indicators of science, technology and innovation : a contribution in the scope of the brics

Indicators of Science, Technology and Innovation: a contribution in

the scope of the BRICS

José Eduardo Cassiolato

Fabio Stallivieri

Structure of the Structure of the PresentationPresentation1.1. IntroductionIntroduction

2.2. InputInput and and outputoutput indicators; indicators;

3.3. Innovation indicators;Innovation indicators;

4.4. Systems of innovation indicators;Systems of innovation indicators;

5.5. Evidences of the use of the indicators in Evidences of the use of the indicators in Brazil: the experience of Brazil: the experience of RedeSist;RedeSist;

6.6. Relevant issuesRelevant issues..

IntroductionIntroduction “ “It will always be essential to use STI statistics in full awareness of the It will always be essential to use STI statistics in full awareness of the

“footnote” problems which arise in the differences across countries in “footnote” problems which arise in the differences across countries in definition, classification and measurement of most STI indicators. definition, classification and measurement of most STI indicators. Otherwise, STI indicators may easily be abused. And whereas in the Otherwise, STI indicators may easily be abused. And whereas in the world of economic statistics abuse often meets its ghost – admittedly world of economic statistics abuse often meets its ghost – admittedly often only years later – in the world of STI statistics the possibilities for often only years later – in the world of STI statistics the possibilities for abuse given the often endogenous impact of such statistics on public S&T abuse given the often endogenous impact of such statistics on public S&T spending itself, are more numerous and much more oblivious. This holds spending itself, are more numerous and much more oblivious. This holds not only for STI performance assessment at the level of individuals or not only for STI performance assessment at the level of individuals or organisations, but also at the level of countries. One might e.g. remember organisations, but also at the level of countries. One might e.g. remember how the comparisons made in the 70’s and 80’s between the so-called how the comparisons made in the 70’s and 80’s between the so-called socialist economies and the OECD countries ignored many of the socialist economies and the OECD countries ignored many of the substantial differences in definitions between R&D in the West and in the substantial differences in definitions between R&D in the West and in the East. Today, it could be argued that there are similar major problems in East. Today, it could be argued that there are similar major problems in making comparisons between the developed, emerging and other making comparisons between the developed, emerging and other developing countries in comparing STI indicators.”developing countries in comparing STI indicators.”

FREEMAM, C.; SOETE, L. “FREEMAM, C.; SOETE, L. “Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: what Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: what we can learn from the pastwe can learn from the past”. Working Paper Series/UNU-Merit – January 2007.

Indicators of Science, Technology and Innovation

• The determination of which variables must be object of the construction of indicators depends on criteria about their relevance;

• The choice of indicators generally is preceeded by choices related to the importance and the role of the variable;

• Such choices generally reflect some implicit or explicit model of understanding of the nature of the production processes, diffusion and use of S&T and Innovation.

InputInput and and outputoutput indicators indicators

• Growing volume of resources dedicated to S&T during the 20th century and the accomplishment of R&D activity need to produce statistics to measure the accomplished effort;

• First attempt: “Frascati Manual”;

• Focus on the financial and human resources related to R&D (input of the innovative activities);

• At the same time, statistics related to the “Technological balance of payments” they measure the international flows of R&D expenditures, royalties and other payments for licensed patents (inputs)

InputInput & & output indicatorsoutput indicators

• Indicators used to capture the output dimension: publications and patents of inventions;

• Publications bibliometric indicators: counting scientific work published in academic magazines or in other means, registering data on each publication;

• Patents systematic information on applications or granted patents.

Criticism to input and output indicatorsCriticism to input and output indicators

• They assume the linear model of innovation;

• Technology considered more or less as a commodity;

• S&T policy implications

•belief that the results of efforts centered in research institutions and in human resources formation would be almost enough to generate technological progresses.

