Manual de Oslo - 2018-3

PART III.
METHODS FOR STATISTICS ON BUSINESS INNOVATION │ 175
Part III. Methods for collecting, analysing and reporting statistics on business
innovation
OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

CHAPTER 9. METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA ON BUSINESS INNOVATION │ 177
Chapter 9. Methods for collecting data on business innovation
This chapter provides guidance on methodologies for collecting data on business innovation,
based on the concepts and definitions introduced in previous chapters. The guidance is aimed
at producers of statistical data on innovation as well as advanced users who need to
understand how innovation data are produced. While acknowledging other potential sources,
this chapter focuses on the use of business innovation surveys to collect data on different
dimensions of innovation-related activities and outcomes within the firm, along with other
contextual information. The guidance within this chapter covers the full life cycle of data
collection, including setting the objectives and scope of business innovation surveys; identifying
the target population; questionnaire design; sampling procedures; data collection methods
and survey protocols; post-survey data processing, and dissemination of statistical outputs.

178 │ CHAPTER 9. METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA ON BUSINESS INNOVATION
9.1. Introduction
9.1. This chapter provides guidance on methodologies for collecting data on business
innovation. As noted in Chapter 2, methodological guidance for the collection of data on
innovation is an essential part of the measurement framework for innovation. Data on
innovation can be obtained through object-based methods such as new product announcements
on line or in trade journals (Kleinknecht, Reijnen and Smits, 1993), and from expert assessments
of innovations (Harris, 1988). Other sources of innovation data include annual corporate
reports, websites, social surveys of employee educational achievement, reports to regional,
national and supranational organisations that fund research and experimental development
(R&D) or innovation, reports to organisations that give out innovation prizes, university
knowledge transfer offices that collect data on contract research funded by firms and the
licensing of university intellectual property, business registers, administrative sources, and
surveys of entrepreneurship, R&D and information and communication technology (ICT)
use. Many of these existing and potential future sources may have “big data” attributes,
namely they are too large or complex to be handled by conventional tools and techniques.
9.2. Although useful for different purposes, these data sources all have limitations.
Many do not provide representative coverage of innovation at either the industry or national
level because the data are based on self-selection: only firms that choose to make a product
announcement, apply for R&D funding, or license knowledge from universities are
included. Information from business registers and social, entrepreneurship, and R&D
surveys is often incomplete, covering only one facet of innovation. Corporate annual
reports and websites are inconsistent in their coverage of innovation activities, although
web-scraping techniques can automate searches for innovation activities on documents
posted on line and may be an increasingly valuable source of innovation data in the future.
Two additional limitations are that none of these sources provide consistent, comparable
data on the full range of innovation strategies and activities undertaken by all firms, as
discussed in Chapters 3 to 8, and many of these sources cannot be accurately linked to other
sources. Currently, the only source for a complete set of consistent and linkable data is a
dedicated innovation survey based on a business register.
9.3. The goal of a business innovation survey is to obtain high-quality data on innovation
within firms from authoritative respondents such as the chief executive officer or senior
managers. A variety of factors influence the attainment of this goal, including coverage of
the target population, the frequency of data collection, question and questionnaire design
and testing, the construction of the survey sample frame, the methods used to implement
the survey (including the identification of an appropriate respondent within the surveyed
unit) and post-survey data processing. All of these topics are relevant to national statistical
organisations (NSOs) and to international organisations and researchers with an interest in
collecting data on innovation activities through surveys and analysing them.
9.4. Business innovation surveys that are conducted by NSOs within the framework of
national business statistics must follow national practices in questionnaire and survey
design. The recommendations in this chapter cover best practices that should be attainable
by most NSOs. Surveys implemented outside of official statistical frameworks, such as by
international organisations or academics, will benefit from following the recommendations
in this chapter (OECD, 2015a). However, resource and legal restrictions can make it
difficult for organisations to implement all best practices.
9.5. The decision on the types of data to collect in a survey should be taken in
consultation with data users, including policy analysts, business managers and consultants,

academics, and others. The main users of surveys conducted by NSOs are policy makers and
policy analysts and consequently the choice of questions should be made after consultations
with those government departments and agencies responsible for innovation and business
development. Surveys developed by academics could also benefit from consultations with
governments or businesses.
9.6. The purpose(s) of data collection, for instance to construct national or regional
indicators or for use in research, will largely influence survey methodology choices. The
sample can be smaller if only indicators at the national level are required, whereas a larger
sample is necessary if users require data on sub-populations, longitudinal panel data, or
data on rare innovation phenomena. In addition, the purpose of the survey will have a strong
influence on the types of questions to be included in the survey questionnaire.
9.7. This manual contains more suggestions for questions on innovation than can be
included in a single survey. Chapters 3 to 8 and Chapter 10 recommend key questions for
collection on a regular basis and supplementary questions for inclusion on an occasional
basis within innovation survey questionnaires. Occasional questions based on the supplementary
recommendations or on other sections of the manual can be included in one-off modules
that focus on specific topics or in separate, specialised surveys. The recommendations in
this chapter are relevant to full innovation surveys, specialised surveys, and to innovation
modules included in other surveys.
9.8. This chapter provides more details on best practice survey methods than previous
editions of this manual. Many readers from NSOs will be familiar with these practices and
do not require detailed guidance on a range of issues. However, this edition is designed to
serve NSOs and other producers and users of innovation data globally. Readers from some
of these organisations may therefore find the details in this chapter of value to their work.
In addition to this chapter, other sources of generic guidelines for business surveys include
Willeboordse (ed.) (1997) and Snijkers et al. (eds.) (2013). Complementary material to this
manual’s online edition will provide relevant links to current and recent survey practices and
examples of experiments with new methods for data collection (http://oe.cd/oslomanual).
9.9. The chapter is structured as follows: Section 9.2 covers the target population and
other basic characteristics of relevance to innovation surveys. Questionnaire and question
design are discussed in section 9.3. A number of survey methodology issues are discussed
in the subsequent sections including sampling (section 9.4), data collection methods
(section 9.5), survey protocol (section 9.6) and post-survey processing (section 9.7). The
chapter concludes with a brief review of issues regarding the publication and dissemination
of results from innovation surveys (section 9.8).
9.2. Population and other basic characteristics for a survey
9.2.1. Target population

9.10. The Business enterprise sector, defined in Chapter 2 and OECD (2015b), is the
target for surveys of business innovation. It comprises:
 All resident corporations, including legally incorporated enterprises, regardless of
the residence of their shareholders. This includes quasi-corporations, i.e. units
capable of generating a profit or other financial gain for their owners, recognised
by law as separate legal entities from their owners, and set up for the purpose of
engaging in market production at prices that are economically significant. They
include both financial and non-financial corporations.

 The unincorporated branches of non-resident enterprises deemed to be resident and

part of this sector because they are engaged in production on the economic territory
on a long-term basis.
 All resident non-profit institutions that are market producers of goods or services
or serve businesses. This includes independent research institutes, clinics, and other
institutions whose main activity is the production of goods and services for sale at
prices designed to recover their full economic costs. It also includes entities controlled
by business associations and financed by contributions and subscriptions.
9.11. The Business enterprise sector includes both private enterprises (either publicly
listed and traded, or not) and government-controlled enterprises (referred to as “public
enterprises” or “public corporations”). For public enterprises, the borderline between the
Business enterprise and Government sectors is defined by the extent to which the unit
operates on a market basis. If a unit’s principal activity is the production of goods or
services at economically significant prices it is considered to be a business enterprise.
9.12. Consistent with the definition in the System of National Accounts (SNA) (EC et
al., 2009), the residence of each unit is the economic territory with which it has the strongest
connection and in which it engages for one year or more in economic activities. An
economic territory can be any geographic area or jurisdiction for which statistics are
required, for instance a country, state or province, or region. Businesses are expected to
have a centre of economic interest in the country in which they are legally constituted and
registered. They can be resident in different countries than their shareholders and subsidiary
firms may be resident in different countries than their parent organisations.
9.13. The main characteristics of the target population that need to be considered for
constructing a sample or census are the type of statistical unit, the unit’s industry of main
activity, the unit’s size, and the geographical location of the unit.
9.2.2. Statistical units and reporting units

9.14. Firms organise their innovation activities at various levels in order to meet their
objectives. Strategic decisions concerning the financing and direction of innovation efforts
are often taken at the enterprise level. However, these decisions can also be taken at the
enterprise group level, regardless of national boundaries. It is also possible for managers
below the level of the enterprise (i.e. establishment or kind-of-activity unit [KAU]) to take
day-to-day decisions of relevance to innovation.
9.15. These decisions can cut across national borders, especially in the case of
multinational enterprises (MNEs). This can make it difficult to identify and survey those
responsible for decision-making, particularly when NSOs or other data collection agencies
only have the authority to collect information from domestic units.
Statistical unit
9.16. A statistical unit is an entity about which information is sought and for which
statistics are ultimately compiled; in other words, it is the institutional unit of interest for
the intended purpose of collecting innovation statistics. A statistical unit can be an observation
unit for which information is received and statistics are compiled, or an analytical unit
which is created by splitting or combining observation units with the help of estimations or
imputations in order to supply more detailed or homogeneous data than would otherwise
be possible (UN, 2007; OECD, 2015b).

9.17. The need to delineate statistical units arises in the case of large and complex
economic entities that are active in different industry classes, or have units located in
different geographical areas. There are several types of statistical units according to their
ownership, control linkages, homogeneity of economic activity, and their location, namely
enterprise groups, enterprises, establishments (a unit in a single location with a single
productive activity), and KAUs (part of a unit that engages in only one kind of productive
activity) (see OECD [2015b: Box 3.1] for more details). The choice of the statistical unit
and the methodology used to collect data are strongly influenced by the purpose of
innovation statistics, the existence of records of innovation activity within the unit, and the
ability of respondents to provide the information of interest.
9.18. The statistical unit in business surveys is generally the enterprise, defined in the
SNA as the smallest combination of legal units with “autonomy in respect of financial and
investment decision-making, as well as authority and responsibility for allocating resources
for the production of goods and services” (EC et al., 2009; OECD, 2015b: Box 3.1).
9.19. Descriptive identification variables should be obtained for all statistical units in the
target population for a business innovation survey. These variables are usually available
from statistical business registers and include, for each statistical unit, an identification
code, the geographic location, the kind of economic activity undertaken, and the unit size.
Additional information on the economic or legal organisation of a statistical unit, as well
as its ownership and public or private status, can help to make the survey process more
effective and efficient.
Reporting units
9.20. The reporting unit (i.e. the “level” within the business from which the required
data are collected) will vary from country to country (and potentially within a country),
depending on institutional structures, the legal framework for data collection, traditions,
national priorities, survey resources and ad hoc agreements with the business enterprises
surveyed. As such, the reporting unit may differ from the required statistical unit. It may
be necessary to combine, split, or complement (using interpolation or estimation) the
information provided by reporting units to align with the desired statistical unit.
9.21. Corporations can be made up of multiple establishments and enterprises, but for
many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) the establishment and the enterprise are
usually identical. For enterprises with heterogeneous economic activities, it may be necessary
for regional policy interests to collect data for KAUs, or for establishments. However,
sampling establishments or KAUs requires careful attention to prevent double counting
during data aggregation.
9.22. When information is only available at higher levels of aggregation such as the
enterprise group, NSOs may need to engage with these units to obtain disaggregated data,
for instance by requesting information by jurisdiction and economic activity. This will
allow better interoperability with other economic statistics.
9.23. The enterprise group can play a prominent role as a reporting unit if questionnaires
are completed or responses approved by a central administrative office. In the case of
holding companies, a number of different approaches can be used, for example, asking the
holding company to report on the innovation activities of enterprises in specific industries,
or forwarding the questionnaire, or relevant sections, to other parts of the company.
9.24. Although policy interests or practical considerations may require innovation data
at the level of establishments, KAUs, and enterprise groups, it is recommended, wherever

possible, to collect data at the enterprise level to permit international comparisons. When
this is not possible, careful attention is required when collecting and reporting data on
innovation activities and expenditures, as well as linkage-related information, that may not
be additive at different levels of aggregation, especially in the case of MNEs. Furthermore,
innovation activities can be part of complex global value chains that involve dispersed
suppliers and production processes for goods and services, often located in different
countries. Therefore, it is important to correctly identify whenever possible statistical units
active in global value chains (see Chapter 7) in order to improve compatibility with other
data sources (such as foreign investment and trade surveys).
Main economic activity

9.25. Enterprises should be classified according to their main economic activity using the
most recent edition of the United Nation’s (UN) International Standard Industrial Classification
(ISIC Rev.4) (see UN, 2008) or equivalent regional/national classifications. ISIC supports
international comparability by classifying industries into economic activities by section,
division, group and class, though in most cases the target population can be defined using
the section and division levels. The recommendations given below use the sections and
divisions as defined in ISIC Rev.4. These should be updated with future revisions of ISIC.
9.26. When there is significant uncertainty about the true economic activity of firms (for
instance if this information is not available from a business register, refers to non-official
classifications or is likely to be out of date) innovation surveys can include a question on
the main product lines produced by each firm and, if possible, questions on the relative
importance of different types of product lines (for instance the contribution of different
product categories to turnover). This information is required to assign an economic activity
to the enterprise, both for stratification, sampling and analytical purposes.
9.27. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2, this manual recommends the collection of innovation
data for businesses in most ISIC-defined industries, with some qualifying exceptions
discussed below. Key considerations when defining the recommended scope of business
innovation surveys by economic activity, especially for international comparison purposes,
are the prevalence of non-business actors in an industry, the presence of specific measurement
challenges such as unstable business registers, and previous international experience measuring
innovation within an industry.
9.28. Table 9.1 provides the broad structure of industries by ISIC Rev.4 at the section
and division level and identifies economic activities that are recommended for international
comparisons, supplementary economic activities that may be worth including for national
purposes, and economic activities that are not currently recommended for surveys of
innovation in the Business sector.
9.29. The recommended economic activities for national data collection and for
international comparisons include ISIC Rev.4 sections B to M inclusive with the exception
of section I (Accommodation and food service activities). In these areas there is substantive
national and international comparative experience with data collection.
9.30. Supplementary economic activities that are worth collecting, but are still largely
untested from an international comparison perspective, include ISIC Rev.4 sections A
(Agriculture, forestry and fishing), I (Accommodation and food services activities), N
(Administrative and support activities), and divisions 95-96 of section S (Repair activities,
other personal service activities). For these industries, the international standardisation of
business registers is still incomplete (particularly for agriculture) and current experience is

limited to surveys in only a few countries. Any ongoing efforts should provide better
guidance for innovation measurement in the future.
Table 9.1. Economic activities for inclusion in international comparisons of business

innovation
Based on UN ISIC Rev.4 sections and divisions
Section Division Description

Economic activities recommended for inclusion for international comparisons
B 05-09 Mining and quarrying
C 10-33 Manufacturing
D 35 Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
E 36-39 Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
F 41-43 Construction
G 45-47 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
H 49-53 Transportation and storage
J 58-63 Information and communication
K 64-66 Financial and insurance activities
L 68 Real estate activities
M 69-75 Professional, scientific and technical activities
Supplementary economic activities for national data collections
A 01-03 Agriculture, forestry and fishing
I 55-56 Accommodation and food service activities
N 77-82 Administrative and support service activities
S 95-96 Repair activities, other personal service activities
Economic activities not recommended for data collection
O 84 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
P 85 Education
Q 86-88 Human health and social work activities
R 90-93 Arts, entertainment and recreation
S 94 Membership organisations
Economic activities outside the scope of this manual
T 97-98 Activities of households as employers; activities of households for own-use
U 99 Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies
9.31. A number of economic activities are not generally recommended for data collection
by business innovation surveys and should be excluded from international comparisons of
business innovation. From an international comparison perspective, sections O (Public
administration), P (Education), Q (Human health and social work), R (Arts, entertainment
and recreation) and division 94 of section S (Membership organisations) are not recommended
for inclusion because of the dominant or large role of government or private non-profit
institutions serving households in the provision of these services in many countries.
However, there may be domestic policy demands for extending the coverage of national
surveys to firms active in these areas, for example if a significant proportion of units active
in this area in the country are business enterprises, or if such firms are entitled to receive
public support for their innovation activities.
9.32. Other sections recommended for exclusion are dominated by actors engaged in
non-market activities and therefore outside the scope of this manual, namely section T
(Households) and section U (Extraterritorial bodies).

