Msc Engineering Policy and Management of Technology Innovation and Technology Transfer

1. Msc Engineering Policy and Management of TechnologyInnovation and Technology Transfer Lecture7 - Innovation Measurement Giorgio Sirilli “Old and new paradigms in the measurement of R&D”, 1998 “Science ans Technology Indicators, The state of the Art and prospects for the future”, 1997 by Rodrigo Rodrigues

2. TOPICS Introduction - Nature of Indicators Science and Technology Indicators Prospects for future developments Case Study – Measurement of R&D

3. Science and Technology (S&T) Indicators • Definition: series of data that can answer several questions about S&T enterprise, like assess a qualitative performance of S&T tool to science policy at a national level • Goal: give a picture of the state of S&T and anticipate the consequences of scientific advances and technological change Introduction - Nature of Indicators

4. Indicators can be divided into 2 groups: • 1st group-indicators for which a statistical methodology has been developed - data are collected - and analysed by a standardised methodology • 2nd group-indicators for which methodology are still in a development stage - no possibility of comparison across countries and over time Introduction - Nature of Indicators

5. S&T Indicators – 1st group Research and development (R&D) - Expenditures and personnel for R&D - 1st indicators and the majors - OECD in 1963 adopted theFrascati Manual - main features: . data are reliable . data are comparable over time and across countries .not clear if R&D covers information technology related with innovative activities like software . etc

6. S&T Indicators – 1st group Patent statistics - the most widely available indicator of output of technological activities - more detailed in terms of technology and cover longer periods than data on R&D • patents reveal inventive activities extending outside the research labs • OECD in 1994 adopted the Patent Manual • problems: • . patenting an invention vary fromcountry to country • . the “quality” and “value” of patents varies greatly

7. S&T Indicators – 1st group Surveys of technological innovation - one of the main development factors in our society acquisition of tools and control it is a priority in S&T policy • data gathering follows two approaches: • . identify the most significant innovations and then send questionnaires to the firms that have introduced them (individual innovations) • . submit questionnaires to the firms that have introduced innovations during a given period of time (innovating firms) • data show that R&D represents only a limited part of the innovation expenditures

8. S&T Indicators – 1st group Surveys of technological innovation - CIS • OECD revised the Oslo Manual in 1996 – inclusion of services • and one of the most important survey is the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), which was designed to address two main sets of issues: • . general structure of innovation processes • . comparison between European countries • Some aspects from the CIS1: • . no possible comparison between countries with the data collected • . obtain the main factors that influence the innovation behaviour of firms

9. S&T Indicators – 1st group The technological balance of payments (TBP) - flow of funds for transactions concerning industrial property rights – indicator of technology transfer across countries • OECD in 1990 adopted Manual for the collection and publication of TBP data • main features • . indicator of the diffusion of technology or competitiveness • . the range covered by the technological balances is not uniform • . international comparability of the TBP indicator is also limited • . etc

10. S&T Indicators – 1st group Analysis of international trade in high-technology products - problem is to distinguish the high, medium and low technology products - “high-tech”: when ratio between R&D expenses and turnover or value added is above a certain threshold • limitations: • . research intensity and technological intensity not equivalent concepts • . statistical data not uniform • . the choice of threshold values is arbitrary • . technological intensity can vary greatly within one group of products

11. S&T Indicators – 1st group Bibliometrics - based on the number of publications, citations and co-citations • main problems • . propensity to publish and cite varies with disciplines • . citations may be critical rather than positive (but always knowledge) • . probability of being cited varies with the sector • .number of citations not follow a linear rate in course of time • .papers only one output of lab-based activity

12. S&T Indicators – 1st group Human resources • - key factor for the production and distribution of knowledge • - OECD in 1994 adopted the Canberra Manual • limitation of the Manual: • . only covers individuals with higher-level skills • . data not comparable (different national systems of education) • - example of data bases: social security

13. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Indicators based on information of technical journals - analysis of information about innovations reported in technical and trade journals • in the journal: brief desription of the new product ou service and the address and phone number of the firm • advantages: • . in principle all sectors of the economy are covered • -limitations • . only refers products or services, not processes • . not internationally comparable

14. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Intangible investment - costs of intangible products that become available in the period under review and that remain in use for more than one year • core components are: • .R&D • . education and training; • . software and marketing • not internationally comparable because of heterogeneity in definitions and data collection procedures

15. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Surveys of manufacturing technologies - innovation and the application on new technologies have moved into the centre of firm strategies • use of surveys to measure: • . objectives and barriers to the introduction of the technologies • . their diffusion and the impact of their introduction in the firm • . public policies toward the adoption of the technologies • - but surveys are still uncoordinated, without a harmonisation of concepts and procedures

16. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Indicators in the field of information and communication technologies - information technology is changing the very nature of work and society • building indicators in this area is quite necessary • the major problems identified by statisticians refer to: • . the very definition of information and communication technologies • . the classification of sectors and activities ti be surveyed • . the products and services to be covered

17. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Measurement of organisational change in enterprises - the changes in the organisation of firms and in the institutional context determine the effectiveness and impact of the adoption of new technologies • this changes can be in: • .the strategy or the structure • . the work-place organisation or the human resource management • - goal is to obtain measurement for qualitative phenomena like organisation and strategy, and their linkage with performance and structure variables

18. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Technology foresight - the main objective is to identify potentially important technologies early enough to facilitate their development and utilisation - the methodology used for the technology foresight must involved a large number of experts to acquire the necessary information and an adequate variety of options • limitations: • . procedure is very expensive • . different mix of methodologies has been used in various countries • . foresight may lead firms to not considered some interesting technologies

19. S&T Indicators – 2nd group Public attitudes and public understanding of S&T - allow to add a social dimension to the S&T process • typical question is: • What is the citizens´view about scientific developments, scientific programmes or current problems requiring research efforts ?

20. Prospects for future developments • develop theories to explain the working of complex systems, but also amenable to statistical measurement • OECD is expected to continue to act as a stimulus and “clearing house” for the activities of the member countries • weight of the databases constructed using information collected for administrative purposes (patents, scientific publications, etc) will likely to be greater than that of ad hoc surveys (R&D, innovations, etc)

21. Prospects for future developments • methodologies developed within OECD countries become standard, so data may be compared across almost all countries of the world • one challenge for those who are in charge ofproviding indicators is linked to the timing of indicators building • S&T indicators are in a period of rapid evolution, so that will allow us to understand better the complex phenomena of knowledge creation and distribution

22. Case Study – Measurement of R&D ITALY: 1985 and 1992 • R&D survey carried by national statistical agencies • Innovation surveys carried by ISTAT – Italian National Statistical Institute – and occurred in the 1980sand early 1990s: • . the collection of innovation data on the basis of the methodology set out in the Oslo Manual • . the studies on the knowledge-based economy

23. Case Study – Measurement of R&D ITALY: 1985 and 1992 From the collection of innovation data we conclude that the number of R&D-performing firms is higher than that emerging from the R&D surveys. R&D survey Innovation survey R&D-performing firms(number) 1985 793 2 557 1992 748 4 229

24. Case Study – Measurement of R&D ITALY: 1985 and 1992 • The reasons for different results are linked to the fact that the same phenomena is measured from two different angles, so the highest value obtained in the innovation survey can be result of: • small and discontinuous R&D activities are included • the statistical universe is more dynamic due to the discontinuous character of innovation in firms • the definition of R&D is interpreted in an innovation context

25. Case Study – Measurement of R&D ITALY: 1985 and 1992 From the studies on the generation and distribution knowledge we conclude that the concept of full-time equivalent for measuring the quantity and quality of work done by professionals engaged in R&D is less and less tenable. The cause is that some of the professional personnel devote their time to various activities, including research, teaching, consulting and administration.