Transcript Document
Determinants of Innovation in Portugal.
Designing, Implementing and Analyzing Evidence from
the 3rd Community Innovation Survey (1)
Manuel João de Albuquerque Rocha Pereira Bóia
[email protected]
Orientador:
Doutor Pedro Filipe Teixeira da Conceição
Instituto Superior Técnico – Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
3 September 2003
(1) the research reported in this thesis was partially supported by Observatorio da Ciencia e do Ensino Superior
(OCES) [Obervatory of Science and Higher Education, Ministry for Science and Higher Education, Portugal]
Outline
1.
Objective
2.
The Community Innovation Survey
3.
Results,
4.
(1)
Innovative Enterprises by Sector and CIS Trajectories in
the European Context
Input vs. Output of Innovation in Europe
A regression analysis of the CIS III data
Other Strategic and Organizational Important Changes
Innovation Sources
Innovation Barriers
Lessons Learned and Conclusions
(1) Performed under contract with the Observatório das Ciências e Tecnologias (OCT – Sciences and
Technologies Observatory, and since early 2003, Observatório das Ciências e do Ensino Superior, Sciences and
Higher Education Observatory - OCES) within the Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research at
Instituto Superior Técnico (IN+/IST) and primary sources of the analyzed data.
1.
Objective
To contribute to the characterization of the Determinants of
Innovation in Portugal through the Design, Implementation and
Evidence Analysis of the Third Community Innovation Survey
(1998-2000) and the analysis of the EU countries Innovation
Trajectories from CIS II to CIS III.
CIS 3
2.1
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
2.2
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
2.3
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
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 - A regression analysis of the CIS III data
Model on the Characteristics of Innovative Manufacturing Enterprises
by Conceição and Heitor
Innov i a b * Group
i
c * Log(no.Em p loyees) i d * HiM HTech i f * M LTech i err
Dependent variable: Innovation, dichotomous (1 if a firm innovates, 0 otherwise)
Explanatory variables:
•integration into a Group
•firm dimension (Log of number of employees)
•technology intensity (divided in two dummy variables High/Medium-High and Medium Low)
Logistic
Regression
(Manufacturing)
coefficient
Standard
Deviation
p-values
Intercept
-1.773
0.2562
0.0000
Group
0.474
0.1435
0.0009
LogEmp
0.224
0.0625
0.0003
HiMHTech
0.757
0.1380
0.0000
MLTech
0.163
0.1163
0.1614
CIS II
Source: (Conceição and Heitor, 2002; Conceição et al., 2003)
Logistic
Regression
(Manufacturing)
coefficient
Standard
Deviation
p-values
Intercept
2.454
0.073
0.0000
Group
0.218
0.054
0.0001
LogEmp
1.249
0.047
0.0000
HiMHTech
0.547
0.052
0.0000
MLTech
0.589
0.041
0.0000
CIS III
3.3
Ma n u fa ctu rin g
N o n -In n o va to rs
S e rvice s
In n o va to rs
S tru ctu re s
O rg a n iza tio n a l
C hanged
S tra te g ie s
N e w C o rp o ra te
A e sth e tics' C h a n g e
S ig n ifica n t
Te ch n iq u e s
Management
A d va n ce d
C o n ce p ts/S tra te g ie s
M a rke tin g
E n te rp rise 's
C h a n g in g
S tru ctu re s
O rg a n iza tio n a l
C hanged
S tra te g ie s
N e w C o rp o ra te
A e sth e tics' C h a n g e
S ig n ifica n t
Te ch n iq u e s
Management
A d va n ce d
C o n ce p ts/S tra te g ie s
M a rke tin g
E n te rp rise 's
C h a n g in g
P ro p o rtio n o f E n te rp rise s (% )
Results - Other Strategic and Organizational Changes
3.4
7 0 .0
6 0 .0
5 0 .0
4 0 .0
3 0 .0
2 0 .0
1 0 .0
-
0
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
E u r o p e A ve r a g e 1 9 9 5 - 1 9 9 7
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
n o n - p r o fi t i n s ti tu te s
G o v e r n m e n t o r P r i v a te
In s titu ti o n s
H u g h e r E d u c a ti o n
U n i v e r s i ti e s a n d o th e r
m e e ti n g s a n d j o u r n a l s
P r o fe s s i o n a l C o n fe r e n c e s ,
C o m p e ti to r s
S u p p l ie r s
F a i r s a n d E x h i b i ti o n s
th e E n te r p r i s e G r o u p
O th e r E n te r p r i s e s w i th i n
C l i e n ts
W i th i n th e E n te r p r i s e
In n o v a ti n g E n te r p r i s e s w i th H i g h l y i m p o r ta n t S o u r c e s ( % )
Results - Innovation Sources of Highly Importance for Manufacturing
3.5
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
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
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 and/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.