Unit size
9.33. Although innovation activity is generally more extensive and more frequently
reported by larger firms, units of all sizes have the potential to be innovation-active and
should be part of the scope of business innovation surveys. However, smaller business
units, particularly those with higher degree of informality (e.g. not incorporated as companies,
exempt from or not declaring some taxes, etc.), are more likely to be missing from statistical
business registers. The relative importance of such units can be higher in countries in earlier
stages of development. Comparing data for countries with different types of registers for
small firms and with varying degrees of output being generated in the informal economy
can therefore present challenges. An additional challenge, noted in Chapter 3, stems from
adequately interpreting innovation data for recently created firms, for which a substantial
number of activities can be deemed to be new to the firm.
9.34. Therefore, for international comparisons, it is recommended to limit the scope of
the target population to comprise all statistical business units with ten or more persons
employed and to use average headcounts for size categories. Depending on user interest
and resources, surveys can also include units with fewer than ten persons employed,
particularly in high technology and knowledge-intensive service industries. This group is
likely to include start-ups and spin-offs of considerable policy interest (see Chapter 3).
9.2.3. Data linkage

9.35. An official business register is often used by NSOs to identify the sample for the
innovation survey and for the R&D, ICT, and general business statistics surveys. This
creates opportunities for linking the innovation survey with other surveys in order to obtain
interval data on several variables of interest, such as on R&D, ICT, employment, turnover,
exports or investments. Over the years, an increasing number of NSOs have used data
linkage to partially eliminate the need to collect some types of data in the innovation survey,
although data linkage is only possible when the surveys to be linked use the same statistical
units, which for NSOs is usually the enterprise.
9.36. Data linkage can reduce respondent burden, resulting in higher response rates, and
improve the quality of interval data that are obtained from mandatory R&D and business
surveys. However, questions must be replicated in an innovation survey when respondents need
a reference point for related questions, either to jog their memory or to provide a reference
for calculating subcategories or shares. For example, questions on innovation expenditures
should include a question on R&D expenditures for reference, and questions on the number
(or share) of employees with different levels of educational attainment should follow a question
on the total number of employees. Once the survey is completed, the innovation survey
values for R&D, employment, or other variables can be replaced for some analyses by values
from the R&D and business surveys, if analysis indicates that this will improve accuracy.
9.37. Another option created by the ability to combine administrative and survey data is
to pre-fill online innovation questionnaires with data obtained from other sources on
turnover, employment, R&D expenditures, patent applications, etc. These can provide
immediate reference points for respondents and reduce response burden. A disadvantage is
that pre-filled data could be out of date, although older data could still be useful for pre-
filling data for the first year of the observation period. Respondents should also be given
an option to correct errors in pre-filled data.
9.38. Linkage to structural business statistics data on economic variables after a suitable
time lag (one or more years after the innovation survey) is useful for research to infer causal

relationships between innovation activities and outcomes. Relevant outcomes include changes
in productivity, employment, exports and revenue.
9.39. Selected innovation questions may be added occasionally to other surveys to assist
in improving, updating and maintaining the innovation survey frame.
9.2.4. Frequency of data collection

9.40. The frequency of innovation surveys depends on practical considerations and user
needs at the international, national and regional level. Considerations such as cost, the slow
rate of change in many variables, the effect of frequent surveys on response burden, and
problems due to overlapping observation periods between consecutive surveys influence the
recommended frequency for innovation surveys. The importance of innovation for economic
growth and well-being creates a policy demand for more frequent and up-to-date data
collected on an annual basis, particularly for innovation activities that can change quickly.
Annual panel surveys can also facilitate analysis of the lag structure between innovation
inputs and outputs, or the effects of innovation on economic performance (see Chapter 11).
9.41. It is recommended to conduct innovation surveys every one to three years. For a
frequency of two or three years, a shorter survey that only collects key innovation variables
can be conducted in alternating years, resources permitting. However, caution is required
when comparing the results of short and long surveys because responses can be affected by
survey length (see section 9.3 below). Information on innovation can also be obtained from the
Internet or other sources in years without an innovation survey. Options for using alternative
sources of innovation data in non-survey years have yet to be investigated in detail.
9.2.5. Observation and reference periods

9.42. To ensure comparability among respondents, surveys must specify an observation
period for questions on innovation. The observation period is the length of time covered by
a majority of questions in a survey. In order to minimise recall bias, it is recommended that
the observation period should not exceed three years. The reference period is the final
year of the overall survey observation period and is used as the effective observation period
for collecting interval level data items, such as expenditures or the number of employed
persons. The reference and observation periods are identical in surveys that use a one-year
observation period.
9.43. The length of the observation period qualifies the definition of innovation and
therefore the share of units that are reported as innovative (see Chapter 3). For example,
the choice of an observation period can affect comparisons between groups of units
(e.g. industries) that produce goods or services with varying life cycles (industries with
short product life cycles are more likely to introduce product innovations more frequently).
This has implications for interpretability and raises the need for adequate standardisation
across national surveys (see Chapter 11).
9.44. In some instances, interpretation issues favour a longer observation period. For
example, if an innovation project runs over several years, a short observation period might
result in assigning different innovation activities and outputs to different years, such as the
use of co-operation, the receipt of public funding, and sales from new products. This could
hamper some relevant analyses on innovation patterns and impacts.
9.45. Data quality concerns favour a shorter observation period in order to reduce recall
errors. This applies for instance when respondents forget to report an event, or from
telescoping errors when respondents falsely remember events that happened before the
observation period as occurring during that period.

9.46. The quality advantages of short observation periods and the potential interpretation
advantages of longer observation periods may be combined through the construction of a
longitudinal panel linking firms in consecutive cross-sectional innovation surveys (see
subsection 9.4.3 below). For example, if the underlying data have a one-year observation
period, the innovation status of firms over a two- (three-) year period can be effectively
calculated from data for firms with observations over two (or three) consecutive annual
observation periods. Additional assumptions and efforts would be required to deal with
instances where repeated observations are not available for all firms in the sample, for
example due to attrition, or the use of sampling methods to reduce the burden on some
types of respondents (e.g. SMEs). A strong argument in favour of a longitudinal panel
survey design is that it enhances the range of possible analyses of causal relationships
between innovation activities and outcomes (see subsection 9.4.3 below).
9.47. Observation periods that are longer than the frequency of data collection can affect
comparisons of results from consecutive surveys. In such cases, it can be difficult to
determine if changes in results over time are mainly due to innovation activities in the non-
overlapping period or if they are influenced by activities in the period of overlap with the
previous survey. Spurious serial correlation could therefore be introduced as a result.
9.48. At the time of publication of this manual, the observation period used by countries
varies between one and three years. This reduces international comparability for key
indicators such as the incidence of innovation and the rate of collaboration with other
actors. Although there is currently no consensus on what should be the optimal length of
the generic observation period (other than a three-year maximum limit), convergence towards
a common observation period would considerably improve international comparability. It is
therefore recommended to conduct, through concerted efforts, additional experimentation
on the effects of different lengths for the observation period and the use of panel data to
address interpretation issues. The results of these experiments would assist efforts to reach
international agreement on the most appropriate length for the observation period.
9.3. Question and questionnaire design
9.49. Chapters 3 to 8 of this manual identify different concepts and characteristics of

business innovation for measurement. These need to be operationalised in the form of
questions that create useful data for empirical analysis, as indicated in Figure 9.1.
9.50. The operationalisation of theoretical concepts can result in a number of possible
errors that can be minimised through careful question and questionnaire design. This
manual does not provide full examples of survey questions because the phrasing of final
questions is likely to differ depending on contextual conditions that vary across and within
countries. Instead, the following sections provide guidelines for best practice in the design
of questions and the layout of the questionnaire. Good question design and questionnaire
layout can improve data quality, increase response rates, and improve comparability across
different survey methods (see subsection 9.5.4 below).
9.51. The design of individual questions and questionnaire layout are influenced by the
ability to obtain data from other sources (which makes some questions unnecessary), and
by the choice of survey method (see section 9.5 below). For example, grid or matrix
questions are difficult and time-consuming when heard, as in telephone surveys, but are
easily understood when presented visually, as in online and mailed questionnaire surveys.
These differences in survey methods need to be taken into consideration when multiple
methods are used.

Figure 9.1. From innovation theory to innovation data
Theoretical world: Empirical world:

Conceptualisation Operationalisation
and survey
measurement
Theory Data file

Processing errors
Response
Concepts Measurement and non-
Specification response errors Questionnaire
errors Operationalisation
Attributes errors Question(s)
Measurements and operational

definitions
Source: Based on Snijkers and Willimack (2011), “The missing link: From concepts to questions in economic surveys”.
9.3.1. Question design
Question adaptation and translation

9.52. All questions need to be carefully adapted and translated to ensure that respondents
interpret the questions as intended by the concepts and definitions in this manual. First,
many concepts and definitions cannot be literally applied as questions. For example, more
than one question could be required to obtain data that capture a single concept (see
Chapter 3). Second, key terms must be adapted to match the language used by respondents
in different cultural, regional and national contexts (Harkness et al. [eds.], 2010). For
instance, Australia and Canada use the term “business” instead of “enterprise” because the
latter is not part of common English usage in either country and is therefore open to
misunderstanding. The words “enterprise” or “business” could also be confusing to respondents
from establishments or KAUs.
9.53. Translation issues are particularly important for innovation surveys that cover
multiple countries or countries with more than one language, since even minor differences
between national questionnaires can reduce the comparability of the results. These differences
can stem from translation, changes in the order of questions, or from adding or deleting
categories or questions. Translation needs to take account of country-specific circumstances
(such as a country’s legal system and regulations) to avoid misunderstandings of concepts
and definitions.
Question comprehension and quality

9.54. Questions need to be short, written in simple language, and unambiguous. It is
important to eliminate repetition, such as when two questions ask for similar information,
and to eliminate questions that ask for two or more information items (often identifiable by
the use of “and” between two clauses). Wherever possible, concepts and definitions should
be included in the questions because respondents often do not read supplementary information.
The inclusion of explanatory information in footnotes or online hypertext links should be
used as little as possible.

9.55. Data quality can be improved by reducing respondent fatigue and by maintaining a
motivation to provide good answers. Both fatigue and motivation are influenced by question
length, but motivation can be improved by questions that are relevant and interesting to the
respondent. The latter is particularly important for respondents from non-innovative units,
who need to find the questionnaire relevant and of interest, otherwise, they are less likely
to respond. Therefore, all questions should ideally be relevant to all units in all industries
(Tourangeau, Rips and Rasinski, 2000).
9.56. “Satisficing” refers to respondent behaviours to reduce the time and effort required
to complete an online or printed questionnaire. These include abandoning the survey before it
is completed (premature termination), skipping questions, non-differentiation (when respondents
give the identical response category to all sub-questions in a question, for example
answering “slightly important” to all sub-questions in a grid question), and speeding
through the questionnaire (Barge and Gelbach, 2012; Downes-Le Guin et al., 2012). The
main strategies for minimising satisficing are to ensure that the questions are of interest to
all respondents and to minimise the length of the questionnaire. Non-differentiation can be
reduced by limiting the number of sub-questions in a grid to no more than seven (Couper
et al., 2013). Grid questions with more than seven sub-questions can be split into several
subgroups. For instance, a grid question with ten sub-questions could be organised around
one theme with six sub-questions, and a second theme with four.
Nominal and ordinal response categories

9.57. Qualitative questions can use nominal response categories (“yes or no”) or ordinal
ones such as an importance or frequency scale. Nominal response categories are simple and
reliable, but provide only limited information; while ordinal response categories may
introduce a degree of subjectivity. Both types of questions may require a “don’t know” or
“not applicable” response category.
9.3.2. Questionnaire design

9.58. The questionnaire should be as short as possible, logically structured, and have
clear instructions. In voluntary surveys, unit response rates (the percentage of the sample
that completes the questionnaire) decline with questionnaire length. The quality of responses
can also decline for questions placed towards the end of a long questionnaire (Galesic and
Bosnjak, 2009). Survey implementation factors that affect unit response rates are discussed
in section 9.6 below.
9.59. Respondent comprehension and willingness to respond can be affected by the
questionnaire layout, with best practices being similar between printed and online questionnaires.
Skip routines or branching instructions on printed questionnaires need to be clearly visible.
The layout needs to incorporate national preferences for font sizes and the amount of blank
space on a page. Instructions should be repeated wherever applicable to improve the
likelihood that respondents follow them.
Filters
9.60. Filters and skip instructions direct respondents to different parts of a questionnaire,
depending on their answers to the filter questions. Filters can be helpful for reducing
response burden, particularly in complex questionnaires. Conversely, filters can encourage
satisficing behaviour whereby respondents answer “no” to a filter question to avoid
completing additional questions.

9.61. The need for filters and skip instructions can be minimised, for instance by
designing questions that can be answered by all units, regardless of their innovation status.
This can provide additional information of value to policy and to data analysis. However,
filters are necessary in some situations, such as when a series of questions are only relevant
to respondents that report one or more product innovations.
9.62. The online format permits automatic skips as a result of a filter, raising concerns
that respondents who reply to an online questionnaire could provide different results from
those replying to a printed version which allows them to see skipped questions and change
their mind if they decide that those skipped questions are relevant. When both online and
printed questionnaires are used, the online version can use “greying” for skipped questions
so that the questions are visible to respondents. This could improve comparability with the
printed version. If paradata – i.e. the data about the process by which surveys are filled in
– are collected in an online survey (see section 9.5 below), each respondent’s path through
the questionnaire can be evaluated to determine if greying has any effect on behaviour, for
instance if respondents backtrack to change an earlier response.
Question order
9.63. A respondent’s understanding of a question can be influenced by information
obtained from questions placed earlier in the questionnaire. Adding or deleting a question
can therefore influence subsequent answers and reduce comparability with previous surveys
or with surveys conducted in other jurisdictions.
9.64. Questions on activities that are relevant to all units regardless of their innovation
status should be placed before questions on innovation and exclude references to innovation.
This applies to potential questions on business capabilities (see Chapter 5).
9.65. Wherever possible, questions should be arranged by theme so that questions on a
similar topic are grouped together. For instance, questions on knowledge sourcing activities
and collaboration for innovation should be co-located. Questions on the contribution of
external actors to a specific type of innovation (product or business process) need to be
located in the section relating to that type of innovation.
9.3.3. Short-form questionnaires

9.66. For many small units and units in sectors with little innovation activity, the response
burden for a full innovation questionnaire can be high relative to their innovation activity,
thereby reducing response rates. In such cases, shorter survey questionnaires that focus on
a set of core questions could be useful. Short-form questionnaires can also be used to survey
units that have not reported innovation activity in previous innovation surveys. However,
empirical research for Belgium (Hoskens et al., 2016) and various developing countries
(Cirera and Muzi, 2016) finds significant differences in the share of innovative firms among
respondents to short and long questionnaires, with higher rates of innovative firms found
for short questionnaires. These results suggest that comparisons of data on innovation from
short-form and long-form questionnaires may reflect design factors that should be carefully
taken into account.
9.3.4. Combining innovation and other business surveys

9.67. Several NSOs have combined their innovation surveys with other business surveys,
in particular with R&D surveys, due to the conceptual and empirical proximity between
R&D and innovation. In principle, various types of business surveys can be integrated with

innovation surveys, for instance by combining questions on innovation with questions on

business characteristics, ICT or knowledge management practices.
9.68. There are several advantages of combining surveys including:
 A combined survey can reduce the response burden for reporting units as long as
the combined survey is shorter in length and less difficult than separate surveys due
to avoiding repeated questions.
 A combined survey permits analyses of the relationship between innovation and
other activities within the responding unit, for instance ICT use. This is advantageous
if separate surveys cannot be linked or if the innovation survey and other surveys
use different samples.
 A combined survey can reduce the printing and postage costs for questionnaires
provided by mail and the follow-up costs for all types of surveys.
9.69. On the other hand, there are also disadvantages from combining surveys such as:
 Both the unit and item response rates can decline if the combined questionnaire is
much longer than the length of the separate survey questionnaires. This is most
likely to be a problem for voluntary surveys.
 If the topics are sufficiently distinct and relate to different functional areas within
the business, several persons within an organisation, especially large ones, may
need to be contacted in order to answer all questions.
 Combining an innovation and an R&D survey can result in errors in the
interpretation of questions on innovation and R&D. Some respondents from units
that do not perform R&D could incorrectly assume that innovation requires R&D,
or that they are only being invited to report innovations based on R&D. This can
lower the observed incidence of innovation, as reported in some countries that have
experimented with combined R&D and innovation surveys (the observed incidence
of R&D is not affected) (e.g. Wilhelmsen, 2012). In addition, some respondents
could erroneously report innovation expenditures as R&D expenditures.
 The sampling frames for the innovation survey and other business surveys can
differ. In the case of combining innovation and R&D surveys, the sample for
innovation can include industries (and small units) that are not usually included in
R&D surveys.
9.70. Based on the above considerations, the guidelines for combining an innovation
survey with one or more other business surveys are as follows:
 A combined R&D and innovation survey needs to reduce the risk of conceptual
confusion by non-R&D-performing units by using two distinct sections and by
placing the innovation section first.
 Separate sections need to be used when combining innovation questions with other
types of questions, such as on ICT or business characteristics. Questions that are
relevant to all units should be placed before questions on innovation.
 A combined R&D and innovation survey can further reduce conceptual problems by
ensuring that the R&D section is only sent to units that are likely to perform R&D.
 To avoid a decline in response rates, the length of a combined survey should be comparable
to the summed length of the separate surveys, particularly for voluntary surveys.

 Care should be taken in comparisons of innovation results from combined surveys

with the results from separate innovation surveys. Full details on the survey method
should also be reported, including steps to reduce conceptual confusion.
9.71. Therefore, as a general rule, this manual recommends not combining R&D and
innovation surveys because of the drawbacks mentioned earlier, for instance by suggesting
to some respondents that innovation requires R&D. Although untested, it seems at this
point that there could be fewer problems with combining an innovation survey with other
types of surveys, such as surveys on business strategy or business characteristics.
9.3.5. Questionnaire testing

9.72. Innovation surveys undergo regular updates to adapt to known challenges and
address emerging user needs. It is strongly recommended to subject all new questions and
questionnaire layout features to cognitive testing in face-to-face interviews with respondents
drawn from the survey target population.
9.73. Cognitive testing, developed by psychologists and survey researchers, collects
verbal information on survey responses. It is used to evaluate the ability of a question (or
group of questions) to measure constructs as intended by the researcher and if respondents
can provide reasonably accurate responses. The evidence collected through cognitive
interviews is used to improve questions before sending the survey questionnaire to the full
sample (Galindo-Rueda and Van Cruysen, 2016). Cognitive testing is not required for
questions and layout features that have previously undergone testing, unless they were
tested in a different language or country. Descriptions of the cognitive testing method are
provided by Willis (2015, 2005).
9.74. Respondents do not need to be selected randomly for cognitive testing, but a
minimum of two respondents should be drawn from each possible combination of the
following three subgroups of the target population: non-innovative and innovative units,
service and manufacturing units, and units from two size classes: small/medium (10 to 249
employees) and large (250+ employees). This results in 16 respondents in total. Two (or
more) rounds of cognitive testing may be required, with the second round testing revisions
to questions made after the first round of testing.
9.75. In addition to cognitive testing, a pilot survey of a randomly drawn sample from the
target population is recommended when substantial changes are made to a questionnaire,
such as the addition of a large number of new questions, or new questions combined with
a major revision to the layout of the questionnaire. Pilot surveys can help optimise the flow
of the questions in the questionnaire and provide useful information on item non-response
rates, logical inconsistencies, and the variance of specific variables, which is useful for
deciding on sample sizes (see also subsection 9.4.2 below).
9.4. Sampling
9.4.1. The survey frame

9.76. The units in a survey sample or census are drawn from the frame population. When
preparing a survey, the intended target population (for instance all enterprises with ten or more
employed persons) and the frame population should be as close as possible. In practice, the
frame population can differ from the target population. The frame population (such as a
business register) could include units that no longer exist or no longer belong to the target
population, and miss units that belong to the target population due to delays in updating the
register. The latter can fail to identify small firms with rapid employment growth.

