,
based on new technological developments, new combinations of existing
technologies or on the use of other type of knowledge acquired.
The innovation should be new to the company and not necessarily to the market.
CIS 3
1.3
Portugal
Questionnaire
•
Harmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and
other industries)
•
Questions regarding:
General Information
Companies Characteristics
Basic Economic Information
Product and Process Innovation
Innovation Extension
Patents and Other Protection Methods
Innovation Activities and Expenditure
Intramural R & D
Companies Options
Other Strategic and Organizational Important Changes
Effects of Innovation
Public Funding
Innovation Co-operation
Sources of Information for Innovation
Hampered Innovation Activity
Systemic Characteristics
CIS 3
1.4
Portugal
Survey
•
Start date: October 2001
•
Sample verification and validation (Name and Address) and identification of
a contact person
•
Mailing of Questionnaire with innovations examples and a postage free
envelope for replying (fax reply also accepted)
•
Systematic phone reminders plus two fax reminders and an additional
questionnaire re-mailing
•
Support is provided on working days by phone, fax or e-mail by a
multidisciplinary team of 6 trained staff people
•
End date --> 15th April 2002
CIS 3
1.5
Portugal
Response Rates
CIS 3 PT Valid Answers and Response Rates by Sector and Size
Sector
Small
Medium
Large
Resp.
Resp.
Resp.
Valid
Valid
Valid
Rate
Rate
Rate
10(12)-14
23 46,0%
22 52,4%
0 0,0%
15-37
623 45,1%
455 45,2%
198 52,5%
40-41
9 29,0%
8 57,1%
4 66,7%
51, 60-67, 72-73, 74.2, 74.3 313 41,8%
158 48,9%
62 53,9%
NACE
Mining and Quarring
Manufacturing
Electricity, Gas and Water Distribution
Services
All Sectors
Sub-Total
Valid Resp. Rate
45
1276
21
533
47,87%
46,16%
41,18%
44,90%
968 43,8% 643 46,4% 264 52,8% 1875 45,8%
Small
– 10 to 49 Employees
Medium
– 50 to 249 Employees
Large
- over 250 Employees
4.1
Lessons Learned from the CIS III Implementation:
•
Unreliable Initial Sample (1999 Data)
•
Non-Enforcement of the Policy regarding Mandatory Surveys
•
Biased General perception of Innovation Definition (“Radical” Innovation)
•
Services misperception of Innovation Definition (Product = Service or Goods)
•
Non-Disclosure Policy of Financial Data
•
Lack of Qualifications of the Questionnaire Filling Contact Person (“Cultural”
bias towards Non Response or Non Innovation)
•
Lack of correspondence between the surveyed data/indicators and Companies
data/indicators gathering.
•
Mergers and Acquisitions (Availability of Contact Person and Data)
•
Huge paperwork!
•
In Data Processing,
High values of “Item Non-response” in some strata
(CAE 2 Digits*Dimension) of the realized sample for some variables,
”Exports Sales”, “Innovation Expenditure”, “Level of importance in
Cooperation”, “Innovation Hampering Factors (partially)” and Patents
Unreliable missing values imputation methodology and routines provided by
Eurostat, surpassed in cooperation with other member states.
Students Presentations
1.
The Community Innovation Survey
2.
Students Presentations
3.
Results (CIS 3),

4.
Innovative Enterprises by Sector and CIS Trajectories in
the European Context

Input vs. Output of Innovation in Europe

Some Innovation Characteristics

Other Strategic and Organizational Important Changes

Innovation Sources

Innovation Barriers
Lessons Learned and Conclusions
3.1
Results - Innovative Enterprises by Sector and
CIS Trajectories in the European Context
100%
80%
Proportion of
Service
Innovating
Enterprises
Ireland
60%
Austria
(2)
(1)
Luxemburg
UK
40%
France
Portugal
CIS II
CIS III
(Preliminary)
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
Norway
Finland
20%
Germany
Belgium
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Proportion of Manufacturing Innovating Enterprises
(1)
(2)
Note:
For comparison with the data of 1995-1997 some Sub sectors (NACE 63, 73, 74.3 e 64
except 64.2) and the manufacturing companies in between 10 and 20 employees which
were part of the CIS 3 survey are not considered
Includes the results not considered in (1).
Final disaggregated and comparable results are not yet available for the other
participants in the exercise.
3.2
Results – Input vs. Output of Innovation in Europe
Manufacturing Sector
80%
Porportion of Innovative Enterprises
Ireland
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
60%
UK
Sweden
Norway
France
CIS II
40%
CIS III
(Preliminary)
Finland
Belgium
Portugal
20%
0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Expenditure in Innovating Activities as Share of Turnover
Results – Some Innovation Characteristics
3.3

Innovation is Firm Size dependent
(larger firms innovate more)

Innovation has sector specificities

The integration of the firm in a network
(e.g., integration into a group)
increases the probability to innovate

