innovation surveys and innovation policy: the european experience
DESCRIPTION
Innovation surveys and innovation policy: the European experience. Anthony Arundel UNU-MERIT, The Netherlands & University of Tasmania, Australia. Why survey?. Case studies insufficient and can be dominated by the ‘ loudest voices ’ - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Bogota, August 2011
Innovation surveys and innovation policy:
the European experienceAnthony Arundel
UNU-MERIT, The Netherlands & University of Tasmania, Australia
Why survey?
• Case studies insufficient and can be dominated by the ‘loudest voices’
• Surveys give an accurate picture of an entire sector or economy
• But, results only as good as the relevance of the questions and the accuracy of the data
CIS-4 (2000)Added organisational
innovation
CIS-2006All new questions
undergo cognitive testing
CIS-2008Addition of one-off
modules
MEPIN, NESTA pilot studies on innovation
in the public sector
2010 Innobarometer survey, 4,000
responses from public sector agencies
OECD/Eurostat project on developing a model
questionnaire
Public sector innovationBusiness sector innovation
CIS-1 (1992)CIS-2 (1996)
CIS-3 (2000)Added service sector
CIS-2010New questions
How public sector organisations innovate
Service innovators
Organisational / process innovators
Either
N 2394 2867 3061
Collaboration 81.6% 76.6% 84.2%
In-house (no collaboration) 16.8% 21.7% 15.3%
Adopters only 1.6% 1.7% 0.5%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
What leads to innovative & effective public services?Regression model results (controlling for size,
regional responsibility & country) for
Professional organisations
User firms, Staff
Citizen usersSupplier firms
Foreign info sourcesInvolve usersCollaboration
Staff incentives
Evaluations
WorkgroupsStaff training
Policy drivers
Budget decreases
Laws or policies
Information sources
Strategies
Note: Excludes management as an information source or as a player in strategies – too important!
What have we learnt from business sector innovation
surveys?
1. Firms compete in sectors.
2. Collaboration and using a variety of knowledge sources increases innovation outcomes, but effect on economic outcomes is ambiguous.
3. Patents are a minor incentive for innovation.
4. Half of innovative firms do not perform R&D.
5. Firms innovate in many different ways.
6. Very few firms (approx 5%) are ‘pure’ technology adopters.
Bogota, August 2011
Has what we have learnt about innovation influenced European
innovation policy?
•R&D data• Patent data
• Innovation survey data
Most commonly used indicators by the European policy community between 2005 and 2007
Bogota, August 2011
European policy instruments focus on R&D
• 95% of financial support in Europe for ‘innovation’ is for R&D.
Bogota, August 2011
2007 Innobarometer survey: 4,395 responses from
innovative firms (all EU 27 countries)
Count (unweighted)
Percent (weighted)
Non-R&D innovators 1,996 52.5%
In-house R&D 2,093 40.0%
Contract R&D only 306 7.5%
4,395 100%
What the role of innovation surveys should
be:
• R&D data• Patent data
• Innovation survey data
Bogota, August 2011
Barriers to the policy relevance of Innovation
Surveys
Bogota, August 2011
…
• Lack of policy relevance of academic research based on innovation surveys.
Bogota, August 2011
Example
Galia et al, Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: Evidence from France, 2004.
– Obstacles are complementary (occur together), ‘implies a need to adopt a package of policies in order to help firms’.
Concerns over data reliability for:
• Innovation expenditures and sales from innovative products (innovative sales share)
• Effect of different markets on data for innovative sales shares
• Comparability of leading indicators by country and sector
Example of poor comparability
• In 2000, 45% of firms in Portugal innovated compared to 46% of firms in Finland.
• On the European Innovation Scoreboard, Finland is usually in first or second place, while Portugal is between 22 and 23 place out of 27 countries.
Bogota, August 2011
Finland
-5
5
15
25Strategic
Modifiers
Intermittent
Adopters
Portugal
-5
5
15
25Strategic
Modifiers
Intermittent
Adopters
Comparability
Bogota, August 2011
Portugal
-5
5
15
25Strategic
Modifiers
Intermittent
Adopters
Bogota, August 2011
Other barriers
1. Indicators often outdated – not timely.
2. Lack of adequate detail and trend data.
3. Innovation survey questions not relevant to policy needs.
Bogota, August 2011
Survey results contradict existing beliefs of policy makers.
Bogota, August 2011
Result: underuse of innovation survey data
1. Only a small number of indicators were in wide use.
2. Main policy use of innovation indicators was for benchmarking.
1. Rarely used to develop specific policies.
2. Occasional use for policy evaluation (collaboration)
Bogota, August 2011
Increasing the policy relevance of an
innovation survey
Bogota, August 2011
• Improve data reliability• Increase survey frequency• Reduce time between survey
and release of results
Bogota, August 2011
Provide more detail
- Question modules
- Results by sector
- Additional surveys
Bogota, August 2011
Improve question relevance
• Involve users in questionnaire development• Policy makers
• Academics
• Business managers
Bogota, August 2011
• Establish a strong working relationship with data users–Frequent meetings
–Produce results tailored to user needs
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Human Capital
Investments
CollaborationOutcomes
Impacts
Innovative performance of the Aquaculture sector in Tasmania
Innovative performance of the marine manufacturing
sector
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Human Capital
Investments
CollaborationOutcomes
Impacts
Bogota, August 2011
Improve awareness
Figure I . I nnovation performance EU Member States (2008 SI I )
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
BG LV RO LT P L SK HU MT IT P T GR ES CZ SI EE CY EU NL FR BE LU IE AT UK DK DE FI SE
European Innovation Scoreboard: 6 of 29 indicators from CIS
Bogota, August 2011
What still needs to be done to improve the relevance of the CIS
Bogota, August 2011
Improve relevance of academic research
• Improve data access
• Insist that academics evaluate the policy significance of their results
Bogota, August 2011
Develop a ‘science’ of innovation policy
• Address a lack of interest in results that contradict ‘perceived wisdom’:– Careful empirical work to change policy
views.– Support a ‘science’ of innovation policy– Replication of results (increases
credibility)– More evaluation of policy relevance
Improve relevance of innovation surveys to policies
to increase performance
• Main policy goal that is also relevant to businesses
• Contrast between CIS and survey of public sector innovation:– Shift from asking about barriers to
questions on drivers
Conclusions
• The CIS is expensive– To justify its cost, we need to
increase its usefulness to policy, academics and businesses
• Long, slow process to improve the relevance of the CIS