9.77. The frame population should be based on the reference year of the innovation
survey. Changes to units during the reference period can affect the frame population,
including changes in industrial classifications (ISIC codes), new units created during the
period, mergers, splits of units, and units that ceased activities during the reference year.
9.78. NSOs generally draw on an up-to-date official business register, established for
statistical purposes, to construct the sample frame. Other organisations interested in conducting
innovation surveys may not have access to this business register. The alternative is to use
privately maintained business registers, but these are often less up to date than the official
business register and can therefore contain errors in the assigned ISIC industry and number
of employed persons. The representativeness of private registers can also be reduced if the
data depend on firms responding to a questionnaire, or if the register does not collect data
for some industries. When an official business register is not used to construct the sampling
frame, survey questionnaires should always include questions to verify the size and sector
of the responding unit. Units that do not meet the requirements for the sample should be
excluded during data editing.
9.4.2. Census versus sample

9.79. While a census will generate more precise data than a sample, it is generally neither
possible nor desirable to sample the entire target population, and a well-designed sample is
often more efficient than a census for data collection. Samples should always use probability
sampling (with known probabilities) to select the units to be surveyed.
9.80. A census may be needed due to legal requirements or when the frame population
in a sampling stratum is small. In small countries or in specific sectors, adequate sampling
can produce sample sizes for some strata that are close in size to the frame population. In
this case using a census for the strata will provide better results at little additional cost. A
census can also be used for strata of high policy relevance, such as for large units responsible
for a large majority of a country’s R&D expenditures or for priority industries. A common
approach is to sample SMEs and use a census for large firms.
Stratified sampling
9.81. A simple random sample (one sampling fraction for all sampled units of a target
population) is an inefficient method of estimating the value of a variable within a desired
confidence level for all strata because a large sample will be necessary to provide sufficient
sampling power for strata with only a few units or where variables of interest are less
prevalent. It is therefore more efficient to use different sampling fractions for strata that are
determined by unit size and economic activity.
9.82. The optimal sample size for stratified sample surveys depends on the desired level
of precision in the estimates and the extent to which individual variables will be combined
in tabulated results. The sample size should also be adjusted to reflect the expected survey
non-response rate, the expected misclassification rate for units, and other deficiencies in
the survey frame used for sampling.
9.83. The target sample size can be calculated using a target precision or confidence level
and data on the number of units, the size of the units and the variability of the main variables
of interest for the stratum. The variance of each variable can be estimated from previous
surveys or, for new variables, from the results of a pilot survey. In general, the necessary
sample fraction will decrease with the number of units in the population, increase with the
size of the units and the variability of the population value, and increase with the expected
non-response rate.

9.84. It is recommended to use higher sampling fractions for heterogeneous strata (high
variability in variables of interest) and for smaller ones. The sampling fractions should be
100% in strata with only a few units, for instance when there are only a few large units in
an industry or region. The size of the units could also be taken into consideration by using
the probability proportional to size (pps) sampling approach, which reduces the sampling
fractions in strata with smaller units. Alternatively, the units in each stratum can be sorted
by size or turnover and sampled systematically. Different sampling methods can be used
for different strata.
9.85. Stratification of the population should produce strata that are as homogeneous as
possible in terms of innovation activities. Given that the innovation activities of units differ
substantially by industry and unit size, it is recommended to use principal economic activity
and size to construct strata. In addition, stratification by region can be required to meet
policy needs. The potential need for age-based strata should also be explored.
9.86. The recommended size strata by persons employed are as follows:
 small units: 10 to 49
 medium units: 50 to 249
 large units: 250+.
9.87. Depending on national characteristics, strata for units with less than 10, and 500 or
more persons employed can also be constructed, but international comparability requires
the ability to accurately replicate the above three size strata.
9.88. The stratification of units by main economic activity should be based on the most
recent ISIC or nationally equivalent industrial classifications. The optimal classification level
(section, division, group or class) largely depends on national circumstances that influence the
degree of precision required for reporting. For example, an economy specialised in wood
production would benefit from a separate stratum for this activity (division 16 of section
C, ISIC Rev.4), whereas a country where policy is targeting tourism for growth might
create separate strata for division 55 (Accommodation) of section I, for division 56 (Food
services) of section I, and for section R (Arts, entertainment and recreation). Sampling strata
should not be over-aggregated because this reduces homogeneity within each stratum.
Domains (sub-populations of high interest)

9.89. Subsets of the target population can be of special interest to data users, or users may
need detailed information at industry or regional levels. These subsets are called domains
(or sub-populations). To get representative results, each domain must be a subset of the
sampling strata. The most frequent approach is to use a high sampling fraction to produce
reliable results for the domains. Additionally, establishing domains can allow for the co-
ordination of different business surveys, as well as for comparisons over time between units
with similar characteristics. Potential sub-populations for consideration include industry
groupings, size classes, the region where the unit is located (state, province, local government
area, municipality, metropolitan area etc.), R&D-performing units, and enterprise age.
Stratification by age can be useful for research on young, innovative enterprises.
9.90. Relevant preliminary data on domains can be acquired outside of representative
surveys run by NSOs, for instance by academics, consultancies or other organisations using
surveys or other methods described in the introduction. Academic surveys of start-ups or
other domains can produce good results or useful experiments in data collection, as long as
they follow good practice research methods.

9.4.3. Longitudinal panel data and cross-sectional surveys

9.91. As previously noted, innovation surveys are commonly based on repeated cross-
sections, where a new random sample is drawn from a given population for each innovation
survey. Cross-sectional innovation surveys can be designed in the form of a longitudinal
panel that samples a subset of units over two or more iterations of the survey, using a core
set of identical questions. Non-core questions can differ over consecutive surveys.
9.92. Longitudinal panel data allow research on changes in innovation activities at the
microeconomic level over time and facilitate research aimed at inferring causal relationships
between innovation activities and economic outcomes, such as the share of sales due to
innovation (see Chapter 8), by incorporating the time lag between innovation and its outcomes.
9.93. A number of procedures should be carefully followed when constructing a panel survey:
 Panel units should be integrated within the full-scale cross-sectional survey in order
to reduce response burden, maintain an acceptable level of consistency between the
results from the two surveys, and collect good quality cross-sectional data for
constructing indicators. A panel does not replace the need for a cross-sectional survey.
 Analysis should ensure that the inclusion of results from the panel does not bias or
otherwise distort the results of the main cross-sectional survey.
 Panel samples need to be updated on a regular basis to adjust for new entries as
well as panel mortality (closure of units, units moving out of the target population)
and respondent fatigue. Sample updating should follow the same stratification
procedure as the original panel sample.
9.5. Data collection methods
9.94. Four main methods can be used to conduct surveys: online, postal, computer-
assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), and computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI
or face-to-face interviewing). Online and postal surveys rely on the respondent reading the
questionnaire, with a visual interface that is influenced by the questionnaire layout. CATI
and face-to-face surveys are aural, with the questions read out to the respondent, although
a face-to-face interviewer can provide printed questions to a respondent if needed.
9.95. The last decade has seen a shift from postal to online surveys in many countries.
Most countries that use an online format as their primary survey method also provide a
printed questionnaire as an alternative, offered either as a downloadable file (via a link in
an e-mail or on the survey site) or via the post.
9.96. The choice of which survey method to use depends on costs and potential differences
in response rates and data quality. Recent experimental research has found few significant
differences in either the quality of responses or in response rates, between printed and
online surveys (Saunders, 2012). However, this research has mostly focused on households
and has rarely evaluated surveys of business managers. Research on different survey
methods, particularly in comparison to online formats, is almost entirely based on surveys
of university students or participants in commercial web panels. It would therefore be
helpful to have more research on the effects of different methods for business surveys.
9.5.1. Postal surveys

9.97. For postal surveys, a printed questionnaire is mailed to respondents along with a
self-addressed postage paid envelope which they can use to return the survey. A best

practice protocol consists of posting a cover letter and a printed copy of the questionnaire
to the respondent, followed by two or three mailed follow-up reminders to non-respondents
and telephone reminders if needed.
9.98. Postal surveys make it easy for respondents to quickly view the entire questionnaire
to assess its length, question topics, and its relevance. If necessary, a printed questionnaire
can be easily shared among more than one respondent, for instance if a separate person
from accounting is required to complete the section on innovation expenditures (see section
9.6 below on multiple respondents). A printed questionnaire with filter questions requires
that respondents carefully follow instructions on which question to answer next.
9.5.2. Online surveys

9.99. The best practice protocol for an online survey is to provide an introductory letter
by post that explains the purpose of the survey, followed by an e-mail with a clickable link
to the survey. Access should require a secure identifier and password and use up-to-date
security methods. Follow-up consists of two or three e-mailed or posted reminders to non-
respondents, plus telephone reminders if needed.
9.100. Online questionnaires can be shared, if necessary, among several respondents if the
initial respondent provides the username and password to others (see section 9.6).
9.101. Online surveys have several advantages over postal surveys in terms of data quality
and costs:
 The software can notify respondents through a pop-up box if a question is not
completed or contains an error, for instance if a value exceeds the expected maximum
or if percentages exceed 100%. With a postal survey, respondents need to be contacted
by telephone to correct errors, which may not occur until several weeks after the
respondent completed the questionnaire. Due to the cost of follow-up, missing values
in a postal survey are often corrected post-survey through imputation.
 Pop-up text boxes, placed adjacent to the relevant question, can be used to add
additional information, although respondents rarely use this feature.
 Respondents cannot see all questions in an online survey and consequently are less
likely than respondents to a printed questionnaire to use a “no” response option
to avoid answering follow-on questions. An online survey can therefore reduce
false negatives.
 Survey costs are reduced compared to other survey methods because there is less
need to contact respondents to correct some types of errors, data are automatically
entered into a data file, data editing requirements are lower than in other methods,
and there are reduced mailing and printing costs.
9.102. The main disadvantage of an online survey compared to other survey methods is
that some respondents may be unable to or refuse to complete an online form. In this case
an alternative survey method is required (see subsection 9.5.4 below). The online system
may also need to be designed so that different persons within a unit can reply to different
sections of the survey.
Collecting paradata in online surveys

9.103. Online survey software offers the ability to collect paradata on keystrokes and
mouse clicks (for instance to determine if help menus have been accessed) and response

time data, such as the time required to respond to specific questions, sections, or to the
entire survey (Olson and Parkhurst, 2013). Paradata can be analysed to identify best
practices that minimise undesirable respondent behaviour such as premature termination or
satisficing, questions that are difficult for respondents to understand (for instance if
question response times are considerably longer than the average for a question of similar
type), and if late respondents are more likely than early ones to speed through a
questionnaire, thereby reducing data quality (Belfo and Sousa, 2011; Fan and Yan, 2010;
Revilla and Ochoa, 2015).
9.104. It is recommended to collect paradata when using online surveys in order to
identify issues with question design and questionnaire layout.
9.5.3. Telephone and face-to-face interviews

9.105. Telephone and face-to-face surveys use computer-assisted data capture systems.
Both methods require questions to be heard, which can require changes to question formats
compared to visual survey methods. Interviewers must be trained in interview techniques
and how to answer questions from the respondent, so that the respondent’s answers are not
biased through interactions with the interviewer. For both formats, filters are automatic and
the respondent does not hear skipped questions, although interviewers can probe for
additional information to ensure that a “no” or “yes” response is accurate.
9.106. The CATI method has a speed advantage compared to other methods, with results
obtainable in a few weeks. Both CATI and CAPI can reduce errors and missing values, as
with online surveys. Their main disadvantage, compared to an online survey, is higher costs
due to the need for trained interviewers. Secondly, compared to both online and postal
surveys, CATI and CAPI methods are unsuited for collecting quantitative data that require
the respondent to search records for the answer.
9.107. The main reason for using the CAPI format is to obtain high response rates. This
can occur in cultures where face-to-face interviews are necessary to show respect to the
respondent and in areas where online or postal surveys are unreliable.
9.5.4. Combined survey methods

9.108. The use of more than one survey method can significantly increase response rates
(Millar and Dillman, 2011). Where possible, surveys should combine complementary
survey methods that are either visual (printed or on line) or aural (CATI or face-to-face)
because of differences by survey methods in how respondents reply to questions. Telephone
surveys can also elicit higher scores than online or mailed surveys on socially desirable
questions (Zhang et al., 2017). As innovation is considered socially desirable, this could
result in higher rates of innovation reported to CATI surveys compared to printed or online
surveys. Possible survey method effects should be assessed when compiling indicators and
comparing results across countries that use different survey methods.
9.6. Survey protocol
9.109. The survey protocol consists of all activities to implement the questionnaire,
including contacting respondents, obtaining completed questionnaires, and following up
with non-respondents. The protocol should be decided in advance and designed to ensure
that all respondents have an equal chance of replying to the questionnaire, since the goal is
to maximise the response rate. Nonetheless, the optimum survey protocol is likely to vary
by country.

9.6.1. Respondent identification

9.110. Choosing a suitable respondent (or department within a large firm) is particularly
important in innovation surveys because the questions are specialised and can be answered
by only a few people, who are rarely the same as the person who completes other statistical
questionnaires. In small units, managing directors are often good respondents. As much as
possible, knowledgeable respondents should be selected to minimise the physical or virtual
“travel” of a questionnaire to multiple people within a firm. Travel increases the probability
that the questionnaire is lost, misplaced or that no one takes responsibility for its completion.
In large units where no single individual is likely to be able to respond to all questions,
some travel will be inevitable. However, a single, identified contact person or department
should be responsible for co-ordinating questionnaire completion.
9.6.2. Support for respondents

9.111. Innovation surveys contain terms and questions that some respondents may not
fully understand. Survey managers need to train personnel to answer potential questions
and provide them with a list of basic definitions and explanations of questions.
9.6.3. Mandatory and voluntary surveys

9.112. Completion of innovation surveys can be either voluntary or mandatory, with
varying degrees of enforcement. Higher non-response rates are expected for voluntary
surveys and are likely to increase with questionnaire length. Sampling fractions can be
increased to account for expected non-response rates, but this will not solve potential bias
due to differences in the characteristics of non-respondent and respondent units that are
correlated with survey questions. Reducing bias requires maximising response rates and
representativeness (see below).
9.113. Whether a survey is voluntary or mandatory can also affect results. For example,
the calculated share of innovative firms in a voluntary survey will be biased upwards if
managers from non-innovative firms are less likely to respond than the managers of
innovative firms (Wilhelmsen, 2012).
9.6.4. Non-response
9.114. Unit non-response occurs when a sampled unit does not reply at all. This can occur
if the surveying institute cannot reach the reporting unit or if the reporting unit refuses to
answer. Item non-response refers to the response rate to a specific question and is equal to
the percentage of missing answers among the responding units. Item non-response rates are
frequently higher for quantitative questions than for questions using nominal or ordinal
response categories.
9.115. Unit and item non-response are only minor issues if missing responses are randomly
distributed over all units sampled and over all questions. When unit non-responses are
random, statistical power can be maintained by increasing the sampling fraction. When
item non-responses are random, simple weighting methods can be used to estimate the
population value of a variable. However, both types of non-response can be subject to bias.
For example, managers from non-innovative units could be less likely to reply because they
find the questionnaire of little relevance, resulting in an overestimate of the share of innovative
units in the population. Or, managers of innovative units could be less likely to reply due
to time constraints.

Improving response rates

9.116. Achieving high response rates, particularly in voluntary surveys, can be supported
by good question and questionnaire design (see section 9.3) as well as good survey
protocols. Two aspects of the survey protocol can have a large positive effect on response rates:
(i) good follow-up with multiple reminders to non-respondents; and (ii) the personalisation
of all contacts, such as using the respondent’s name and changing the wording of reminder
e-mails. Personalisation includes sending a first contact letter by post, which can significantly
increase response rates in comparison to a first contact via e-mail (Dykema et al., 2013).
Clearly communicating the purpose and use of the survey data is critical for generating
trust and participation. Participation can be further enhanced if managers anticipate direct
benefits for their business from providing truthful and carefully thought-out answers.
Managing low unit response rates

9.117. There are no clear boundaries for high, moderate and low unit response rates. The
rule of thumb is that high response rates exceed 70% or 80%, moderate response rates are
between 50% and 70% or 80%, and low response rates are below 50%.
9.118. Unless the response rate is very high (above 95%), differences between respondents
and non-respondents should be compared using stratification variables such as unit size or
industry. If the response rate is high and there are no significant differences by stratification
variables, population weighting can be calculated on the basis of the units that replied. This
procedure assumes that the innovation behaviour of responding and non-responding units
conditional on these characteristics is identical. Challenges can arise when behaviour is
very heterogeneous within strata (e.g. between large and very large firms).
9.119. If the response rate is moderate or low, it is recommended to conduct a non-
response survey (see subsection 9.6.5 below).
9.120. If the unit response rate is very low (below 20%), a non-response survey may be
insufficient for correcting for potential bias, unless it is of very high quality and covers a
large share of non-responding units. The data can be analysed to determine if response rates
are acceptable in some strata and to conduct a non-response survey for those strata. Otherwise,
the results should not be used to estimate the characteristics of the target population because
of the high possibility of biased results. It is possible to use the data to investigate patterns in
how variables are correlated, as long as the results are not generalised to the target population.
9.6.5. Conducting non-response surveys

9.121. Many NSOs have their own regulations for when a non-response survey is
necessary. Otherwise, a non-response survey is recommended when the unit non-response
rate in a stratum exceeds 30%. The non-response survey should sample a minimum of 10%
of non-respondents (more for small surveys or for strata with a low population count).
9.122. The objective of the non-response survey is to identify significant differences between
responding and non-responding units in innovation activities. To improve future surveys,
it is possible to obtain information on why non-respondent units did not answer. In the ideal
case, the unit response rate for the non-response survey is sufficiently high and replies are
sufficiently reliable to be useful for adjusting population weightings. However, survey method
effects in the non-response survey (different survey methods or questionnaires compared
to the main survey) should also be considered when adjusting population weights.

9.123. The non-response survey questionnaire must be short (no more than one printed
page) and take no more than two to three minutes to complete. The key questions should
replicate, word for word, “yes or no” questions in the main survey on innovation outputs
(product innovations and business process innovations) and for some of the innovation
activities (for instance R&D, engineering, design and other creative work activities, etc.).
If not available from other sources, the non-response survey needs to include questions on
the unit’s economic activity and size.
9.124. Non-response surveys are usually conducted by CATI, which provides the
advantage of speed and can obtain high response rates for a short questionnaire, as long as
all firms in the sample have a working contact telephone number. The disadvantage of a
CATI survey as a follow-up to a postal or online survey is that short telephone surveys in
some countries could be more likely than the original survey to elicit positive responses for
questions on innovation activities and outputs. The experience in this regard has been
mixed, with different countries obtaining different results. More experimental research on
the comparability of business survey methods is recommended.
9.7. Post-survey data processing
9.125. Data processing involves checks for errors, imputation of missing values and the
calculation of weighting coefficients.
9.7.1. Error checks

9.126. As noted in subsections 9.5.2 and 9.5.3 above, the use of online, CATI and CAPI
survey methods can automatically identify potential errors and request a correction from
respondents. All of the following types of error checks are required for printed questionnaires,
but only the check for out of scope units might be required for an online survey. When
errors are identified, the respondent or reporting unit should be contacted as soon as
possible to request a correction.
Out of scope units

9.127. Responses can be obtained from out of scope units that do not belong to the target
population, such as a unit that is below the minimum number of persons employed, a unit
that is not owned by a business, or a unit in an excluded ISIC category. Responses from
these units must be excluded from further analysis.
Data validation checks

9.128. These procedures test whether answers are permissible. For example, a permissible
value for a percentage is between 0 and 100.
9.129. An additional check for data quality should be applied to ratio and interval level
data, particularly for innovation expenditures. Current best practice is to compare interval
level data against other available sources (for instance for R&D expenditures and for
expenditures on capital equipment). In addition, estimates of the innovation sales share and
other interval level data should be checked for outliers or other unexpected values. These
methods are particularly important for large units that account for a high share of total
reported R&D and innovation expenditures.