The level of competition in a market influences a firm’s
probability to innovate
(Highly competitive markets provide more innovative
firms)
Non-Innovators
Manufacturing
Services
Innovators
Changed
Organizational
Structures
New Corporate
Strategies
Significant
Aesthetics' Change
Advanced
Management
Techniques
Changing
Enterprise's
Marketing
Concepts/Strategies
Changed
Organizational
Structures
New Corporate
Strategies
Significant
Aesthetics' Change
Advanced
Management
Techniques
Changing
Enterprise's
Marketing
Concepts/Strategies
Proportion of Enterprises (%)
Results - Other Strategic and Organizational Changes
3.4
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-
1995-1997
Europe Average 1995-1997
1998-2000
Government or Private
non-profit institutes
Universities and other
Hugher Education
Institutions
Professional
Conferences,
meetings and journals
Competitors
Suppliers
Fairs and Exhibitions
Other Enterprises
within the Enterprise
Group
Clients
Within the Enterprise
Innovating Enterprises with Highly important Sources (%)
Results - Innovation Sources of Highly Importance for Manufacturing
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3.5
C
er
R
po
n
si
ve
ne
s
ss
ar
d
ke
ts
s
og
y
isk
ar
M
St
an
d
on
R
hn
ol
Te
c
an
d
es
ns
at
io
n
m
on
ce
ts
es
Co
s
di
ti
ne
l
Fi
na
n
n
ig
i
tio
of
ov
a
lR
on
Pe
rs
Ec
on
om
ic
at
io
n
la
tio
om
eg
u
us
t
R
ed
es
ur
c
In
n
So
In
fo
r
lifi
at
io
na
an
is
m
In
fo
r
O
rg
Q
ua
Proportion of Enterprises (5)
Results - Innovation Barriers of Highly Importance
3.6
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Manufacturing Non-Innovators
Manufacturing Innovators
Services Non-Innovators
Services Innovators
CIS II 1995-1997
CIS II EU Average
CIS III MSc Engineering Design
CIS III
CIS II
CIS II EU Average
Customer
Responsiveness
Regulations and
Standards
Information on
Markets
Economic Risks
Information on
Technology
Sources of
Finance
Innovation Costs
Organisational
Rigidities
Qualified
Personnel
Proportion of Enterprises (%)
Results - Innovation Barriers of Highly Importance
3.7
MSc Engineering Design CIS III Perspective
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4.2
Lessons Learned and Conclusions:
1.
The CIS is a good evolving instrument for benchmarking and follow up of
the best practices, although incomplete in what concerns the systemic
characteristics of innovation.
2.
A significant increase in the innovation extension and in the firms
innovation expenditure was achieved for Portugal in CIS III compared to
CIS II.
3.
In the innovation process, both sources and barriers to innovation profiles
remain consistent with the CIS II data, where the
most relevant
are
respectively “Within the Enterprise” and financial constraints.
4.
Innovation expenditure has reached a milestone above which innovation
effectiveness appears to be more correlated with factors of systemic
nature.
5.
Technological
innovation
appears
to
Organizational Innovation and Change.
be
strongly
correlated
with
Measuring Innovation
The 3rd Community Innovation Survey in Portugal
Manuel João Bóia
[email protected]
Innovation and Technology Transfer
MSc Engineering Design
17 October 2003
Additional Slides
Results - Innovation Extension
Innovation Extension
Manufacturing
Services
National (3)
1995-1997 1998-2000 (1) 1998-2000 (2)
1995-1997 1998-2000 (1) 1998-2000 (2)
1995-1997 1998-2000 (1) 1998-2000 (2)
Proportion of the total of firms that:
Introduced Innovation
Product Innovation
Process Innovation
were involved in Inovating Activities
Ongoing or Abandoned Innovating Activities
25.8
15.1
22.9
28.5
8.3
48.4
31.1
37.5
50.7
21.3
42.4
26.8
31.1
44.8
17.8
28
35.6
11.1
48.9
31.9
30.3
50.1
17.2
48.7
31.6
30.6
50.1
17.6
26.7
31.4
9.4
48.4
30.9
34.8
50.3
19.5
44.3
27.9
31.1
46.4
17.7
Proportion of the total of firms that were involved in Innovating Activities that:
Introduced Innovation
Product Innovation
Process Innovation
Ongoing or Abandoned Innovating Activities
90.4
52.9
80.3
29.2
95.5
61.4
73.9
42
94.6
59.8
69.4
40.4
78.7
31.1
97.5
63.6
60.5
34.3
95.7
63.1
61.2
35.2
85
30.1
96.3
61.4
69.1
38.7
95.5
60.2
67.1
38.1
Note: in CIS 2 (1995-1997), by opposition to CIS 3 (1998-2000), two separate questionnaires were used for Manufacturing and Services. In the latter, a distinction between process and product was not asked, therefore these
values are not available.
(1) For comparison with the data of 1995-1998 some Service sub-sectors (NACE 63, 73, 74.3 and 64 except 64.2) and the Manufacturing firms in between 10 and 19 employees that were surveyed in 1998-2000 are not
included.
(2) Includes the results not considered in (1).