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
Determinants of Innovation in Portugal.
Designing, implementing and Analyzing Evidence from
the 3rd Community Innovation Survey
Manuel João de Albuquerque Rocha Pereira Bóia
[email protected]
Orientador:
Doutor Pedro Filipe Teixeira da Conceição
Instituto Superior Técnico – Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
3 September 2003
Additional Slides
CIS 3
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
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
Results - Innovation Extension
M an u factu rin g
In n ovation E xten sion
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
S ervices
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 (1 ) 1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 (2 )
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
N ation al (3)
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 (1 ) 1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 (2 )
1 9 9 5 -1 99 7
1 9 9 8-2 0 0 0 (1 ) 1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 (2 )
P ro p o rtio n o f th e to tal o f firm s th at:
In tro d u ced In n o vatio n
2 5 .8
4 8 .4
4 2 .4
28
4 8.9
4 8 .7
2 6 .7
4 8 .4
4 4 .3
P ro d u ct In n o vatio n
1 5 .1
3 1 .1
2 6 .8
-
3 1.9
3 1 .6
-
3 0 .9
2 7 .9
P ro cess In n o v atio n
2 2 .9
3 7 .5
3 1 .1
-
3 0.3
3 0 .6
-
3 4 .8
3 1 .1
2 8 .5
5 0 .7
4 4 .8
3 5 .6
5 0.1
5 0 .1
3 1 .4
5 0 .3
4 6 .4
8 .3
2 1 .3
1 7 .8
1 1 .1
1 7.2
1 7 .6
9 .4
1 9 .5
1 7 .7
w ere in vo lv ed in In o vatin g A ctivities
O n go in g o r A b an d o n ed In n o vatin g A ctivities
P ro p o rtio n o f th e to tal o f firm s th at w ere in vo lved in In n o v atin g A ctiv ities th at:
In tro d u ced In n o vatio n
9 0 .4
9 5 .5
9 4 .6
7 8 .7
9 7.5
9 5 .7
85
9 6 .3
9 5 .5
P ro d u ct In n o vatio n
5 2 .9
6 1 .4
5 9 .8
-
6 3.6
6 3 .1
-
6 1 .4
6 0 .2
P ro cess In n o v atio n
8 0 .3
7 3 .9
6 9 .4
-
6 0.5
6 1 .2
-
6 9 .1
6 7 .1
2 9 .2
42
4 0 .4
3 1 .1
3 4.3
3 5 .2
3 0 .1
3 8 .7
3 8 .1
O n go in g o r A b an d o n ed In n o vatin g A ctivities
N o te: in C IS 2 (1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7 ), b y o p p o sitio n to C IS 3 (1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 ), tw o sep arate q u estio n n aire s w ere u sed fo r M an u factu rin g an d S ervice s. In th e latter, a d istin ctio n b etw een p ro cess an d p ro d u ct w as n o t asked , th erefo re th ese
v alu es are n o t av ailab le.
(1 ) F o r co m p ariso n w ith th e d ata o f 1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 8 so m e S ervice su b -secto rs (N A C E 6 3 , 7 3 , 7 4 .3 an d 6 4 excep t 6 4 .2 ) an d th e M an u fac tu rin g firm s in b etw een 1 0 an d 1 9 em p lo yees th at w ere su rveyed in 1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0 are n o t
inc lu d ed .
(2 ) In clu d es th e resu lts n o t co n sid ered in (1 ).
(3 ) In clu d es also th e resu lts o f M in n ing an d Q u arrin g (N A C E 1 0 to 1 4 ) in (2 ) an d E lectricity, G as an d W ater D istrib u tion (N A C E 4 0 an d 4 1 ) in (1 ) an d (2 ).