Relational checks
9.130. These evaluate the relationship between two variables and can identify hard and
soft errors. Hard errors occur when a relationship must be wrong, for instance if percentages
do not sum to 100% or if the number of reported persons employed with a tertiary education
exceeds the total reported number of persons employed. Other relational checks identify
soft errors where a response could be wrong. For instance, a unit with ten persons employed
could report EUR 10 million of innovation expenditures. This is possible, but unlikely.
Routing error checks

9.131. These checks test whether all questions that should have been answered have been
answered, i.e. respondents from innovation-active units answered all questions on
innovation expenditures. An error indicates that the respondent did not understand or
follow the filtering instructions.
9.7.2. Imputation of missing data

9.132. Another type of error is when a respondent fails to answer a question, for instance
several sub-questions in a grid question are left blank, either intentionally or accidentally.
Respondents can also refuse to answer a question if they find that none of the response
categories are appropriate or if they don’t know the answer and a “don’t know” option is
not provided. Online survey software can force the respondent to reply, but this is not
recommended for voluntary surveys because it may cause the respondent to abandon
the questionnaire.
9.133. To reduce costs and response burden, missing values can in some cases be imputed
through the use of additional information, instead of re-contacting the respondent. The use
of additional information should provide a more accurate estimate of missing values than
simply using the mean observed value in a stratum. Imputed values should always be
flagged to prevent their possible use as dependent values in multivariate analyses to avoid
biased coefficients.
9.134. Cold-deck imputation techniques estimate missing values using data in other
statistical surveys (including previous surveys) or from other related sources. For instance,
data on the number of employees with a tertiary education could be available in a separate
survey for similar types of units.
9.135. Hot-deck imputation uses other data from the innovation survey to impute some
missing values. The choice of which hot-deck method to use depends on the measurement
level for the variable. Interval level data can be imputed either by using the mean value of
the variable in the responding unit’s stratum, or by using regression to predict the value of
the interval level variable. In the latter case, the results need to be checked to identify non-
credible estimated values, such as negative values.
9.136. Nearest-neighbour techniques can be used to impute missing nominal and ordinal
level values. This technique uses data from clean records (a donor case with a record not
violating any error check), in order to replace the missing value with the value in the donor
record. The donors are chosen on the basis of similar stratification variables and for
maximum comparability on related variables. For example, the donor for a missing ordinal
variable on collaboration partners should be as similar as possible for related variables on
information sources.

9.7.3. Calculating weights

9.137. The results of sample surveys need to be weighted to provide estimates that are
representative of the target population. There are various methods for weighting sampling
results. The simplest is weighting by the reciprocal (inverse) of the sampling fractions of
the stratum for each sampled unit, corrected by the unit non-response for each stratum,
which gives the realised sample. For instance, if the sampling fraction is 10/100, but 10%
of the sampled units did not respond, the corrected sampling fraction is 9/100. This procedure
assumes that the distribution of innovation activities among responding and non-responding
units is identical. This assumption can be tested through a non-response analysis, and even
if the assumption is wrong, the bias introduced can be disregarded if the fraction of non-
responding units is fairly small.
9.138. Not all sample surveys use stratification – a census by definition is not stratified.
For a non-stratified survey, weighting should use the reciprocal of the overall sampling
fraction, adjusted for the reciprocal of the total response rate. For a census, strata can be
constructed post-survey to identify non-response rates in strata defined by firm size, sector,
region etc. Census weighting variables can be constructed from the reciprocal of the strata
response rates.
9.139. The final weighting factors should be further corrected if a non-response survey
identifies statistically significant differences between the original survey respondents and
the respondents to the non-response survey, for instance if a lower percentage of non-
innovative units replied to the full survey compared to the non-respondent survey. One
approach is to divide each stratum into a number of response homogeneity groups (RHGs)
with (assumed) equal response probabilities within groups. RHGs can be determined using
the results of the non-response survey. A second approach is to use auxiliary information
at the estimation stage for reducing the non-response bias or two-phase sampling estimation
methods. In the latter case, the sample is split by the phenomenon for which a likely non-
response bias has been investigated (e.g. innovative versus non-innovative firms) and weighting
factors are calculated separately for each group. In a second step, weighting factors are
adjusted by a non-response correction factor that represents the bias between responding
and non-responding firms with respect to the investigated phenomenon.
9.140. The weights can be further refined by calibration if the frame population includes
some quantitative or qualitative information on all units, such as number of employees,
turnover, legal status or region. The calibration ensures that the weighted sample sums to
the total population or distribution for the frame variables and can increase precision and
reduce bias. Effective calibration software, in particular CLAN from Statistics Sweden,
CALMAR from the French National Statistical Insitute (INSEE) in France, and G-Est from
Statistics Canada, are available for use by other countries. Many of the software packages
used for calculating weights can also calculate measures of sampling variability.
9.8. Publication and dissemination of results
9.141. Innovation surveys are used to produce tables of innovation statistics and indicators
and in econometric analyses of a variety of topics concerning innovation. The production
of statistics and indicators requires using population weights to produce representative
results for the target population. Most innovation surveys use a probability sample for many
strata. Surveys can create two types of errors for indicators: random errors due to the
random process used to select the units, and systematic errors containing all non-random
errors (bias). The probability of random errors should be provided with the results by

including the confidence intervals, standard errors and coefficients of variation where
applicable. Confidence limits span the true but unknown values in the survey population
with a given probability. If possible, data quality reports should also provide an evaluation
of non-random errors.
9.8.1. Metadata and quality reports

9.142. The presentation of statistics and indicators should contain metadata, including
information on the procedure used to collect data, sampling methods, procedures for
dealing with non-response, and quality indicators. This will allow users to better interpret
the data and judge its quality. International organisations should continue to provide
detailed information about the common and idiosyncratic methodologies adopted by countries
covered in their databases and reports.
9.8.2. Data access

9.143. Descriptive data can be provided through press releases, tables, databases and
reports. Econometric analysis of innovation survey data is of considerable value to policy
development (see section 11.5), but this is not the main task of NSOs. In-house econometric
analyses by NSOs can be supplemented at low cost by providing researchers with access
to innovation survey microdata. This requires maintaining confidentiality, either through the
provision of a safe centre for data access by external academics or through the construction
of anonymised data sets.
References
Barge, S. and H. Gehlbach (2012), “Using the theory of satisficing to evaluate the quality of survey
data”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 53/2, pp. 182-200.
Belfo, F.P. and R.D. Sousa (2011), “A web survey implementation framework: evidence-based design
practices”, conference paper for the 6th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems,
MCIS 2011, Limassol, 3-5 September, http://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2011/43/.
Cirera, X. and S. Muzi (2016), “Measuring firm-level innovation using short questionnaires: Evidence
from an experiment”, Policy Research Working Papers, No. 7696, World Bank Group.
Couper, M.P. et al. (2013), “The design of grids in web surveys”, Social Science Computer Review,
Vol. 31/3, pp. 322-345.
Downes-Le Guin, T. et al. (2012), “Myths and realities of respondent engagement in online surveys”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 54/5, pp. 613-633.
Dykema, J. et al. (2013), “Effects of e-mailed versus mailed invitations and incentives on response rates,
data quality, and costs in a web survey of university faculty”, Social Science Computer Review,
Vol. 31/3, pp. 359-370.
EC et al. (2009), System of National Accounts 2008, United Nations, New York,
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/sna2008.pdf.
Fan, W. and Z. Yan (2010), “Factors affecting response rates of a web survey: A systematic review”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26/2, pp. 132-139.
Galesic, M. and M. Bosnjak (2009), “Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of
response quality in a web survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 73/2, pp. 349-360.

Galindo-Rueda, F. and A. Van Cruysen (2016), “Testing innovation survey concepts, definitions and
questions: Findings from cognitive interviews with business managers”, OECD Science, Technology
and Innovation Technical Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://oe.cd/innocognitive.
Harkness, J.A. et al. (eds.) (2010), Survey Methods in Multicultural, Multinational, and Multiregional
Contexts, Wiley Series in Survey Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Harris, R.I.D. (1988), “Technological change and regional development in the UK: Evidence from the
SPRU database on innovations”, Regional Studies, Vol. 22/5, pp. 361-374.
Hoskens, M. et al. (2016), “State of the art insights in capturing, measuring and reporting firm-level
innovation indicators”, paper for the OECD Blue Sky 2016 Forum, www.oecd.org/sti/069%20-
%20Measuring%20innovation_ECOOM%20August%202016.pdf.
Kleinknecht, A., J.O.N. Reijnen and W. Smits (1993), “Collecting literature-based innovation output
indicators: The experience in the Netherlands”, in New Concepts in Innovation Output Measurement,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 42-84.
Millar, M.M. and D.A. Dillman (2011), “Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys”, Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 75/2, pp. 249-269, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr003.
OECD (2015a), Recommendation of the OECD Council on Good Statistical Practice, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/statistics/good-practice-toolkit/Brochure-Good-Stat-Practices.pdf.
OECD (2015b), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and
Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://oe.cd/frascati.
Olson, K, and B. Parkhurst (2013), “Collecting paradata for measurement error evaluations”, in
Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, pp. 43-72.
Revilla, M. and C. Ochoa (2015), “What are the links in a web survey among response time, quality and
auto-evaluation of the efforts done?”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 33/1, pp. 97-114,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314531214.
Saunders, M.N.K. (2012), “Web versus mail: The influence of survey distribution mode on employees’
response”, Field Methods, Vol. 24/1, pp. 56-73.
Snijkers, G. and D.K. Willimack (2011), “The missing link: From concepts to questions in economic
surveys”, paper presented at the 2nd European Establishment Statistics Workshop (EESW11),
Neuchâtel, Switzerland, Sept. 12-14.
Snijkers, G. et al. (eds.) (2013), Designing and Conducting Business Surveys, Wiley Series in Survey
Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Tourangeau, R., L.J. Rips and K. Rasinski (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
UN (2008), International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC),
Revision 4, United Nations, New York,
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publications/catalogue?selectID=396.
UN (2007), Statistical Units, United Nations, New York,
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/isdts/docs/StatisticalUnits.pdf.

Wilhelmsen, L. (2012), “A question of context: Assessing the impact of a separate innovation survey and
of response rate on the measurement of innovation activity in Norway”, Documents, No. 51/2012, Statistics
Norway, Oslo, www.ssb.no/a/english/publikasjoner/pdf/doc_201251_en/doc_201251_en.pdf.
Willeboordse, A. (ed.) (1997), Handbook on Design and Implementation of Business Surveys, Eurostat,
Luxembourg, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/statmanuals/files/Handbook%20on%20surveys.pdf.
Willis, G.B. (2015), Analysis of the Cognitive Interview in Questionnaire Design, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Willis, G.B. (2005), Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design, SAGE
Publications.
Zhang, X.C. et al. (2017), “Survey method matters: Online/offline questionnaires and face-to-face or
telephone interviews differ”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 71, pp. 172-180.

CHAPTER 10. THE OBJECT METHOD FOR INNOVATION MEASUREMENT │ 205
Chapter 10. The object method for innovation measurement
This chapter provides guidance on collecting data on innovation from an object-based

perspective. The object-based method collects data on a single, focal, most important
innovation, facilitating information retrieval about enablers, features and outcomes of
business innovations. Although the method can also be applied to unconventional data
sources, this chapter describes how to implement the object approach within subject-based
innovation surveys that cover the full range of innovation activities and innovations of the
firm. Because focal innovations are not representative of the business as a whole, the main
purpose of the object approach is to collect data for analytical and research purposes. The
method can also be used to assess whether innovation is over- or under-reported by
business respondents.

206 │ CHAPTER 10. THE OBJECT METHOD FOR INNOVATION MEASUREMENT
10.1. Introduction
10.1. The object approach to innovation measurement collects data on a single, “focal”
innovation (the object of the study), in contrast to the subject approach, which focuses on
the firm and collects data on all its innovation activities (the subject) (see Chapter 2). The
main purpose of the object approach is not to produce aggregate innovation statistics but to
collect data for analytical and research purposes. The method can also provide useful
information for quality assurance purposes on how respondents interpret questions on
innovation and whether they over-, under- or misreport innovation.
10.2. The object method can identify focal innovations through expert evaluations, or through
announcements of innovations in trade publications (Kleinknecht and Reijnen, 1993; Santarelli
and Piergiovanni, 1996; Townsend, 1981) or online sources (company websites, reports,
investor announcements, etc.). An alternative method of using the object method is to incorporate
the object approach within a subject-based innovation survey. In addition to questions on all
of the firm’s innovation activities, a module of questions can focus on a single innovation.
DeBresson and Murray (1984) were the first to use a version of this method as part of an
innovation survey in Canada. More recently, this approach has been used in business enterprise
surveys, for instance by Statistics Canada and the Japanese Statistical Office, academic
researchers in Australia (O’Brien et al., 2015, 2014) and the United States (Arora, Cohen and
Walsh, 2016), and in surveys of innovation in the Government sector (Arundel et al., 2016).
10.3. The inclusion of the object method within a subject-based innovation survey has
several advantages over the use of experts or announcements to identify focal innovations.
First, it can obtain information on a focal innovation for a representative sample of all
innovative firms, whereas other methods will be prone to self-selection biases. Second, it
can collect data on all types of innovations. Using experts or announcements to identify
innovations will produce a bias towards successful product innovations. Third, it can collect
information on innovations that are new to the firm only, or not sufficiently novel to be
reported on line or in trade journals. It is therefore recommended, where cost-effective, to
collect data on a focal innovation through representative surveys.
10.2. Including an “object module” in an innovation survey

10.4. In the survey context, there are several advantages of collecting data on a focal
innovation in addition to data on all of the innovation activities of a firm. First, the inclusion
of an object method module in an innovation survey can support the use of in-depth,
quantitative and interval level questions that are too difficult for respondents to answer for
all their innovations combined, for instance questions that require respondents to calculate
the average importance of a variable across multiple innovations or innovation activities.
Potentially difficult questions include expenditures on different innovation activities and
the use of specific technical capabilities. Other difficult questions are those that require
respondents to construct an “average” representation across the entire firm, such as
questions on the importance of different knowledge sources, obstacles and outcomes.
10.5. Second, the use of questions on a single focal innovation ensures that the set of data
collected refer to the same innovation. This is primarily an advantage for analyses on the
relationships between innovation inputs, activities and outcomes, as in the research by
Arora, Cohen and Walsh (2016) on the economic value of alternative knowledge sources
for innovation. It can also assist other types of research, such as an evaluation of how
respondents understand innovation survey questions (Arundel, O’Brien and Torugsa, 2013),
and research into blended innovations that span both product and business processes (Bloch
and Bugge, 2016), including changes to business models.

10.6. Nonetheless, it is not recommended to only include object-based questions in an

innovation survey, or to allot a significant percentage of survey questions to an object
module. Many research and policy questions cannot be addressed through questions on a
focal innovation. These include questions that are relevant to the firm as a whole, such as
questions on the firm’s internal capabilities and strategies (see Chapter 5) and external
environment (see Chapter 7), as well as questions that are used to create aggregate indicators
for all innovation activities, such as data on innovation expenditures (see Chapter 4) or the
innovation sales share (see Chapter 8).
10.7. The object method is seldom useful for constructing simple statistics and indicators at
the national or industry level because the answers do not fully reflect the overall innovation
inputs, outputs and outcomes of an economy or industry. Furthermore, the focal innovation
is unlikely to be representative of all of the responding firm’s own innovations or innovation
activities. Data for a firm’s most important innovation should therefore not be used to produce
indicators that require data for all of a firm’s innovations, such as total expenditures for
specific innovation activities, the importance of different types of knowledge sources for
innovation, or the frequency of collaboration with different types of partners.
10.8. Many of the guidelines in this manual for collecting data on innovation at the subject
level can be directly applied to collecting data at the object level. There are no additional
methodological limitations to including an object-based module in a subject-based
innovation survey.
10.2.1. Identifying a focal innovation within surveys

10.9. An object module must include an initial prompt that asks respondents from
innovative firms to think of a single innovation and limit all subsequent questions in the
module to this innovation. Respondents from firms that are innovation-active, but with no
innovations in the observation period, can be also asked to think about a single innovation
project. As a device to ensure that the responses are focused on the innovation, it is helpful
to ask the respondent, in an open question, to provide a short description of the innovation.
10.10. It is recommended to ask respondents to select a focal innovation that was
introduced or implemented during the observation period. This ensures that other data from
an innovation survey on the general capabilities or strategies of the firm are relevant to the
focal innovation and that data on the focal innovation can be linked to outcome data from
other surveys with a known time lag interval. It also reduces recall biases for innovations
that occurred before the observation period (see Chapter 9). However, respondents should
be permitted in their responses to include activities, where relevant, that occurred before
the start of the observation period, such as collaboration with specific types of partners or
the receipt of government subsidies for the innovation.
10.11. The questionnaire should also provide guidance for the choice of a focal innovation
(or innovation project) to improve comparability between respondents. Possible options include:
 the most important innovation with respect to its actual or expected contributions
to the firm’s economic performance
 the innovation with the highest share of total innovation expenditures invested in
its development
 the product innovation with the greatest actual or expected contribution to sales
 the business process innovation with the greatest actual or expected contribution to
reducing costs
 the most recent innovation.