(3) Includes also the results of Minning and Quarring (NACE 10 to 14) in (2) and Electricity, Gas and Water Distribution (NACE 40 and 41) in (1) and (2).
Results – Product and Process Innovation
Product
Innovation
Product
and
Process
Innovation
Process
Innovation
Proportion of Innovating Enterprises (%)
Results - Innovation by Firm Size
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995-1997
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
1995-1997
Manufacturing
Proportion of Innovating Enterprises (%)
Small
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
1995-1997
Services
Medium
Large
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
National (3)
Manufaturing Total
Services Total
National Total
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995-1997
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
1995-1997
1998-2000
(1)
Manufacturing
1998-2000
(2)
1995-1997
Services
1998-2000
(1)
1998-2000
(2)
National (3)
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 to 99
100 to 249
More than 500
Manufacturing Total
Services Total
National Total
250 to 499
CIS 3
Portugal
CIS3 Final data - All Sectors
( % )
NACE Breakdown
Proportion
of
Innovating
Enterprises
Mining & Quarring
37.2
Manufacturing
42.4
Small
35.3
Medium
62.2
Large
72.0
Food products;
Beverages and tobacco
47.8
Textiles and leather
31.1
Wood, pulp & publishing
36.1
Coke and chemicals
66.0
Rubber & other non-metallic
47.9
Basic metals and
fabricated metal products
53.3
Machinery and equipment NEC
50.4
Electrical and
optical equipment
49.2
Transport equipment
50.3
Manufacturing NEC
and recycling
51.0
Electricity, Gas & Water Sup. 70.3
Services
48.7
Small
44.0
Medium
72.2
Large
76.9
Wholesale Trade
46.1
Transport & Storage
41.1
Post & Telecommunications
92.7
Financial Intermediation
70.5
Computer & related Activity
74.1
Research & Development
100.0
Engineering Services
61.1
Test and Analysis
42.9
Share
of Turnover
due to New
or Improved
Products
Share
of Turnover
due to Novel
Products
Innov.
Expenditure/
Turnover
Innovation
Intensity
1.2
15.5
7.4
9.0
23.1
1.1
11.4
2.8
5.7
18.8
2.6
2.9
3.4
2.5
2.9
6.4
7.7
5.8
8.7
11.8
2.6
4.6
2.6
5.9
8.0
2.2
2.2
6.0
2.0
2.3
12.4
19.7
6.0
13.2
1.9
4.5
29.3
46.6
21.1
44.7
3.1
2.4
21.8
39.6
12.3
9.4
13.9
12.7
10.4
12.2
9.7
12.4
60.9
23.4
16.5
14.4
39.5
7.3
4.4
11.6
6.2
7.6
2.2
5.9
5.9
59.0
16.9
16.3
3.2
0.5
2.7
1.2
1.3
4.0
0.9
12.3
2.8
2.6
6.3
3.8
4.7
5.3
High and Medium-High
Medium-Low
Technological Sectors
Low
Textiles and
Leather
Wood, Pulp
and
Publishing
Food
products;
Beverages
and Tobacco
Manufacturing
NEC and
Recycling
Rubber and
Other NonMetallic
Basic Metals
and
Fabricated
Metal
Electrical and
Optical
Equipment
Transport
Equipment
Machinery
and
Equipment
NEC
Coke and
Chemicals
Proportion of Innovating Enterprises (%)
Results – Innovation by Technological Intensity (Manufacturing)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1995-1997
Europe Average 1995-1997
1998-2000
Government or
Private non-profit
institutes
Universities and
other Hugher
Education
Institutions
Professional
Conferences,
meetings and
journals
Fairs and
Exhibitions
Competitors
Suppliers
Other
Enterprises
within the
Enterprise Group
Clients
Within the
Enterprise
Innovating Enterprises with Highly important Sources (%)
Results - Innovation Sources of Highly Importance for Services
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Proportion of Enterprises (%)
Results - Patenting
12.0
9.9
10.0
7.5
8.0
4.0
5.7
5.3
6.0
4.2
3.6
2.9
1.9
2.0
0.0
Non-Innovators
Innovators
Non-Innovators
Manufacturing
Innovators
Services
Enterprise applied for at least a Patent to Protect Inventions
Enterprise possess Valid Patents at the end of 2000
700
2,500
600
2,000
500
400
1,500
300
1,000
200
500
100
-
NonInnovators
Innovators
Manufacturing
NonInnovators
Innovators
Services
NonInnovators
Innovators
Manufacturing
NonInnovators
Innovators
Services
Number of Patent Applications for Goods/Services/Processes
Number of Valid Patents at the end of 2000 for Goods/Services/Processes
Number of Patent Applications for goods/Services
Number of Valid Patents at the end of 2000 for Goods/Services
Clear characteristic: the Portuguese companies ignore or do not choose to use patenting as a protection tool
Proportion of Enterprises Protecting
Innovations (%)
Results – Other Protection Methods Used
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
NonInnovators
Innovators
NonInnovators
Manufacturing
Innovators
Services
Non
Innovators
Innovators
National
Registration of Design Patterns
Trademarks
Copyright
Secrecy
Complexity of Design
lead-time advantage over competitors