IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ieu/journl/v7y2011i7p33-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision making processes based on innovation indicators: which implications for technology assessment?

Author

Listed:
  • Nuno Boavida

    (IET, FCT-Universidade Nova de Lisboa)

Abstract

The present work deals with the use of innovation indicators in the decision-making process. It intends to contribute to the discussion on the construction, use and analysis of indicator systems and also to evaluate its weight on decision-making in innovation. The goal is to help understand how innovation indicators can influence technology policy and through it, society at large. This work will start by analysing the use of indicators (their problems and consistency) and other sources of information that contribute to build the opinions of innovation decision makers. This will be followed by a survey and interviews with main innovation actors. The results will shed light on the impact of the use of indicators by the innovation community – both in terms of technology policy and in the social sphere. Proposals and implications for the future will be advanced, hopefully adding new contributions to the governance of the science, technology and innovation field.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuno Boavida, 2011. "Decision making processes based on innovation indicators: which implications for technology assessment?," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 7(7), pages 33-55, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ieu:journl:v:7:y:2011:i:7:p:33-55
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/7943
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grupp, Hariolf & Schubert, Torben, 2010. "Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-78, February.
    2. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    3. Laurens Cherchye & Wim Moesen & Tom Van Puyenbroeck, 2004. "Legitimately Diverse, yet Comparable: On Synthesizing Social Inclusion Performance in the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 919-955, December.
    4. Nuno Boavida & Susana Martins Moretto, 2010. "Innovation Assessment of a Portuguese Railway branch of a foreign multinational - A case study," IET Working Papers Series 05/2010, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    5. Robert J W Tijssen, 2003. "Scoreboards of research excellence," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 91-103, August.
    6. M. Saisana & A. Saltelli & S. Tarantola, 2005. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 307-323, March.
    7. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nuno Boavida & Manuel Baumann & António B. Moniz & Jens Schippl & Max Reichenbach & Marcel Weil, 2013. "Technology transition towards electric mobility - technology assessment as a tool for policy design," IET Working Papers Series 04/2013, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    2. Manuel Laranja & Nuno Boavida, 2012. "The use of indicators and evidence in governance and policy development of Science, Technology and Innovation," IET Working Papers Series 07/2012, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    3. Gabriel T. Velloso, 2012. "Brain-Computer Interface (BCI): a methodological proposal to assess the impacts of medical applications in 2022," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 8(8), pages 57-81, November.
    4. Böhle, Knud & Moniz, António, 2015. "No Countries for Old Technology Assessment? Sketching the Efforts and Opportunities to Establish Parliamentary TA in Spain and Portugal," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 29-44.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nuno Boavida, 2011. "How composite indicators of innovation can influence technology policy decision?," IET Working Papers Series 03/2011, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    2. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    3. Cherchye, Laurens & Knox Lovell, C.A. & Moesen, Wim & Van Puyenbroeck, Tom, 2007. "One market, one number? A composite indicator assessment of EU internal market dynamics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 749-779, April.
    4. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Khatab Alqararah, 2023. "Assessing the robustness of composite indicators: the case of the Global Innovation Index," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    7. Laurens CHERCHYE & Willem MOESEN & Nicky ROGGE & Tom VAN PUYENBROECK, 2009. "Constructing a knowledge economy composite indicator with imprecise data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces09.15, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    8. Jia, Xibei & Buyle, Sven & Macário, Rosário, 2023. "Developing an airport sustainability evaluation index through composite indicator approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    9. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Karagiannis, Giannis & Ravanos, Panagiotis, 2023. "A composite indicator of social inclusion for EU based on the inverted BoD model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    12. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    13. Laurens Cherchye & Erwin Ooghe & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2008. "Robust human development rankings," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 6(4), pages 287-321, December.
    14. Magda M. Smink & Marko P. Hekkert & Simona O. Negro, 2015. "Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 86-101, February.
    15. Laurens Cherchye & Willem Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2007. "An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 111-145, May.
    16. Cantone, Giulio Giacomo & Tomaselli, Venera, 2024. "On the Coherence of Composite Indexes: Multiversal Model and Specification Analysis for an Index of Well-Being," MetaArXiv d5y26, Center for Open Science.
    17. Sayel Basel & K. U. Gopakumar & R. Prabhakara Rao, 2020. "Broad-based index for measurement of development," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 22(1), pages 182-206, June.
    18. Ziwei Shu & Ramón Alberto Carrasco & Javier Portela García-Miguel & Manuel Sánchez-Montañés, 2022. "Multiple Scenarios of Quality of Life Index Using Fuzzy Linguistic Quantifiers: The Case of 85 Countries in Numbeo," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-28, June.
    19. Håkon Endresen Normann, 2016. "Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20161026, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    20. L Cherchye & W Moesen & N Rogge & T Van Puyenbroeck & M Saisana & A Saltelli & R Liska & S Tarantola, 2008. "Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(2), pages 239-251, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    innovation indicators; decision; technology policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C82 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
    • E61 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Policy Objectives; Policy Designs and Consistency; Policy Coordination
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Socio-Economics of Innovation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ieu:journl:v:7:y:2011:i:7:p:33-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Brandão Moniz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieunlpt.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.