10.12. The first option has several advantages. The question is usually well understood by
respondents and the innovation is memorable, which ensures that respondents can answer
questions about it. In addition, the most important innovation is relevant to many areas of
research, such as on the factors that lead to success. Leaving the first option open to all
types of innovations can collect useful data on the types of innovations that firms find
important. It can also identify innovation inputs that are likely to be of high value to a firm.
For instance, a respondent could give a moderate importance ranking to universities as a
source of knowledge for all innovation activities, but the use of this source for its most
important innovation would indicate that the value of knowledge from universities could
vary by the type of innovation.
10.13. The second option requires respondents to have a good knowledge of the development
cost for different innovations. The third and fourth options are a variant of the first option,
but limited to either product or business process innovations and therefore will not be
relevant to firms that did not introduce an innovation of that type. The fifth option is useful
for research that requires a random selection of all types of innovations.
10.14. Unless there are good research reasons for using a different option, the first option
is recommended because it is better understood by respondents and is relevant to all firms.
Furthermore, the first option is useful for research into the types of innovations with the
largest expected economic benefits to the firm. These results can be used to construct aggregate
indicators by industry, firm size, or other firm characteristic on the types of innovations
(i.e. product or business process innovations) that respondents find of greatest economic
value to their firm.
10.15. Cognitive testing shows that respondents are able to identify their most important
innovation as defined by its actual or expected contribution to the firm’s economic performance.
For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), there is usually one innovation that stands
out from all others. Respondents from firms with many different innovations (often, but
not always large firms) can find it difficult to identify a single innovation that stands out in
comparison with the rest, but this does not affect their ability to select a single innovation
and answer subsequent questions about it. Respondents from firms with many innovations
are still likely to find it easier to answer questions on a focal innovation than to summarise
results for multiple innovations.
10.16. If resources permit, written information in an open-ended description of the most
important innovation can be coded and analysed to assess how respondents interpret
questions on the types of innovation and the novelty of the innovation (Arundel, O’Brien
and Torugsa, 2013; Cirera and Muzi, 2016; EBRD, 2014). This requires written information
to be coded by experts, but text mining software tools can significantly reduce coding
costs. Textual data on novelty can also be used to estimate if respondents understood the
questionnaire definition of an innovation (Bloch and Bugge, 2016).
10.2.2. Non-innovative firms

10.17. Firms with no innovations or innovation activities cannot be asked about a focal
innovation or a focal innovation project. However, it can be useful to ask respondents from non-
innovative firms to describe their most important change to products or business processes
during the observation period. This information can be analysed to determine whether respondents
correctly report innovations and can distinguish them from changes that are not innovations
(Arundel O’ Brien and Torugsa, 2013). Combined with information on the novelty of reported
innovations, the object approach can help identify potential biases towards under- or over-
reporting innovations of different types by firm characteristics such as size or industry.

10.3. Questions on a focal innovation
10.18. Subject-based innovation surveys that include an object-based module should place
such module after all other innovation questions in order to ensure that respondents do not
confuse questions about all innovation activities with questions limited to a focal innovation.
10.3.1. Characteristics of the focal, most important innovation

10.19. It is recommended to include a list of innovation types (two types of product
innovations and six types of business process innovations) and ask respondents to identify
all innovation types that are part of their focal innovation (see Chapter 3). This can provide
data on the prevalence of “bundled” innovations that have the characteristics of more than one
innovation type (for instance both a service innovation and a business process innovation
for product delivery) and which types of innovations are most important to firms.
10.20. It is recommended to collect information on the comparative importance for the
responding firm of the focal innovation. Useful measures include the share of total innovation
costs spent on the focal innovation and the contribution of the focal innovation to a firm’s
performance outcomes (e.g. sales or profits) (see subsection 10.3.2 below). Outcome questions
will not be relevant to respondents reporting on an innovation project.
10.21. Respondents can be asked several questions on the novelty of their focal innovation,
including if it is new to their market or only new to their firm, if it is part of a new business
model, or if it is a radical or disruptive innovation (see subsection 3.3.2). However, data
collection on radical, disruptive and related types of innovations will require experimentation
to determine if these concepts can be properly measured in an innovation survey.
10.3.2. Innovation activities contributing to the focal innovation

10.22. Cognitive testing shows that respondents find it easier to provide interval level
expenditure data (either in currency units or in person-months) for a single innovation than
for all innovations combined (see Chapter 4). Consequently, it may be possible to obtain
expenditure data for the entire period that the focal innovation was under development,
instead of only for the reference year.
10.23. A question on expenditures for a single innovation can be particularly appropriate
for SMEs or service sector firms that do not organise their innovation activities into clearly
defined projects with a separate accounting budget.
10.24. It may be possible to obtain the following data for the focal innovation:
 the total time, in calendar months, from the initial idea for the focal innovation, to
its introduction or implementation
 the year of introduction for a product innovation or the year of implementation for
a business process innovation
 total expenditures in currency units or person-months on the focal innovation
 total external expenditures by type of activity on the focal innovation (research and
experimental development, training, design, engineering, and other creative work
activities, etc.)
 the use of and expenditures on follow-on activities after the introduction of a
product innovation onto the market. This can include marketing, training, and after-
sales services (see subsection 4.5.3).

10.25. Some of these questions could ask for data on activities before the observation
period, such as the question on calendar months or total expenditures, but this is only likely
to be relevant for major innovations.
10.3.3. Business capabilities contributing to the focal innovation

10.26. Business capabilities related to management or workforce skills are a characteristic
of the firm (see Chapter 5) and generally not limited to a focal innovation. However,
intellectual property (IP) strategies and technological capabilities can vary significantly
among different types of innovations.
10.27. Depending on research interests, it can be worthwhile to ask about the use of
different IP protection methods for the focal innovation, for instance whether a patent,
design, trademark, or other IP right application was made for the focal innovation or if it is
covered by copyright or trade secrecy. In addition, respondents can be asked if they
licensed-in technology for their focal innovation or if the focal innovation was licensed-out
(Arora, Cohen and Walsh, 2016).
10.28. Questions on technical capabilities are appropriate for an object module that can
link capabilities to specific types of innovations. Relevant capabilities include design
capabilities (engineering design, product design, and design thinking), digital capabilities,
and digital platforms (see section 5.5).
10.3.4. Knowledge flows contributing to and generated by the focal innovation

10.29. The types of internal and external knowledge sources of value to innovation
activities can differ between those used to identify an idea for an innovation, to develop
and test an idea, including problem-solving; and to implement business process innovations
or introduce a product innovation onto the market (see section 6.1). Differences in the use
or importance of knowledge sources at different stages of the innovation process can be too
complex for a respondent to track for all innovations, but it may be possible to include
questions on such topics for a single focal innovation. An option is to ask for the knowledge
sources of the original idea for the innovation, and the knowledge sources used to develop
the innovation. These questions can list both internal and external sources (see Table 6.6).
10.30. It is also of interest to collect data on the contribution of external actors to the
development of the focal innovation, such as whether the innovation replicates products or
business processes already available on the market, was developed as part of a collaborative
agreement with other organisations, or was mainly developed by the firm on its own (see
Table 6.2). Further information on collaboration with different types of partners for the
focal innovation can also be of value.
10.3.5. External factors influencing the focal innovation

10.31. The effect of some external factors can vary by the type of innovation
(see Chapter 7). External factors of interest include the type of customer and customer
engagement in a focal product innovation, the use of government support policies and other
external drivers for the focal innovation.
10.32. Questions on innovation obstacles can be applied to the most important innovation
or to a focal ongoing or abandoned innovation project or an innovation that did not meet
expectations. This information can be used to differentiate between the factors that impede
the implementation of an innovation, result in unsatisfactory outcomes, or result in an
innovation project being cancelled or put on hold.

10.3.6. Objectives and outcomes of the focal innovation

10.33. Innovation objectives and outcomes can vary substantially by the type of innovation
and therefore it can be useful to collect this information for a focal innovation. Table 8.1
provides a list of common innovation objectives and outcomes, such as increasing customer
satisfaction or reducing environmental impacts that can be measured on a nominal or
ordinal scale. Data collection for quantitative outcomes is particularly suitable for a focal
innovation because respondents should find it easier, compared to all innovations
combined, to provide data on the innovation sales share in the reference year, the market
share or profit margin for a focal product innovation, or the cost savings for a focal business
process innovation.
10.34. Data on all types of outcomes can also be collected by asking respondents if a
specific outcome of the focal innovation was above, at the same level, or below the outcome
level typically obtained by the firm for other innovations of the same type. For instance,
respondents can be asked about the relative outcome of a focal product innovation on sales
compared to the firm’s other product innovations.
10.35. The factors that influence outcomes can be investigated if data on inputs and
innovation activities are also collected for the focal innovation.
10.4. Summary of recommendations
10.36. The decision to include an object-based module in an innovation survey depends

on the needs of users, particularly policy analysts and researchers, and if there are sufficient
available resources to conduct analyses of the object data, for instance on the effect of
inputs and strategies on outcomes. An object module is not recommended if use of the
relevant data is limited to constructing aggregate indicators. Recommended questions for
an object-based module are given below. Other types of data covered in this chapter are
suitable for specialised data collection exercises.
10.37. Key items for data collection using an object-based module include:
 define the focal innovation as the most important innovation with respect to its
expected contribution to the firm’s economic performance (subsection 10.2.1); or
the most important change for non-innovative firms (subsection 10.2.2), providing
an open-ended description if possible
 the type of innovation (subsection 10.3.1)
 a measure of the novelty of the innovation (subsection 10.3.1) and the sources of
knowledge contributing to the innovation
 the year in which the innovation was introduced on the market or implemented in the
firm’s business processes (subsection 10.3.2). This will be implicit if the observation
period is one year
 the time span between the beginning of the relevant innovation project or activities
and implementation (subsection 10.3.2)
 a measure of the efforts made towards the innovation by the firm, such as the
total expenditure (in currency units or person-months) on the focal innovation
(subsection 10.3.2)

 the contribution of internal and external actors to the development of the focal
innovation, in order to identify potential success factors (subsection 10.3.4)
 an outcome measure such as the innovation sales share for a focal product innovation
or cost savings from a focal business process innovation (subsection 10.3.6).
10.38. Supplementary topics for data collection using an object-based module include:
 use of IP rights for the focal innovation (subsection 10.3.3)
 obstacles to innovation (subsection 10.3.5)
 use of government support policies (subsection 10.3.5).
References
Arora, A., W.M. Cohen and J.P. Walsh (2016), “The acquisition and commercialization of invention in
American manufacturing: Incidence and impact”, Research Policy, Vol. 45/6, pp. 1113-1128.
Arundel, A. et al. (2016), “Management and service innovations in Australian and New Zealand
universities: Preliminary report of descriptive results”, Australian Innovation Research Centre
(University of Tasmania) and LH Martin Institute (University of Melbourne).
Arundel, A., K. O’Brien and A. Torugsa (2013), “How firm managers understand innovation:
Implications for the design of innovation surveys” in Handbook of Innovation Indicators and
Measurement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 88-108.
Bloch, C. and M. Bugge (2016), “Between bricolage and breakthroughs – Framing the many faces of
public sector innovation”, Public Money & Management, Vol. 36/4, pp. 281-288.
Cirera, X. and S. Muzi (2016), “Measuring firm-level innovation using short questionnaires: Evidence
from an experiment”, Policy Research Working Papers, No. 7696, World Bank Group.
DeBresson, C. and B. Murray (1984), “Innovation in Canada – A retrospective survey: 1945-1978”,
Cooperative Research Unit on Science and Technology (CRUST), New Westminster.
EBRD (2014), Transition Report 2014: Innovation in Transition, European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, London.
Kleinknecht, A. and J.O.N. Reijnen (1993), “Towards literature-based innovation output indicators”,
Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 4/1, pp. 199-207.
O’Brien, K. et al. (2015), “New evidence on the frequency, impacts and costs of activities to develop
innovations in Australian businesses: Results from a 2015 pilot study”, report to the Commonwealth,
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Innovation Research Centre (University
of Tasmania), Hobart, www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/772857/AIRC-Pilot-survey-
report-for-DIS_Dec_2015.pdf.
O’Brien K, et al. (2014), “Lessons from high capability innovators: Results from the 2013 Tasmanian
Innovation Census”, Australian Innovation Research Centre (University of Tasmania), Hobart.
Santarelli, E. and R. Piergiovanni (1996), “Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators: The
Italian experience”, Research Policy, Vol. 25/5, pp. 689-711.
Townsend, J. (1981), “Science innovation in Britain since 1945”, SPRU Occasional Paper Series,
No. 16, Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton.

CHAPTER 11. USE OF INNOVATION DATA FOR STATISTICAL INDICATORS AND ANALYSIS │ 213
Chapter 11. Use of innovation data for statistical indicators and analysis
This chapter provides guidance on the use of innovation data for constructing indicators
as well as statistical and econometric analysis. The chapter provides a blueprint for the
production of innovation indicators by thematic areas, drawing on the recommendations
in previous chapters. Although targeted to official organisations and other users of
innovation data, such as policy analysts and academics, the guidance in this chapter
also seeks to promote better understanding among innovation data producers about
how their data are or might be used. The chapter provides suggestions for future
experimentation and the use of innovation data in policy analysis and evaluation. The
ultimate objective is to ensure that innovation data, indicators and analysis provide
useful information for decision makers in government and industry while ensuring that
trust and confidentiality are preserved.

214 │ CHAPTER 11. USE OF INNOVATION DATA FOR STATISTICAL INDICATORS AND ANALYSIS
11.1. Introduction
11.1. Innovation data can be used to construct indicators and for multivariate analysis of
innovation behaviour and performance. Innovation indicators provide statistical information
on innovation activities, innovations, the circumstances under which innovations emerge,
and the consequences of innovations for innovative firms and for the economy. These
indicators are useful for exploratory analysis of innovation activities, for tracking innovation
performance over time and for comparing the innovation performance of countries, regions,
and industries. Multivariate analysis can identify the significance of different factors that
drive innovation decisions, outputs and outcomes. Indicators are more accessible to the
general public and to many policy makers than multivariate analysis and are often used in
media coverage of innovation issues. This can influence public and policy discussions on
innovation and create demand for additional information.
11.2. This chapter provides guidance on the production, use, and limitations of innovation
indicators, both for official organisations and for other users of innovation data, such as
policy analysts and academics who wish to better understand innovation indicators or
produce new indicators themselves. The discussion of multivariate analyses is relevant to
researchers with access to microdata on innovation and to policy analysts. The chapter also
includes suggestions for future experimentation. The ultimate objective is to ensure that
innovation data, indicators and analysis provide useful information for decision makers in
both government and industry, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.
11.3. Most of the discussion in this chapter focuses on data collected through innovation
surveys (see Chapter 9). However, the guidelines and suggestions for indicators and
analysis also apply to data obtained from other sources. For some topics, data from other
sources can substantially improve analysis, such as for research on the effects of innovation
activities on outcomes (see Chapter 8) or the effect of the firm’s external environment on
innovation (see Chapters 6 and 7).
11.4. Section 11.2 below introduces the concepts of statistical data and indicators relating
to business innovation, and discusses desirable properties and the main data resources available.
Section 11.3 covers methodologies for constructing innovation indicators and aggregating
them using dashboards, scoreboards and composite indexes. Section 11.4 presents a blueprint
for the production of innovation indicators by thematic areas, drawing on the recommendations
in previous chapters. Section 11.5 covers multivariate analyses of innovation data, with a
focus on the analysis of innovation outcomes and policy evaluation.
11.2. Data and indicators on business innovation
11.2.1. What are innovation indicators and what are they for?
11.5. An innovation indicator is a statistical summary measure of an innovation phenomenon
(activity, output, expenditure, etc.) observed in a population or a sample thereof for a specified
time or place. Indicators are usually corrected (or standardised) to permit comparisons
across units that differ in size or other characteristics. For example, an aggregate indicator
for national innovation expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)
corrects for the size of different economies (Eurostat, 2014; UNECE, 2000).
11.6. Official statistics are produced by organisations that are part of a national statistical
system (NSS) or by international organisations. An NSS produces official statistics for
government. These statistics are usually compiled within a legal framework and in accordance
with basic principles that ensure minimum professional standards, independence and objectivity.

Organisations that are part of an NSS can also publish unofficial statistics, such as the
results of experimental surveys. Statistics about innovation and related phenomena have
progressively become a core element of the NSS of many countries, even when not compiled
by national statistical organisations (NSOs).
11.7. Innovation indicators can be constructed from multiple data sources, including
some that were not explicitly designed to support the statistical measurement of innovation.
Relevant sources for constructing innovation indicators include innovation and related
surveys, administrative data, trade publications, the Internet, etc. (see Chapter 9). The use
of multiple data sources to construct innovation indicators is likely to increase in the future
due to the growing abundance of data generated or made available on line and through other
digital environments. The increasing ability to automate the collection, codification and
analysis of data is another key factor expanding the possibilities for data sourcing strategies.
11.8. Although increasingly used within companies and for other purposes, indicators of
business innovation, especially those from official sources, are usually designed to inform
policy and societal discussions, for example to monitor progress towards a related policy
target (National Research Council, 2014). Indicators themselves can also influence
business behaviour, including how managers respond to surveys. An evaluation of multiple
innovation indicators, along with other types of information, can assist users in better
understanding a wider range of innovation phenomena.
11.2.2. Desirable properties of innovation indicators

11.9. The desirable properties of innovation indicators include relevance, accuracy,
reliability, timeliness, coherence and accessibility, as summarised in Table 11.1. The
properties of innovation indicators are determined by choices made throughout all phases
of statistical production, especially in the design and implementation of innovation surveys,
which can greatly affect data quality (see Chapter 9). To be useful, indicators must have
multiple quality characteristics (Gault [ed.], 2013). For example, accurate, reliable and accessible
indicators will be of limited relevance if a delay in timeliness means that they are not
considered in policy discussions or decisions.
Table 11.1. Desirable properties of business innovation indicators
Feature Description Comments

Relevance Serve the needs of actual and Innovation involves change, leading to changes in the
potential users needs of data users. Relevance can be reduced if
potential users are unaware of available data or data
producers are unaware of users’ needs.
Accuracy/ validity Provide an unbiased representation There may be systematic differences in how
of innovation phenomena respondents provide information depending on the
collection method or respondent characteristics.
Indicators can fail to capture all relevant phenomena of
interest.
Reliability/precision Results of measurement should be Results can differ by the choice of respondent within a
identical when repeated. High signal- firm. Reliability can decline if respondents guess the
to-noise ratio answer to a question or if sample sizes are too small
(e.g. in some industries).
Timeliness Available on a sufficiently timely Lack of timeliness reduces the value of indicators
basis to be useful for decision- during periods of fast economic change. Timeliness
making can be improved through nowcasting or collecting data
on intentions. However, some aspects of innovation are
structural and change slowly. For these, timeliness is
less of a concern.