Criticism to the input and output indicatorsCriticism to the input and output indicators

• R&D expenditures:

• Results of the activity are not evaluated;

• Other important domains of R&D activities are left out – adoption or adaptation of new equipments and the informal learning activities;

• The very concept : R&D today is different from R&D in the time of Frascati Manual

• Indicatores based on bibliographic production self-selection problems, predominance of anglo-saxon journals in the existing databases;

• Indicators of Patents:

• They express only the existence of an invention; pronounced inter-sectoral variance of the propensity to patent;

• Difficulty for obtaining a patent varies a lot from country to country;

• Patent requests have little to do with the protection of the innovation.

Innovation indicatorsInnovation indicators

• Derive from the criticism of the linear model of innovation;

• Chain link model (Kline e Rosemberg, 1986) emphasizes the concept that the innovation results from an interactive process;

• The company is not a simple technology buyer;

• The innovation is not a sequential process;

• The innovation doesn't depend on the invention process and such processes tend to be accomplished for the solution of problems during the innovation process, instead of being its starting point

Innovation indicatorsInnovation indicators

• The approaches focus on the object (the innovations properly said) and / or on the subject (the company and other actors);

• The object approach seeks to identify important types of innovations;

• In relation to the subject approach emphasis is given to the “Manual of OSLO” and to the European surveys (in Latin America the Manual of Bogota);

Criticism to the Indicators of InnovationCriticism to the Indicators of Innovation

• Object approach it doesn't allow to differentiate the economical relevance of different innovations; tends to focus on product innovations in detriment of process innovations;

• Subject approach complexity of the research;

• Because of the innovation concept adopted by the “OSLO Manual” results of innovation surveys need to be analyzed carefully;

•Problems of Innovation surveys:

• Different methodologies, different concepts used in different countries;

• Time delay;

• Use of sample and not panel data.

Systems of innovation indicatorsSystems of innovation indicators

• Derive from the consolidation of the National Systems of Innovation approach;

• Processes of the production, diffusion and use of ST&I should consider the simultaneous influence of organizational, institutional, economic, cultural and local specific factors;

• Stress the fact that firms do not innovate separately;

• The indicators of ST&I seek to identify the characteristics of operation of each National Systems of Innovation;

Systems of innovation indicatorsSystems of innovation indicators• Need of indicators centered on the measurement of :

• Flows of information and knowledge (codified or tacit);

• Flows of human resources;

• Institutional landscape of the national systems of innovation;

• Innovative behavior of the companies;

• Integration of indicators of ST&I with economic indicators.

Most of these indicators – concepts, collection methodologies and applications – are still in a very

immature stage (for ex. Blue Sky).

Evidences in the use of the indicators in Brazil: Evidences in the use of the indicators in Brazil: the experience of the experience of RedeSistRedeSist

• Learning-by-interaction is fundamental for RedeSist’s definition of LIPS and for the proposal of learning and innovation indicators;

• Innovation, production and value generation activities require several forms of interaction among economic agents, who in turn interact with institutions;

• The proposal of indicators detailed below are an attempt to go beyond the conventional input indicators (R&D expenditures, financial resources and workforce engaged in S&T activity) and output indicators (bibliometric indicators and patents) normally used as proxies for innovation;

• The suggested indicators could be grouped into three categories: learning indicators, cooperative practices; indicators of technological effort and innovation indicators.

Evidences in the use of the indicators in Brazil: Evidences in the use of the indicators in Brazil: the experience of the experience of RedeSistRedeSist

Evidences in the use of indicators in Brazil:Evidences in the use of indicators in Brazil: textile and apparel LIPSstextile and apparel LIPSs


LPISA / state

% of firms with Product

innovations

% of firms with Process

innovations

% of firms with innovations in

product design

% of firms with organizational

innovations

% of firms involved in cooperation

activities Campina Grande - PB 66,70% 52,40% 81% 66,70% 33,30%

Jaraguá - GO 27,30% 22,70% 78,50% 18,20% 7,10%Natal - RN 23,70% 21,10% 18,40% 21% 21%

Tobias Barreto - SE 48,80% 44,40% 80% 37,70% 4,40%Colatina - ES 52,80% 37,70% 92,40% 28,30% 62,30%