Results – Product and Process Innovation
Product
Innovation
Product
and
Process
Innovation
Process
Innovation
P ro p o rtio n o f In n o va tin g E n te rp rise s (% )
Results - Innovation by Firm Size
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
(1 )
(2 )
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
Ma n u fa ctu rin g
Proportion of Innovating Enterprises (%)
S m a ll
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
(1 )
(2 )
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
S e rvice s
Me d iu m
L a rg e
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
(1 )
(2 )
N a tio n a l (3 )
Ma n u fa tu rin g To ta l
S e rvice s To ta l
N a tio n a l To ta l
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
H ig h a n d Me d iu m -H ig h
Me d iu m -L o w
Te ch n o lo g ica l S e cto rs
Low
L e a th e r
Te xtile s a n d
P u b lish in g
and
W o o d , P u lp
a n d To b a cco
B e ve ra g e s
p ro d u cts;
Fo o d
R e cyclin g
NEC and
M a n u fa ctu rin g
M e ta llic
Oth e r N o n -
R ubber and
M e ta l
Fa b rica te d
and
B a sic M e ta ls
E q u ip m e n t
O p tica l
E le ctrica l a n d
E q u ip m e n t
Tra n sp o rt
N EC
E q u ip m e n t
and
M a ch in e ry
C h e m ica ls
C o ke a n d
P ro p o rtio n o f In n o va tin g E n te rp rise s (% )
Results – Innovation by Technological Intensity (Manufacturing)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
E u ro p e A ve ra g e 1 9 9 5 -1 9 9 7
1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 0
in s titu te s
P r iv a te n o n - p r o fit
G o v e rn m e n t o r
In s titu tio n s
E d u c a tio n
o th e r H u g h e r
U n i v e r s itie s a n d
jo u rn a ls
m e e tin g s a n d
C o n fe r e n c e s ,
P r o fe s s io n a l
E x h ib iti o n s
F a ir s a n d
C o m p e tito r s
S u p p l ie r s
G ro u p
w ith in th e E n te r p r is e
O th e r E n te r p r is e s
C lie n ts
W ith in th e E n te r p ris e
In n o v a tin g E n te r p ris e s w ith H ig h ly i m p o r ta n t S o u r c e s (% )
Results - Innovation Sources of Highly Importance for Services
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
P ro p o rtio n o f En te rp r is e s (% )
Results - Patenting
1 2 .0
9 .9
1 0 .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
No n -In n o v a to rs
In n o v a to rs
No n -In n o v a to rs
M a n u fa ctu rin g
In n o v a to rs
S e rvic e s
E n te rp ris e a p p lie d fo r a t le a st a P a te n t to Pro te c t In ve n tio n s
E n te rp ris e p o s se s s V a lid P a te n ts a t th e e n d o f 2 0 0 0
70 0
2 ,5 0 0
60 0
2 ,0 0 0
50 0
40 0
1 ,5 0 0
30 0
1 ,0 0 0
20 0
500
10 0
-
Non -
In n o v a tor s
In no v a to r s
Ma n uf a c tu r ing
Non -
Inn o v ator s
In no v a to r s
Se r v ic e s
No n -
In n o v a to rs
In n o v ato r s
Ma n u f a c tu ring
Non -
Inn o v a to r s
Inn o v a to r s
Se r v ic es
Nu mb e r o f Pate nt A p plic a tions f o r Go o ds /S er v ic es /Pr o c es s e s
Nu mb e r o f V a lid Pa te n ts at the e nd of 2 00 0 f o r Go o d s /Se r v ic es /Pro c e s s es
Nu mb e r o f Pate nt A p plic a tions f o r g o o ds /Se rv ic e s
Nu mb e r o f V a lid Pa te n ts at the e nd of 2 00 0 f o r Go o d s /Se r v ic es
Clear characteristic: the Portuguese companies ignore or do not choose to use patenting as a protection tool
2 5 .0
2 0 .0
In n o va tio n s (% )
P ro p o rtio n o f E n te rp rise s P ro te ctin g
Results – Other Protection Methods Used
1 5 .0
1 0 .0
5 .0
Non-
In n o va to rs
In n o va to rs
Non-
In n o va to rs
In n o va to rs
Ma n u fa c tu rin g
Non
In n o va to rs
In n o va to rs
S e rvice s
N a tio n a l
R e g is tra tio n o f D e s ig n P a tte rn s
Tra d e m a rk s
C o p yrig h t
S e c re cy
C o m p le xity o f D e s ig n
le a d -tim e a d va n ta g e o ve r c o m p e tito rs