Feature Description Comments

Coherence/comparability Logically connected and mutually
consistent
Additive or decomposable at different High levels of aggregation can improve
aggregation levels reliability/precision, but reduce usefulness for policy
analysis. Low levels of aggregation can influence
strategic behaviour and distort measurement.
Decomposable by characteristics For example, by constructing indicators for different
types of firms according to innovations or innovation
activities, etc.
Coherence over time Use of time series data should be promoted. Breaks in
series can sometimes be addressed through backward
revisions if robustly justified and explained.
Coherence across sectors, regions Comparability across regions or countries requires
or countries, including international standardisation to account for differences in size or
comparability industrial structure of economies.
Accessibility and clarity Widely available and easy to Challenges to ensure that the intended audience
understand, with supporting understands the indicators and that they “stir the
metadata and guidance for imagination of the public” (EC, 2010).
interpretation
11.2.3. Recommendations and resources for innovation indicators
Basic principles
11.10. In line with general statistical principles (UN, 2004), business innovation statistics
must be useful and made publicly available on an impartial basis. It is recommended that
NSOs and other agencies that collect innovation data use a consistent schema for presenting
aggregated results and apply this to data obtained from business innovation surveys. The
data should be disaggregated by industry and firm size, as long as confidentiality and quality
requirements are met. These data are the basic building blocks for constructing indicators.
International comparisons
11.11. User interest in benchmarking requires internationally comparable statistics. The
adoption by statistical agencies of the concepts, classifications and methods contained in
this manual will further promote comparability. Country participation in periodical data
reporting exercises to international organisations such as Eurostat, the OECD and the
United Nations can also contribute to building comparable innovation data.
11.12. As discussed in Chapter 9, international comparability of innovation indicators
based on survey data can be reduced by differences in survey design and implementation
(Wilhelmsen, 2012). These include differences between mandatory and voluntary surveys,
survey and questionnaire design, follow-up practices, and the length of the observation period.
Innovation indicators based on other types of data sources are also subject to comparability
problems, for example in terms of coverage and reporting incentives.
11.13. Another factor affecting comparability stems from national differences in innovation
characteristics, such as the average novelty of innovations and the predominant types of
markets served by firms. These contextual differences also call for caution in interpreting
indicator data for multiple countries.
11.14. Some of the issues caused by differences in methodology or innovation characteristics
can be addressed through data analysis. For example, a country with a one-year observation
period can (if available) use panel data to estimate indicators for a three-year period.
Other research has developed “profile” indicators (see subsection 3.6.2) that improve the

comparability of national differences in the novelty of innovations and markets on headline

indicators such as the share of innovative firms (Arundel and Hollanders, 2005).
11.15. Where possible and relevant, it is recommended to develop methods for improving the
international comparability of indicators, in particular for widely used headline indicators.
International resources
11.16. Box 11.1 lists three sources of internationally comparable indicators on innovation
that follow, in whole or in part, Oslo Manual guidelines and are available at the time of
publishing this manual.
Box 11.1. Major resources for international innovation data using Oslo Manual guidelines
Eurostat Community Innovation Survey (CIS) indicator database

Innovation indicators from the CIS for selected member states of the European Statistical System
(ESS): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/science-technology-innovation/data/database.
Ibero-American/Inter-American Network of Science and Technology Indicators (RICYT)

Innovation indicators for manufacturing and service industries for selected Ibero-American countries:
www.ricyt.org/indicadores.
OECD Innovation Statistics Database

Innovation indicators for selected industries for OECD member countries and partner economies,
including countries featured in the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard:
http://oe.cd/inno-stats.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) Innovation Data

Global database of innovation statistics focused on manufacturing industries:
http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/innovation-data.
The NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development) for the African Union is also active in
promoting the use of comparable indicators in Africa. Online links to this manual will provide
up-to-date links to international and national sources of statistical data and indicators on innovation.
11.3. Methodologies for constructing business innovation indicators
11.3.1. Aggregation of statistical indicators

11.17. Table 11.2 summarises different types of descriptive statistics and methods used to
construct indicators. Relevant statistics include measures of central tendency, dispersion,
association, and dimension reduction techniques.
Micro and macro indicators

11.18. Indicators can be constructed from various sources at any level of aggregation equal
to or higher than the statistical unit for which data are collected. For survey and many types
of administrative data, confidentiality restrictions often require indicators to be based on a
sufficient level of aggregation so that users of those indicators cannot identify values for
individual units. Indicators can also be constructed from previously aggregated data.

11.19. Common characteristics for aggregation include the country and region where the
firm is located and characteristics of the firm itself, such as its industry and size (using size
categories such as 10 to 49 persons employed, etc.). Aggregation of business-level data
requires an understanding of the underlying statistical data and the ability to unequivocally
assign a firm to a given category. For example, regional indicators require an ability to
assign or apportion a firm or its activities to a region. Establishment data are easily assigned
to a single region, but enterprises can be active in several regions, requiring spatial
imputation methods to divide activities between regions.
11.20. Indicators at a low level of aggregation can provide detailed information that is of
greater value to policy or understanding than aggregated indicators alone. For example, an
indicator for the share of firms by industry with a product innovation will provide more
useful information than an indicator for all industries combined.
Table 11.2. Descriptive statistics and methods for constructing innovation indicators
Generic examples Innovation examples

Types of indicators
Statistical measures of frequency Counts, conditional counts Counts of product innovators
Measures of position, order or rank Ranking by percentile or quartiles Firms in the top decile of
innovation expenditure distribution
Measures of central tendency Mean, median, mode Share of firms with a service
innovation, median share of income/
turnover from product innovations
Measures of dispersion Interquartile ranges, variance, standard Coefficient of variation presented
deviation, coefficient of variation for error margins, standard
deviation of innovation
expenditures
Indicators of association for multidimensional data
Statistical measures of association Cross-tabulations, correlation/covariance Jaccard measures of co-
occurrence of different innovation
types
Visual association Scatter plots, heat maps and related Heat maps to show propensity to
visuals innovate compared across groups
defined by two dimensions
Adjustments to data for indicators
Indicators based on data Logs, inverse Log of innovation expenditures
transformations
Weighting Weighting of the importance of indicators Indicators weighted by firm size or
when constructing composite indicators, by adjusted for industry structure
major variables etc.
Normalisation Ratios, scaling by size, turnover, etc. Percent of employees that work for an
innovative firm, etc.
Dimension reduction techniques
Simple central tendency methods Average of normalised indicators Composite innovation indexes
Other indicator methods Max or min indicators Firms introducing at least one type
of innovation out of multiple types
Statistical dimension reduction and Principal component analysis, Studies of “modes” of innovation,
classification methods multidimensional scaling, clustering e.g. Frenz and Lambert (2012)
Dimensionality reduction for indicators

11.21. Surveys often collect information on multiple related factors, such as different
knowledge sources, innovation objectives, or types of innovation activities. This can provide
a complex set of data that is difficult to interpret. A common approach is to reduce the
number of variables (dimensionality reduction) while maintaining the information content.

Several statistical procedures ranging from simple addition to factor analysis can be used
for this purpose.
11.22. Many indicators are calculated as averages, sums, or maximum values across a
range of variables (see Table 11.2). These methods are useful for summarising related nominal,
ordinal, or categorical variables that are commonly found in innovation surveys. For example,
a firm that reports at least one type of innovation out of a list of eight innovation types (two
products and six business processes) is defined as an innovative firm. This derived variable
can be used to construct an aggregate indicator for the average share of innovative firms by
industry. This is an example of an indicator where only one positive value out of multiple
variables is required for the indicator to be positive. The opposite is an indicator that is only
positive when a firm gives a positive response to all relevant variables.
11.23. Composite indicators are another method for reducing dimensionality. They combine
multiple indicators into a single index based on an underlying conceptual model (OECD/JRC,
2008). Composite indicators can combine indicators for the same dimension (for instance
total expenditures on different types of innovation activities), or indicators measured along
multiple dimensions (for example indicators of framework conditions, innovation investments,
innovation activities, and innovation impacts).
11.24. The number of dimensions can also be reduced through statistical methods such as
cluster analysis and principal component analysis. Several studies have applied these
techniques to microdata to identify typologies of innovation behaviour and to assess the
extent to which different types of behaviour can predict innovation outcomes (de Jong and
Marsili, 2006; Frenz and Lambert, 2012; OECD, 2013).
11.3.2. Indicator development and presentation for international comparisons

11.25. The selection of innovation indicators reflects a prioritisation of different types of
information about innovation. The ability to construct indicators from microdata creates
greater opportunities for indicator construction, but this is rarely an option for experts or
organisations without access to microdata. The alternative is to construct indicators from
aggregated data, usually at the country, sector, or regional level.
11.26. Reports that use multiple innovation indicators for international comparisons tend
to share a number of common features (Arundel and Hollanders, 2008; Hollanders and
Janz, 2013) such as:
 The selection of specific innovation indicators at a country, sector, or regional level
is usually guided by innovation systems theory.
 The selection is also partly guided by conceptual and face validity considerations,
although this is constrained by data availability.
 Indicators are presented by thematic area, with themes grouped within a hierarchical
structure, such as innovation inputs, capabilities, and outputs.
 Varying levels of contextual and qualitative information for policy making are
provided, as well as methodological information.
11.27. NSS organisations and most international organisations tend to address user requests
for international comparisons through reports or dashboards based on official statistics,
often drawing attention to headline indicators. The advantage of reports and dashboards is
that they provide a fairly objective and detailed overview of the available information. However,
due to the large amount of data presented, it can be difficult to identify the key issues.

Composite innovation indexes, presented in scoreboards that rank the performance of countries
or regions, were developed to address the limitations of dashboards. They are mostly produced
by consultants, research institutes, think tanks and policy institutions that lack access to
microdata, with the composite indexes constructed by aggregating existing indicators.
11.28. Compared to simple indicators used in dashboards, the construction of composite
innovation indexes requires two additional steps:
 The normalisation of multiple indicators, measured on different scales (nominal,
counts, percentages, expenditures, etc.), into a single scale. Normalisation can be
based on standard deviations, the min-max method, or other options.
 The aggregation of normalised indicators into one or more composite indexes. The
aggregation can give an identical weight to all normalised indicators or use different
weights. The weighting determines the relative contribution of each indicator to the
composite index.
11.29. Composite indexes provide a number of advantages as well as challenges over
simple indicators (OECD/JRC, 2008). The main advantages are a reduction in the number of
indicators and simplicity, both of which are desirable attributes that facilitate communication
with a wider user base (i.e. policy makers, media, and citizens). The disadvantages of
composite indexes are as follows:
 With few exceptions, the theoretical basis for a composite index is limited. This
can result in problematic combinations of indicators, such as indicators for inputs
and outputs.
 Only the aggregate covariance structure of underlying indicators can be used to
build the composite index, if used at all.
 The relative importance or weighting of different indicators is often dependent on
the subjective views of those constructing the composite index. Factors that are
minor contributors to innovation can be given as much weight as major ones.
 Aside from basic normalisation, structural differences between countries are seldom
taken into account when calculating composite performance indexes.
 Aggregation results in a loss of detail, which can hide potential weaknesses and
increase the difficulty in identifying remedial action.
11.30. Due to these disadvantages, composite indicators need to be accompanied by
guidance on how to interpret them. Otherwise, they can mislead readers into supporting
simple solutions to complex policy issues.
11.31. The various innovation dashboards, scoreboards and composite indexes that are
currently available change frequently. Box 11.2 provides examples that have been published
on a regular basis.
11.32. The combination of a lack of innovation data for many countries, plus concerns
over the comparability of innovation survey data, has meant that many innovation rankings
rely on widely available indicators that capture only a fraction of innovation activities, such
as R&D expenditures or IP rights registrations, at the expense of other relevant dimensions.

Box 11.2. Examples of innovation scoreboards and innovation indexes
OECD Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Scoreboard

The OECD STI Scoreboard (www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard.htm) is a biennial flagship publication
by the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation. Despite its name, it is closer to
a dashboard. A large number of indicators are provided, including indicators based on innovation
survey data, but no rankings based on composite indexes for innovation themes are included.
Composite indicators are only used for narrowly defined constructs such as scientific publications
or patent quality with weights constructed from auxiliary data related to the construct.
European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)

The EIS is published by the European Commission (EC) and produced by consultants with
inputs from various EC services. It is intended as a performance scoreboard (see:
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_en). The EIS produces a
hierarchical composite index (Summary Innovation Index) that is used to assign countries into
four performance groups (innovation leaders, strong innovators, moderate innovators, modest
innovators). The index uses a range of data sources, including innovation survey indicators. The
European Commission also publishes a related Regional Innovation Scoreboard.
Global Innovation Index (GII)

The Global Innovation Index (www.globalinnovationindex.org) is published by Cornell University,
INSEAD and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The GII is a hierarchical
composite index with input and output dimensions that are related to different aspects of innovation.
The GII aims to cover as many middle- and low-income economies as possible. It uses research
and experimental development (R&D) and education statistics, administrative data such as
intellectual property (IP) statistics and selected World Economic Forum indicators that aggregate
subjective expert opinions about topics such as innovation linkages. The GII does not currently
use indicators derived from innovation surveys.
11.3.3. Firm-level innovation rankings

11.33. A number of research institutes and consultants produce rankings of individual firms
on the basis of selected innovation activities by constructing composite indicators from publicly
available data, such as company annual reports or administrative data provided by companies
subject to specific reporting obligations, for example those listed on a public stock exchange.
Notwithstanding data curation efforts, these data are generally neither complete nor fully
comparable across firms in the broad population. Privately owned firms are not required to report
some types of administrative data while commercially sensitive data on innovation are unlikely
to be included in an annual report unless disclosure supports the strategic interests or public
relations goals of the firm (Hill, 2013). Consequently, there can be a strong self-selection bias
in publicly available innovation data for firms. Furthermore, reported data can be misleading.
For example, creative media content development activities or other technology-related activities
may be reported as R&D without matching the OECD definition of R&D (OECD, 2015).
11.34. Despite these self-selection biases (see Chapter 9), publicly available firm-level
data from annual reports or websites offer opportunities for constructing new experimental
innovation indicators provided that the data meet basic quality requirements for the intended
analytical purposes.

11.4. A blueprint for indicators on business innovation
11.35. This section provides guidelines on the types of innovation indicators that can be
produced by NSOs and other organisations with access to innovation microdata. Many of
these indicators are in widespread use and based on data collected in accordance with
previous editions of this manual. Indicators are also suggested for new types of data discussed
in Chapters 3 to 8. Other types of indicators can be constructed to respond to changes in
user needs or when new data become available.
11.36. Producers of innovation indicators can use answers to the following questions to
guide the construction and presentation of indicators:
 What do users want to know and why? What are the relevant concepts?
 What indicators are most suitable for representing a concept of interest?
 What available data are appropriate for constructing an indicator?
 What do users need to know to interpret an indicator?
11.37. The relevance of a given set of indicators depends on user needs and how the
indicators are used (OECD, 2010). Indicators are useful for identifying differences in
innovation activities across categories of interest, such as industry or firm size, or to track
performance over time. Conversely, indicators should not be used to identify causal relationships,
such as the factors that influence innovation performance. This requires analytical methods,
as described in section 11.5 below.
11.4.1. Choice of innovation indicators

11.38. Chapters 3 to 8 cover thematic areas that can guide the construction of innovation
indicators. The main thematic areas, the relevant chapter in this manual that discusses each
theme, and the main data sources for constructing indicators are summarised in Table 11.3.
Indicators for many of the thematic areas can also be constructed using object-based methods
as discussed in Chapter 10, but these indicators will be limited to specific types of innovations.
Table 11.3. Thematic areas for business innovation indicators
Thematic area Main data sources Relevant OM4

chapters
Incidence of innovations and their characteristics Innovation surveys, administrative or 3
(e.g. type, novelty) commercial data (e.g. product databases)
Innovation activity and investment Innovation surveys, administrative data, IP data 4
(types of activity and resources for each activity) (patents, trademarks, etc.)
Innovation capabilities within firms1 Innovation surveys, administrative data 5
Innovation linkages and knowledge flows Innovation surveys, administrative data, 6
bilateral international statistics (trade, etc.), data
on technology alliances
External influences on innovation (including public Innovation surveys, administrative data, expert 6,7
policies) and framework conditions for business assessments, public opinion polls, etc.
innovation (including knowledge infrastructure)1
Outputs of innovation activities Innovation surveys, administrative data 6,8
Economic and social outcomes of business innovation Innovation surveys, administrative data 8
1. New thematic area for this edition of the manual (OM4).

11.39. Table 11.4 provides a list of proposed indicators for measuring the incidence of
innovation that can be mostly produced using nominal data from innovation surveys, as
discussed in Chapter 3. These indicators describe the innovation status of firms and the
characteristics of their innovations.
Table 11.4. Indicators of innovation incidence and characteristics
General topic Indicator Computation notes

Product innovations Share of firms with one or more types of product Based on a list of product innovation
innovations types. Can be disaggregated by type of
product (good or service)
New-to-market (NTM) Share of firms with one or more NTM product Depending on the purpose, can be
product innovations innovations (can also focus on new-to-world computed as the ratio to all firms or
product innovations) innovative firms only
Method of developing Share of firms with one or more types of product Based on Chapter 6 guidance.
product innovations innovations that developed these innovations Categories for how innovations were
through imitation, adaptation, collaboration, or developed must be mutually exclusive
entirely in-house *Relevant to innovative firms only
Other product innovation Depending on question items, indicators can *Not relevant to all firms
features capture attributes of product innovations
(changes to function, design, experiences etc.)
Business process Share of firms with one or more types of Based on a list of types of business
Innovations business process innovations process innovations. Can be
disaggregated by type of business
process
NTM business process Share of firms with one or more NTM business Depending on the purpose, can be
innovations process innovations computed as the ratio to all firms or
innovative firms only
Method of developing Share of firms with one or more types of Based on Chapter 6. Categories for
business process business process innovations that developed how innovations were developed must
innovations these innovations through imitation, adaptation, be mutually exclusive
collaboration, or entirely in-house *Only relevant to firms with a business
process innovation
Product and business Share of firms with both product and business Co-occurrence of specific types of
process innovations process innovations innovations
Innovative firms Share of firms with at least one innovation of Total number of firms with a product
any type innovation or a business process
innovation
Ongoing/abandoned Share of firms with ongoing innovation activities Can be limited to firms that only had
innovation activities or with activities abandoned or put on hold ongoing/abandoned activities, with no
innovations
Innovation-active firms Share of firms with one or more types of All firms with completed, ongoing or
innovation activities abandoned innovation activities
*Can only be calculated for all firms
Note: All indicators refer to activities within the survey observation period. Indicators for innovation rates can
also be calculated as shares of employment or turnover, for instance the share of total employees that work for
an innovative firm, or the share of total sales earned by innovative firms. Unless otherwise noted with an “*”
before a computation note, all indicators can be computed using all firms, innovation-active firms only, or
innovative firms only as the denominator. See section 3.5 for a definition of firm types.
11.40. Table 11.5 lists proposed indicators of knowledge-based activities as discussed in

Chapter 4. With a few exceptions, most of these indicators can be calculated for all firms,
regardless of their innovation status (see Chapter 3).