Apucarana - PR 50% 37,80% 56% 56% 53%Terra Roxa - PR 88% 88% 82,30% 100% 79,40%

Petrópolis - RJ 79,30% 75,80% 82,70% 89,60% 20,50%Cabo Frio - RJ 5% 11,10% 100% 83,30% 50%

Ibitinga - SP 80% 57,80% 66,70% 42% 0%Brasil - PINTEC 11,60% 21,20% 72,80% n.a n.a


-0,80

-0,60

-0,40

-0,20

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

Camp.Grande

J araguá Natal TobiasBarreto

Colatina Apucarana Terra Roxa P etrópolis Cabo Frio Ibitinga

APLs

Fat

or

1

LIPS – factor related to external learning with productive agents and other agents:


-1,00

-0,50

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

Camp.Grande


Colatina Apucarana Terra Roxa Petrópolis Cabo Frio Ibitinga

APLs

Fat

or

6

LIPS – factor related to internal effort for innovation:


LIPS – factor related to training and HR absorption efforts:

-0,70

-0,50

-0,30

-0,10

0,10

0,30

0,50

0,70

Camp.Grande


Colatina Apucarana Terra Roxa P etrópolis Cabo Frio Ibitinga

APLs

Fa

tor

3


LIPS – factor related to learning with S&T agents:

-0,60

-0,40

-0,20

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

Camp.Grande


Colatina Apucarana TerraRoxa

P etrópolis Cabo Frio Ibitinga

APLs

Fat

or

5

Evidences in the use of indicators in Brazil: Evidences in the use of indicators in Brazil:

the experience of the experience of RedeSistRedeSist

Three lessons:

• Empirically demonstrate the innovative and technological heterogeneity of the Brazilian production structure both at regional and sectoral levels: average indicators mean, by themselves very little;

• Quantify interactive learning and inovation processes (the fundamental aspect of the Inovation System approach);

• A better understanding of the learning processes and the inovative dynamics of Local Innovation and Production Systems.

Relevant issuesRelevant issues

Further points in the direction of setting up more Further points in the direction of setting up more appropriate indicators to countries such as Brazil appropriate indicators to countries such as Brazil (and BRICS): (and BRICS):

1. Which are the relevant concepts that should be taken into account by the indicators?

2. How to avoid the “trap” of building new indiators which are not limited to economic and tecnological aspects related to ICT’s?

3. How to measure and quantify the knowledge generation and diffusion processes?

4. How to contemplate intangible activities and resources that characterize many new sectors (services, for example)?

What is so great about R&D expenditures as an indicator What is so great about R&D expenditures as an indicator of innovation inputof innovation input

• The main theoretical criterion for the Frascati scheme of separation of the R&D function from related scientific activities was the distinction between novelty and routine.

• What became distinctive about modern, industrial R&D and justified the focus in the Frascati Manual on this concept was its scale, its scientific content and the extent of its professional specialisation.

• A much greater part of technological progress appeared attributable to research and development work performed in specialised laboratories or pilot plants by full-time qualified staff. (Freeman and Soete Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: what we can learn from the past, Working Paper Series, 2007-001, UNU - Maastricht ESRTCIT 2007).

What is so great about R&D expenditures as an indicator What is so great about R&D expenditures as an indicator of innovation input of innovation input

• However, innovation capability became now seen less in terms of the ability to discover new technological principles, but more in terms of the ability to exploit systematically the effects produced by new combinations and use of pieces in the existing stock of knowledge(David, P. and D. Foray 1995) “Accessing and Expanding the Science and Technology Knowledge Base”, STI Review, no.16, pp. 16-38).

• Not surprisingly the new model appears closely associated with the emergence of various new sorts of knowledge “service” activities, implying to some extent, and in contrast to the Frascati R&D focus, much more routine use of a technological base allowing for innovation without the need for particular leaps in science and technology, something which has also been referred to as “innovation without research” (Freeman and Soete 2007)

indicators of science, technology and innovation : a contribution in the scope of the brics

Documents