IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mup/actaun/actaun_2019067030871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Measuring Countries' Innovation Performance: Organisational Level Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Švandová

    (Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Michal Jirásek

    (Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Žerotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Innovation performance of countries is an important input for the governmental policy-making. However, currently popular rankings such as Eurostat's Summary Innovation Index instil one-approach-fits-all perspective by clearly specifying success conditions without considering contingency factors that make each country's situation unique. Our aim is to contrast current approach for innovation performance measurement on both country and organisational levels. We believe that the organisational level perspective can offer an inspiration for a change in the country level indicators themselves. Our study raises several concerns about the current state of the country level innovation measurement, notably exclusion of a higher number of innovation process indicators and omission of specific internal and external factors of measured countries. We propose that indicators accounting for these areas would offer more a realistic and useful picture of innovation performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Švandová & Michal Jirásek, 2019. "On Measuring Countries' Innovation Performance: Organisational Level Perspective," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(3), pages 871-881.
    • Handle: RePEc:mup:actaun:actaun_2019067030871
    DOI: 10.11118/actaun201967030871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://acta.mendelu.cz/doi/10.11118/actaun201967030871.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://acta.mendelu.cz/doi/10.11118/actaun201967030871.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.11118/actaun201967030871?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    2. David Birchall & Jean-Jacques Chanaron & George Tovstiga, 2011. "Innovation performance measurement: current practices, issues and management challenges," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) halshs-00651176, HAL.
    3. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    4. Santarelli, Enrico & Piergiovanni, Roberta, 1996. "Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators: the Italian experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 689-711, August.
    5. Hollenstein, Heinz, 1996. "A composite indicator of a firm's innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 633-645, June.
    6. Andreas Schibany & Gerhard Streicher, 2008. "The European Innovation Scoreboard: drowning by numbers?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(10), pages 717-732, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Thornhill, Stewart, 2006. "Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 687-703, September.
    9. Godin, Benoit, 2003. "The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 679-691, April.
    10. Sue Birley & Paul Westhead, 1990. "Growth and performance contrasts between ‘types’ of small firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(7), pages 535-557, November.
    11. David Birchall & Jean-Jacques Chanaron & George Tovstiga, 2011. "Innovation performance measurement: current practices, issues and management challenges," Post-Print halshs-00651176, HAL.
    12. Coombs, R. & Narandren, P. & Richards, A., 1996. "A literature-based innovation output indicator," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 403-413, May.
    13. Shane, Scott, 1993. "Cultural influences on national rates of innovation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 59-73, January.
    14. Rosenbusch, Nina & Brinckmann, Jan & Bausch, Andreas, 2011. "Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 441-457, July.
    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. Jacqueline Tsz Yin Lo & Calvin Kam, 2021. "Innovation Performance Indicators for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Organization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.

    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. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    2. Teemu Makkonen & Robert P. Have, 2013. "Benchmarking regional innovative performance: composite measures and direct innovation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 247-262, January.
    3. Ana Garcia-Bernabeu & José Manuel Cabello & Francisco Ruiz, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Reference Point Based Approach for Assessing Regional Innovation Performance in Spain," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, May.
    4. Josef Taalbi & Mikhail Martynovich, 2024. "On the urban bias of patents and the scaling of innovation," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2422, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2024.
    5. Edquist , Charles & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia , Jon Mikel, 2015. "The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: The Case of Sweden – not the innovation leader of the EU – updated version," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    6. Zofio, Jose Luis & Aparicio, Juan & Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel, 2023. "The influence of bottlenecks on innovation systems performance: Put the slowest climber first," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    9. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Nasierowski Wojciech, 2019. "Reflections on Discussions About Technical Efficiency of Innovativeness of Countries," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 165-176, January.
    11. Evangelista, Rinaldo & Perani, Giulio & Rapiti, Fabio & Archibugi, Daniele, 1997. "Nature and impact of innovation in manufacturing industry: some evidence from the Italian innovation survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 521-536, December.
    12. Beneito, Pilar, 2006. "The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 502-517, May.
    13. Marco Corsino, 2008. "Product Innovation and Growth: The Case of Integrated Circuits," LEM Papers Series 2008/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Ferreira, Paulo Jorge Silveira & Dionísio, Andreia Teixeira Marques, 2016. "What are the conditions for good innovation results? A fuzzy-set approach for European Union," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5396-5400.
    15. Fuzhong Chen & Haifeng Li & Huini Wei & Wani Nelson, 2022. "The Ownership, Innovation, and Sustainable Development of Micro and Small Enterprises: Evidence of China," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, November.
    16. Rosenbusch, Nina & Brinckmann, Jan & Bausch, Andreas, 2011. "Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 441-457, July.
    17. Mohnen, Pierre, 2019. "R&D, innovation and productivity," MERIT Working Papers 2019-016, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.
    19. H. T. Tran & E. Santarelli, 2013. "Determinants and Effects of Innovative Activities in Vietnam. A Firm-level Analysis," Working Papers wp909, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    20. Nejla YACOUB, 2012. "Brevetabilité des médicament, innovation et l’avenir de l’industrie pharmaceutique en Tunisie DRUGS PATENTABILITY INNOVATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN TUNISIA THEORETICAL STUDY ," Working Papers 248, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.

    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:mup:actaun:actaun_2019067030871. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://mendelu.cz/en/ .

    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.