Table 11.5. Indicators of knowledge-based capital/innovation activities

Knowledge-based capital Share of firms reporting KBC activities Share of firms reporting at least one KBC activity
(KBC) activities that are potentially related to innovation (Table 4.1, column 2)
*Can only be calculated for all firms
KBC activities for Share of firms reporting KBC activities Share of firms reporting at least one KBC activity
innovation for innovation for innovation (Table 4.1, columns 2 or 3)
Can calculate separately for in-house (column 2)
and external (column 3) investments
Expenditures on KBC Total expenditures on KBC activities Total expenditures on KBC (Table 4.2, column 2)
potentially related to innovation as a share of total turnover (or equivalent)
Expenditures on KBC for Total expenditures on KBC activities for Total expenditures for innovation (Table 4.2,
innovation innovation column 3) as a share of total turnover (or
equivalent)
Innovation expenditure Share of expenditures for innovation for Total expenditures for each innovation activity
share for each type of each of seven types of innovation (Table 4.2, columns 2 and 3) as a share of total
activity activities innovation expenditures
*Not useful to calculate for all firms
Innovation expenditures Total expenditures for innovation Total expenditures for each of five accounting
by accounting category activities by accounting category categories (Table 4.3, column 3) as a share of
total turnover (or equivalent)
Innovation projects Number of innovation projects Median or average number of innovation projects
per firm (see subsection 4.5.2)
*Not useful to calculate for all firms
Follow-on innovation Share of firms with ongoing follow-on Any of three follow-on activities
activities innovation activities (see subsection 4.5.3)
*Only calculate for innovative firms
Innovation plans Share of firms planning to increase See subsection 4.5.4
(reduce) their innovation expenditures in
the (current) next period
Notes: Indicators derived from Table 4.1 refer to the survey observation period. Expenditure indicators derived
from Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 only refer to the survey reference period. Unless otherwise noted with an “*”
11.41. Table 11.6 lists potential indicators of business capabilities for innovation following
Chapter 5. All indicators of innovation capability are relevant to all firms, regardless of
their innovation status. The microdata can also be used to generate synthetic indexes on the
propensity of firms to innovate.
Table 11.6. Indicators of potential or actual innovation capabilities

Innovation Share of firms adopting advanced general and innovation Based on list of practices (see
management management practices subsections 5.3.2 and 5.3.4)
IP rights strategy Share of firms using different types of IP rights See subsection 5.3.5
Workforce skills Share of firms employing highly qualified personnel, by level of Average or median share of
educational attainment or by fields of education highly qualified individuals
Advanced Share of firms using advanced, enabling or emerging This may be relevant for
technology use technologies specific sectors only (see
subsection 5.5.1)
Technical Share of firms developing advanced, enabling or emerging This may be relevant for
development technologies specific sectors only (see
subsection 5.5.1)


Design capabilities Share of firms with employees with design skills See subsection 5.5.2
Design centrality Share of firms with design activity at different levels of strategic See subsection 5.5.2
importance (Design Ladder)
Design thinking Share of firms using design thinking tools and practices See subsection 5.5.2
Digital capabilities Share of firms using advanced digital tools and methods See subsection 5.5.3
Digital platforms Share of firms using digital platforms to sell or buy goods or services See subsections 5.5.3 and 7.4.4
Share of firms providing digital platform services
Notes: All indicators refer to activities within the survey observation period. All indicators can be computed
using all firms, innovation-active firms only, or innovative firms only as the denominator. See section 3.5 for a
definition of firm types.
11.42. Table 11.7 provides indicators of knowledge flows for innovation, following
guidance in Chapter 6 on both inbound and outbound flows. With a few exceptions, most
of these indicators are relevant to all firms.
Table 11.7. Indicators of knowledge flows and innovation

Collaboration Share of firms that collaborated with other parties See Table 6.5
on innovation activities (by type of partner or *Not useful to calculate
partner location) for all firms
Main collaboration partner Share of firms indicating a given partner type as See Table 6.5 and Chapter 10
most important *Not useful to calculate for all firms
Knowledge sources Share of firms making use of a range of information See Table 6.6
sources
Licensing-out Share of firms with outbound licensing activities See Table 6.4
Knowledge services providers Share of firms with a contract to develop products or See Table 6.4
business processes for other firms or organisations
Knowledge disclosure Share of firms that disclosed useful knowledge for See Table 6.4
the product or business process innovations of
other firms or organisations
Knowledge exchange with higher Share of firms engaged in specific knowledge See Table 6.6
education institutions (HEIs) and exchange activities with HEIs or PRIs
public research institutions (PRIs)
Challenges to knowledge Share of firms reporting barriers to interacting with See Table 6.8
exchange other parties in the production or exchange of
knowledge
Note: All indicators refer to activities within the survey observation period. Indicators on the role of other
parties in the firm’s innovations are included in Table 11.4 above. Unless otherwise noted with an “*” before a
computation note, all indicators can be computed using all firms, innovation-active firms only, or innovative
firms only as the denominator. See section 3.5 for a definition of firm types.
11.43. Table 11.8 provides a list of indicators for external factors that can potentially
influence innovation, as discussed in Chapter 7. With the exception of drivers of innovation,
all of these indicators can be calculated for all firms.

Table 11.8. Indicators of external factors influencing innovation

Customer type Share of firms selling to specific types of customers (other See subsection 7.4.1
businesses, government, consumers)
Geographic market Share of firms selling products in international markets See subsection 7.4.1
Nature of Share of firms reporting specific competition conditions that See Table 7.2
competition influence innovation
Standards Share of firms engaged in standard setting activities See subsection 7.4.2
Social context for Share of firms reporting more than N social characteristics Can calculate as a score for
innovation that are potentially conducive to innovation different items (see Table 7.7)
Public support for Share of firms that received public support for the See subsection 7.5.2
innovation development or exploitation of innovations (by type of support)
Innovation drivers Share of firms reporting selected items as a driver of See Table 7.8
innovation *Not useful to calculate for all firms
Public infrastructure Share of firms reporting selected types of infrastructure of See Table 7.6
high relevance to their innovation activities
Innovation barriers Share of firms reporting selected items as barriers to See Table 7.8
innovation
Note: All indicators refer to activities within the survey observation period. Unless otherwise noted with an “*”
11.44. Table 11.9 lists simple outcome (or objective) indicators, based on either nominal
or ordinal survey questions, as proposed in Chapter 8. The objectives are applicable to all
innovation-active firms, while questions on outcomes are only relevant to innovative firms.
Table 11.9. Indicators of innovation objectives and outcomes

General business Share of firms reporting selected items as general See Tables 8.1 and 8.2
objectives objectives1
Share of firms reporting selected items as See Tables 8.1 and 8.2
Innovation objectives
objectives for innovation activities1 *Not useful to calculate for all firms
Innovation Shares of firms attaining a given objective through See Tables 8.1 and 8.2
outcomes their innovation activity1 *Not useful to calculate for all firms
Sales from new Share of turnover from product innovations and See subsection 8.3.1
products new-to-market product innovations
Number of product Number of new products (median and average) See subsection 8.3.1, preferably normalised
innovations by total number of product lines
Changes to unit cost Share of firms reporting different levels of changes See subsection 8.3.2
of sales to unit costs from business process innovations *Calculate for firms with business process
innovations only
Innovation success Share of firms reporting that innovations met See section 8.3
expectations *Calculate for innovative firms only
1. These indicators can be calculated by thematic area (e.g. production efficiency, markets, environment, etc.).
Note: All indicators refer to activities within the survey observation period. Unless otherwise noted with an “*”

11.4.2. Breakdown categories, scaling, and typologies

11.45. Depending on user requirements, indicators can be provided for several breakdown
characteristics. Data on each characteristic can be collected through a survey or by linking
a survey to other sources such as business registers and administrative data, in line with
guidance provided in Chapter 9. Breakdown characteristics of interest include:
 Enterprise size by the number of persons employed, or other size measures such as
sales or assets.
 Industry of main economic activity, in line with international standard classifications
(see Chapter 9). Combinations of two- to three-digit International Standard Industrial
Classification (ISIC) classes can provide results for policy-relevant groups of firms
(e.g. firms in information and communication technology industries).
 Administrative region.
 Group affiliation and ownership, for instance if an enterprise is independent, part
of a domestic enterprise group, or part of a multinational enterprise. Breakdowns for
multinationals are of value to research on the globalisation of innovation activities.
 Age, measured as the time elapsed since the creation of the enterprise. A breakdown by
age will help differentiate between older and more recently established firms. This is
of interest to research on business dynamism and entrepreneurship (see Chapter 5).
 R&D status, if the firm performs R&D in-house, funds R&D performed by other
units, or is not engaged in any R&D activities (see Chapter 4). The innovation
activities of firms vary considerably depending on their R&D status.
11.46. The level of aggregation for these different dimensions will depend on what the
data represent, how they are collected and their intended uses. Stratification decisions in
the data collection (see Chapter 9) will determine the maximum level that can be reported.
11.47. To avoid scale effects, many innovation input, output, intensity and expenditure variables
can be standardised by a measure of the size of each firm, such as total expenditures, total
investment, total sales, or the total number of employed persons.
11.48. A frequently used indicator of innovation input intensity is total innovation
expenditures as a percentage of total turnover (sales). Alternative input intensity measures
include the innovation expenditure per worker (Crespi and Zuñiga, 2010) and the share of
human resources (in headcounts) dedicated to innovation relative to the total workforce.
11.49. For output indicators, the share of total sales revenue from product innovations is
frequently used. In principle, this type of indicator should also be provided for specific
industries because of different rates of product obsolescence. Data by industry can be used
to identify industries with low product innovation rates and low innovation efficiency
relative to their investments in innovation.
11.50. Standardised indicators for the number of IP rights registrations, or measures of
scientific output (invention disclosures, publications, etc.) should also be presented by industry,
since the relevance of these activities varies considerably. Indicators based on IP rights
such as patented inventions can be interpreted as measures of knowledge appropriation
strategies (see Chapter 5). Their use depends on factors such as the industry and the type
of protectable knowledge (OECD, 2009a). Measures of scientific outputs of the Business
enterprise sector such as publications are mostly relevant to science-based industries
(OECD and SCImago Research Group, 2016). Furthermore, depending on a firm’s industry

and strategy, there may be large gaps between a firm’s scientific and technological outputs
and what it decides to disclose.
11.51. Indicators of innovation intensity (summing all innovation expenditures and dividing
by total expenditures) can be calculated at the level of industry, region, and country.
Intensity indicators avoid the need to standardise by measures of firm size.
Typologies of innovative/innovation-active firms

11.52. A major drawback of many of the indicators provided above is that they do not
provide a measure of the intensity of efforts to attain product or business process innovations.
The ability to identify firms by different levels of effort or innovation capabilities can be
of great value for innovation policy analysis and design (Bloch and López-Bassols, 2009).
This can be achieved by combining selected nominal indicators with innovation activity
measures (see Table 11.5) and possibly innovation outcome measures (see Table 11.9).
Several studies have combined multiple indicators to create complex indicators for
different “profiles”, “modes” or taxonomies of firms, according to their innovation efforts
(see Tether, 2001; Arundel and Hollanders, 2005; Frenz and Lambert, 2012).
11.53. Key priorities for constructing indicators of innovation effort or capability include
incorporating data on the degree of novelty of innovations (for whom the innovation is
new), the extent to which the business has drawn on its own resources to develop the
concepts used in the innovation, and the economic significance for the firm of its
innovations and innovation efforts.
11.4.3. Choice of statistical data for innovation indicators

11.54. The choice of data for constructing innovation indicators is necessarily determined
by the purpose of the indicator and data quality requirements.
Official versus non-official sources

11.55. Where possible, indicator construction should use data from official sources that
comply with basic quality requirements. This includes both survey and administrative data.
For both types of data, it is important to determine if all relevant types of firms are included,
if records cover all relevant data, and if record keeping is consistent across different
jurisdictions (if comparisons are intended). For indicators that are constructed on a regular
basis, information should also be available on any breaks in series, so that corrections can
be made (where possible) to maintain comparability over time.
11.56. The same criteria apply to commercial data or data from other sources such as one-
off academic studies. Commercial data sources often do not provide full details for the
sample selection method or survey response rates. A lack of sufficient methodological
information regarding commercial and other sources of data, as well as licensing fees for
data access, have traditionally posed restrictions on their use by NSS organisations. The
use of commercial data by NSS organisations can also create problems if the data provider
stands to obtain a commercial advantage over its competitors.
Suitability of innovation survey data for constructing statistical indicators

11.57. Survey data are self-reported by the respondent. Some potential users of innovation
data object to innovation surveys because they believe that self-reports result in subjective
results. This criticism confuses self-reporting with subjectivity. Survey respondents are capable
of providing an objective response to many factual questions, such as whether their firm

implemented a business process innovation or collaborated with a university. These are

similar to factual questions from household surveys that are used to determine unemployment
rates. Subjective assessments are rarely problematic if they refer to factual behaviours.
11.58. A valid concern for users of innovation data is the variable nature of innovation.
Because innovation is defined from the perspective of the firm, there are enormous differences
between different innovations, which means that a simple indicator such as the share of
innovative firms within a country has a very low discriminatory value. The solution is not
to reject innovation indicators, but to construct indicators that can discriminate between
firms of different levels of capability or innovation investments, and to provide these
indicators by different breakdown categories, such as for different industries or firm size
classes. Profiles, as described above, can significantly improve the discriminatory and
explanatory value of indicators.
11.59. Another common concern is poor discriminatory power for many nominal or
ordinal variables versus continuous variables. Data for the latter are often unattainable
because respondents are unable to provide accurate answers. Under these conditions, it is
recommended to identify which non-continuous variables are relevant to constructs of
interest and to use information from multiple variables to estimate the construct.
Change versus current capabilities

11.60. The main indicators on the incidence of innovation (see Table 11.4) capture
activities that derive from or induce change in a firm. However, a firm is not necessarily
more innovative than another over the long term if the former has introduced an innovation
in a given period and the latter has not. The latter could have introduced the same innovation
several years before and have similar current capabilities for innovation. Indicators of
capability, such as knowledge capital stocks within the firm, can be constructed using
administrative sources or survey data that capture a firm’s level of readiness or competence
in a given domain (see Table 11.6). Evidence on the most important innovations (see
Chapter 10) can also be useful for measuring current capabilities.
11.5. Using data on innovation to analyse innovation performance, policies and

their impacts
11.61. Policy and business decisions can benefit from a thorough understanding of the
factors that affect the performance of an innovation system. Innovation indicators provide
useful information on the current state of the system, including bottlenecks, deficiencies
and weaknesses, and can help track changes over time. However, this is insufficient:
decision makers also need to know how conditions in one part of the system influence other
parts, and how the system works to create outcomes of interest, including the effects of
policy interventions.
11.62. This section examines how innovation data can be used to evaluate the links between
innovation, capability-building activities, and outcomes of interest (Mairesse and Mohnen,
2010). Relevant research has extensively covered productivity (Hall, 2011; Harrison et al., 2014),
management (Bloom and Van Reenen, 2007), employment effects (Griffith et al., 2006),
knowledge sourcing (Laursen and Salter, 2006), profitability (Geroski, Machin and Van
Reenen, 1993), market share and market value (Blundell, Griffith and Van Reenen, 1999),
competition (Aghion et al., 2005), and policy impacts (Czarnitzki, Hanel and Rosa, 2011).

11.5.1. Modelling dependencies and associations

11.63. Associations between the components of an innovation system can be identified
through descriptive and exploratory analysis. Multivariate regression provides a useful tool
for exploring the covariation of two variables, for example innovation outputs and inputs,
conditional on other characteristics such as firm size, age and industry of main economic
activity. Regression is a commonly used tool of innovation analysts and its outputs a
recurrent feature in research papers on innovation.
11.64. The appropriate multivariate technique depends on the type of data, particularly for
dependent variables. Innovation surveys produce mostly nominal or ordinal variables with
only a few continuous variables. Ordered regression models are appropriate for ordinal
dependent variables on the degree of novelty or the level of complexity in the use of a
technology or business practice (Galindo-Rueda and Millot, 2015). Multinomial choice
models are relevant when managers can choose between three or more exclusive states, for
example between different knowledge sources or collaboration partners.
11.65. Machine learning techniques also open new areas of analysis having to do with
classification, pattern identification and regression. Their use in innovation statistics is
likely to increase over time.
11.5.2. Inference of causal effects in innovation analysis

11.66. Statistical association between two variables (for instance an input to innovation
and a performance output) does not imply causation without additional evidence, such as a
plausible time gap between an input and an output, replication in several studies, and the
ability to control for all confounding variables. Unless these conditions are met (which is
rare in exploratory analyses), a study should not assume causality.
11.67. Research on policy interventions must also manage self-selection and plausible
counterfactuals: what would have happened in the absence of a policy intervention? The
effects of a policy intervention should ideally be identified using experimental methods
such as randomised trials, but the scope for experimentation in innovation policy, although
increasing in recent years (Nesta, 2016), is still limited. Consequently, alternative methods
are frequently used.
Impact analysis and evaluation terminology

11.68. The innovation literature commonly distinguishes between different stages of an
innovation process, beginning with inputs (resources for an activity), activities, outputs
(what is generated by activities), and outcomes (the effects of outputs). In a policy context,
a logic model provides a simplified, linear relationship between resources, activities,
outputs and outcomes. Figure 11.1 presents a generic logic model for the innovation process.
Refinements to the model include multiple feedback loops.
11.69. Outputs include specific types of innovations, while outcomes are the effect of
innovation on firm performance (sales, profits, market share etc.), or the effect of innovation
on conditions external to the firm (environment, market structure, etc.). Impacts refer to the
difference between potential outcomes under observed and unobserved counterfactual
treatments. An example of a counterfactual outcome would be the sales of the firm if the
resources expended for innovation had been used for a different purpose, for instance an
intensive marketing campaign. In the absence of experimental data, impacts cannot be
directly observed and must be inferred through other means.

Figure 11.1. Logic model used in evaluation literature applied to innovation
Feedback flows not presented

Innovation inputs Innovation outputs
(resources and (resulting from
capabilities) activities)
Innovation activities Innovation outcomes

(supported by (relating to objectives)
resources)
Source: Adapted from McLaughlin and Jordan (1999), “Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s
performance story”.
11.70. In innovation policy design, the innovation logic model as described in Figure 11.1
is a useful tool for identifying what is presumed to be necessary for the achievement of
desired outcomes. Measurement can capture evidence of events, conditions and behaviours
that can be treated as proxies of potential inputs and outputs of the innovation process.
Outcomes can be measured directly or indirectly. The evaluation of innovation policy using
innovation data is discussed below.
Direct and indirect measurement of outcomes

11.71. Direct measurement asks respondents to identify whether an event is the result (at
least in part) of one or more activities. For example, respondents can be asked if business
process innovations reduced their unit costs, and if so, to estimate the percentage reduction.
Direct measurement creates significant validity problems. For example, respondents might
be able to determine with some degree of accuracy whether business process innovations
were followed by cost reductions on a “yes” or “no” basis. However, the influence of
multiple factors on process costs could make it very difficult for respondents to estimate
the percentage reduction attributable to innovation (although they might be able to make
an estimate for their most important business process innovation). Furthermore, respondents
will find it easier to identify and report actual events than to speculate and assign causes to
outcomes or vice versa. Business managers are likely to use heuristics to answer impact-
related questions that conceptually require a counterfactual.
11.72. Non-experimental, indirect measurement collects data on inputs and outcomes and
uses statistical analysis to evaluate the correlations between them, after controlling for
potential confounding variables. However, there are also several challenges to using
indirect methods for evaluating the factors that affect innovation outcomes.
Challenges for indirect measurement of outcomes

11.73. Innovation inputs, outputs and outcomes are related through non-linear processes
of transformation and development. Analysis has to identify appropriate dependent and
independent variables and potential confounding variables that provide alternative routes
to the same outcome.
11.74. In the presence of random measurement error for independent variables, analysis
of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables will be affected by
attenuation bias, such that relationships will appear to be weaker than they actually are. In
addition, endogeneity is a serious issue that can result from a failure to control for confounders,
or when the dependent variable affects one or more independent variables (reverse causality).
Careful analysis is required to avoid both possible causes of endogeneity.

11.75. Other conditions can increase the difficulty of identifying causality. In research on
knowledge flows, linkages across actors and the importance of both intended and unintended
knowledge diffusion can create challenges for identifying the effect of specific knowledge
sources on outcomes. Important channels could exist for which there are no data. As noted
in Chapter 6, the analysis of knowledge flows would benefit from social network graphs of
the business enterprise to help identify the most relevant channels. A statistical implication
of highly connected innovation systems is that the observed values are not independently
distributed: competition and collaboration generate outcome dependences across firms that
affect estimation outcomes.
11.76. Furthermore, dynamic effects require time series data and an appropriate model of
evolving relationships in an innovation system, for example between inputs in a given
period (t) and outputs in later periods (t+1). In some industries, economic results are only
obtained after several years of investment in innovation. Dynamic analysis could also
require data on changes in the actors in an innovation system, for instance through mergers
and acquisitions. Business deaths can create a strong selection effect, with only surviving
businesses available for analysis.
Matching estimators
11.77. Complementing regression analysis, matching is a method that can be used for
estimating the average effect of business innovation decisions as well as policy interventions
(see subsection 11.5.3 below). Matching imposes no functional form specifications on the
data but assumes that there is a set of observed characteristics such that outcomes are
independent of the treatment conditional on those characteristics (Todd, 2010). Under this
assumption, the impact of innovation activity on an outcome of interest can be estimated
from comparing the performance of innovators with a weighted average of the performance of
non-innovators. The weights need to replicate the observable characteristics of the innovators
in the sample. Under some conditions, the weights can be estimated from predicted innovation
probabilities using discrete analysis (matching based on innovation propensity scores).
11.78. In many cases, there can be systematic differences between the outcomes of treated
and untreated groups, even after conditioning on observables, which could lead to a violation
of the identification conditions required for matching. Independence assumptions can be
more valid for changes in the variable of interest over time. When longitudinal data are
available, the “difference in differences” method can be used. An example is an analysis of
productivity growth that compares firms that introduced innovations in the reference period
with those that did not. Further bias reduction can be attained by using information on past
innovation and economic performance.
11.79. Matching estimators and related regression analysis are particularly useful for the
analysis of reduced-form causal relationship models. Reduced-form models have fewer
requirements than structural models, but are less informative in articulating the mechanisms
that underpin the relationship between different variables.
Structural analysis of innovation data: The CDM model

11.80. The model, developed by Crépon, Duguet and Mairesse (1998) (hence the name
CDM), builds on Griliches’ (1990) path diagram of the knowledge production function and
is widely used in empirical research on innovation and productivity (Lööf, Mairesse and
Mohnen, 2016). The CDM framework is suitable for cross-sectional innovation survey data
obtained by following this manual’s recommendations, including data not necessarily
collected for indicator production purposes. It provides a structural model that explains

productivity by innovation output and corrects for the selectivity and endogeneity inherent
in survey data. It includes the following sub-models (Criscuolo, 2009):
1. Propensity among all firms to undertake innovation: This key step requires good
quality information on all firms. This requirement provides a motivation for
collecting data from all firms, regardless of their innovation status, as recommended
in Chapters 4 and 5.
2. Intensity of innovation effort among innovation-active firms: The model recognises
that there is an underlying degree of innovation effort for each firm that is only
observed among those that undertake innovation activities. Therefore, the model
controls for the selective nature of the sample.
3. Scale of innovation output: This is observed only for innovative firms. This model
uses the predicted level of innovation effort identified in model 2 and a control for
the self-selected nature of the sample.
4. Relationship between labour productivity and innovation effort: This is estimated
by incorporating information about the drivers of the innovation outcome variable
(using its predicted value) and the selective nature of the sample.
11.81. Policy variables can be included in a CDM model, provided they display sufficient
variability in the sample and satisfy the independence assumptions (including no self-
selection bias) required for identification.
11.82. The CDM framework has been further developed to work with repeated cross-
sectional and panel data, increasing the value of consistent longitudinal data at the micro
level. Data and modelling methods require additional development before CDM and CDM-
related frameworks can fully address several questions of interest, such as the competing
roles of R&D versus non-R&D types of innovation activity, or the relative importance or
complementarity of innovation activities versus generic competence and capability development
activities. Improvements in data quality for variables on non-R&D activities and capabilities
would facilitate the use of extended CDM models.
11.5.3. Analysing the impact of public innovation policies

11.83. Understanding the impact of public innovation policies is one of the main user
interests for innovation statistics and analysis. This section draws attention to some of the
basic procedures and requirements that analysts and practitioners need to consider.
The policy evaluation problem

11.84. Figure 11.2 illustrates the missing counterfactual data problem in identifying the
causal impacts of policies. This is done by means of an example where the policy “treatment”
is support for innovation activities, for instance a grant to support the development and
launch of a new product. Some firms receive support whereas others do not. The true impact
of support is likely to vary across firms. The evaluation problem is one of missing information.
The researcher cannot observe, for supported firms, what would have been their performance
had they not been supported. The same applies to non-supported firms. The light grey boxes
in the figure represent what is not directly observable through measurement. The arrows
indicate comparisons and how they relate to measuring impacts.
11.85. The main challenge in constructing valid counterfactuals is that the potential effect
of policy support is likely to be related to choices made in assigning support to some firms
and not to others. For example, some programme managers may have incentives to select

businesses that would have performed well even in the absence of support, and businesses
themselves have incentives to apply according to their potential to benefit from policy
support after taking into account potential costs.
11.86. The diagonal arrow in Figure 11.2 shows which empirical comparisons are possible
and how they do not necessarily represent causal effects or impacts when the treated and
non-treated groups differ from each other in ways that relate to the outcomes (i.e. a failure
to control for confounding variables).
Figure 11.2. The innovation policy evaluation problem to identifying causal effects
Observed outcomes and unobserved counterfactuals in a business innovation support example
Outcomes if Outcomes if not

supported supported
True impact of
treatment among
Observe the Cannot observe supported firms not
"supported" the "what if non observed.
Firms supported" Missing counterfactual:
outcomes of outcome of
supported supported firms what if support had not
supported firms been provided to these
firms?
Cannot observe Treatment not

Firms not the "what if applied
supported supported"
outcome of non- Outcome for non-
supported firms supp. observed True impact of
treatment among non-
supported firms not
observed. Missing
Measurable difference between observed counterfactual: what if
groups’ outcomes does not necessarily support had been
identify true impact. provided?
Source: Based on Rubin (1974), “Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies”.
Data requirements and randomisation

11.87. Policy evaluation requires linking data on the innovation performance of firms with
data on their exposure to a policy treatment. Innovation surveys usually collect insufficient
information for this purpose on the use of innovation policies by firms. An alternative (see
Chapter 7) is to link innovation survey data at the firm level with administrative data, such
as government procurement and regulatory databases, or data on firms that neither applied
for nor obtained policy support. The same applies to data on whether firms were subject to
a specific regulatory regime. The quality of the resulting microdata will depend on the
completeness of data on policy “exposure” (e.g. are data only available for some types of
policy support and not others?) and the accuracy of the matching method.
11.88. Experiments that randomly assign participants to a treatment or control group
provide the most accurate and reliable information on the impact of innovation policies
(Nesta, 2016). Programme impact is estimated by comparing the behaviour and outcomes
of the two groups, using outcome data collected from a dedicated survey or other sources
(Edovald and Firpo, 2016).

11.89. Randomisation eliminates selection bias, so that both groups are comparable and
any differences between them are the result of the intervention. Randomised trials are
sometimes viewed as politically unfeasible because potential beneficiaries are excluded
from treatment, at least temporarily. However, randomisation can often be justified on the
basis of its potential for policy learning when uncertainty is largest. Furthermore, a selection
procedure is required in the presence of budgetary resource limitations that prevent all firms
from benefiting from innovation support.
Policy evaluation without randomisation

11.90. In ex ante or ex post non-randomisation evaluation exercises, it is important to
account for the possibility that observed correlations between policy treatment and innovation
performance could be due to confounding by unobserved factors that influence both. This
can be a serious issue for evaluations of discretionary policies where firms must apply for
support. This requires a double selection process whereby the firm self-selects to submit an
application, and programme administrators then make a decision on whether to fund the
applicant. This second selection can be influenced by policy criteria to support applicants
with the highest probability of success, which could create a bias in favour of previously
successful applicants. Both types of selection create a challenge for accurately identifying
the additionality of public support for innovation. To address selection issues, it is necessary
to gather information on the potential eligibility of business enterprises that apply for and do
not receive funding, apply for and receive funding, and for a control group of non-applicants.
11.91. Comprehensive data on the policy of interest and how it has been implemented are
also useful for evaluation. This includes information on the assessment rating for each
application, which can be used to evaluate the effect of variations in application quality on
outcomes. Changes in eligibility requirements over time and across firms provide a potentially
useful source of exogenous variation.
11.92. The available microdata for policy use is often limited to firms that participated in
government programmes. In this case it is necessary to construct a control group of non-
applicants using other data sources. Innovation survey data can also help identify counterfactuals.
Administrative data can be used to identify firms that apply for and ultimately benefit from
different types of government programmes to support innovation and other activities (see
subsection 7.5.2). The regression, matching and structural estimation methods discussed
above can all be applied in this policy analysis and evaluation context.
Procedures
11.93. With few exceptions, NSOs rarely have a mandate to conduct policy evaluations.
However, it is widely accepted that their infrastructures can greatly facilitate such work in
conditions that do not contravene the confidentiality obligations to businesses reporting
data for statistical purposes. Evaluations are usually left to academics, researchers or
consultants with experience in causal analysis as well as the independence to make critical
comments on public policy issues. This requires providing researchers with access to microdata
under sufficiently secure conditions (see subsection 9.8.2). There have been considerable
advances to minimise the burden associated with secure access to microdata for analysis.
Of note, international organisations such as the Inter-American Development Bank have
contributed to comparative analysis by requiring the development of adequate and accessible
microdata as a condition of funding for an innovation (or related) survey.
11.94. Government agencies that commission policy evaluations using innovation and
other related survey data require basic capabilities in evaluation methodologies in order to

scrutinise and assess the methodologies used by contractors or researchers and to interpret
and communicate the results. Replicability is an important requirement for ensuring quality,
and the programming code used for statistical analysis should thus be included as one of the
evaluation’s deliverables. Linked databases that are created for publicly funded evaluation
studies should also be safely stored and made available to other researchers after a
reasonable time lapse, as long as they do not include confidential data.
11.5.4. Co-ordinated analysis of innovation microdata across countries

11.95. When non-discretionary policies are implemented at the national level, it can be
very difficult to identify appropriate control groups. For example, all firms within a country
are subject to identical competition regulations. A solution is to use innovation data from
across countries with different policy environments.
11.96. The main constraint for cross-country policy evaluation is access to microdata for
all the countries included in the analysis. Microdata access is essential for accounting for a
large number of business and contextual features and for testing counterfactuals. Microdata
can be combined with data at the macro level to control for differences by country.
Analysis with pooled microdata

11.97. The optimal solution is to include microdata from multiple countries in a single
database. This minimises differences in data manipulation and provides researchers with
access to the full sample. This is a requirement for the estimation of multi-level models
with combined micro- and country-level effects. An example is a model that analyses
innovation performance as a function of business characteristics and national policies.
11.98. The construction of a single database for microdata from multiple countries is
constrained by regulations governing data collection and access. National legislation to
protect confidentiality can bar non-nationals from accessing data or the use of data abroad.
However, legally compliant solutions have been found when there is consensus on the
importance of co-ordinated international analysis. An example is the European Commission’s
legislative arrangements to provide access to approved researchers to the CIS microdata at
Eurostat’s Safe Centre for agreed research projects. This resource for pooled data from
different countries has made a substantial contribution to international comparative
analysis, although at present it is not possible to link the Safe Centre CIS data to other data.
Distributed, multi-country microdata analysis

11.99. When microdata cannot be remotely accessed or combined in a single database for
confidentiality or other reasons, other methods can be used by focussing on the non-confidential
outputs. The distributed approach to microdata analysis involves, in first instance, the
design and implementation of a common data analysis programming code by individuals
with access to their national microdata. The code is designed to return non-confidential
outputs such as descriptive indicators or coefficients from multivariate analyses that are as
similar as possible across countries. The data can then be compared and further analysed
by the collective of individuals involved in the project or by authorised third parties.
11.100. The use of distributed methods for the analysis of innovation began as researcher-
led initiatives involving a limited group of countries (Griffith et al., 2006). Since then, the
distributed approach has been increasingly adopted for comparative analysis by international
organisations such as the OECD (OECD, 2009b). In addition, national teams can produce
estimates of parameters for use in further comparative analysis (Criscuolo, 2009), adopting
tools similar to those used in quantitative meta-analysis.

11.101. One possible application of a distributed approach to microdata analysis is the

construction of a multi-country micro-moments database (MMD) that includes a set of
statistical indicators, drawn from national microdata, and captures attributes of the joint
distribution of variables within each country. The database comprises a number M of m-
moments corresponding to different multivariate statistics, where the moments have been
estimated within each country for each combination of business group g (e.g. size and
industry) and for each period t. The pooled MMD database for the group of participating
countries enables not only tabulations of indicators but also meso- and macro-level analysis
to which additional policy and other variables can be added. The ability to build a MMD
depends on the comparability of the underlying data and the use of identical protocols to
construct the national MMD components (Bartelsman, Hagsten and Polder, 2017).
11.6. Conclusions
11.102. This chapter has reviewed a number of issues relating to the use of innovation data for
constructing indicators as well as in statistical and econometric analysis. The recommendations
in this chapter are aimed not only at those producing indicators in an official capacity, but
also at other interested users of innovation data. The chapter seeks to guide the work of
those involved in the design, production and use of innovation indicators. It also contributes
to address a broader range of user evidence needs that cannot be met by indicators alone.
The chapter has thus described methods for analysing innovation data, with a focus on
assessing the impacts of innovation and the empirical evaluation of government innovation
policies. It is intended to guide existing data collection and analysis, as well as to encourage
future experimentation which will enhance the quality, visibility, and usefulness of data
and indicators derived from innovation surveys, a key objective of this manual.
References
Aghion, P. et al. (2005), “Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship”, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 120/2, pp. 701-728.
Arundel, A. and H. Hollanders (2008), “Innovation scoreboards: Indicators and policy use” in Innovation
Policy in Europe: Measurement and Strategy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 29-52.
Arundel, A. and H. Hollanders (2005), “EXIS: An Exploratory Approach to Innovation Scoreboards”,
European Trend Chart on Innovation, DG Enterprise, European Commission, Brussels,
http://digitalarchive.maastrichtuniversity.nl/fedora/get/guid:25cbd28f-efcf-4850-a43c-
ab25393fcca7/ASSET1 (accessed on 9 August 2018).
Bartelsman, E.J., E. Hagsten and M. Polder (2017), “Micro Moments Database for cross-country analysis
of ICT, innovation, and economic outcomes”, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers, No. 2017-
003/VI, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2898860.
Bloch, C. and V. López-Bassols (2009), “Innovation indicators”, in Innovation in Firms: A
Microeconomic Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056213-en.
Bloom, N. and J. Van Reenen (2007), “Measuring and explaining management practices across
countries”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122/4, pp. 1351-1408.
Blundell, R., R. Griffith and J. Van Reenen (1999), “Market share, market value and innovation in a
panel of British manufacturing firms”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 66/3, pp. 529-554.
Crépon, B., E. Duguet and J. Mairesse (1998), “Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric
analysis at the firm level”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 7/2, pp. 115-158.

Crespi, G. and P. Zuñiga (2010), “Innovation and productivity: Evidence from six Latin American countries”,
IDB Working Papers, No. IDB-WP-218, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC.
Criscuolo, C. (2009), “Innovation and productivity: Estimating the core model across 18 countries”, in
Innovation in Firms: A Microeconomic Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056213-en.
Czarnitzki, D., P. Hanel and J.M. Rosa (2011), “Evaluating the impact of R&D tax credits on innovation:
A microeconometric study on Canadian firms”, Research Policy, Vol. 40/2, pp. 217-229.
de Jong, J.P.J. and O. Marsili (2006), “The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small
firms”, Research Policy, Vol.35/2, pp. 213-229.
EC (2010), Elements for the Setting-up of Headline Indicators for Innovation in Support of the Europe
2020 Strategy, Report of the High Level Panel on the Measurement of Innovation, DG Research and
Innovation, European Commission, Brussels.
Edovald, T. and T. Firpo (2016), “Running randomised controlled trials in innovation, entrepreneurship
and growth: An introductory guide”, Innovation Growth Lab, Nesta, London,
https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/a_guide_to_rcts_-_igl_09aKzWa.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2018).
Eurostat (2014), Glossary of Statistical Terms, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Glossary:Statistical_indicator (accessed on 9 August 2018).
Frenz, M. and R. Lambert (2012), “Mixed modes of innovation: An empiric approach to capturing firms’
innovation behaviour”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2012/06,
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8x6l0bp3bp-en.
Galindo-Rueda, F. and V. Millot (2015), “Measuring design and its role in innovation”, OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2015/01, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/5js7p6lj6zq6-en.
Gault, F. (ed.) (2013), Handbook of Innovation Indicators and Measurement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Geroski, P., S. Machin and J. Van Reenen (1993), “The profitability of innovating firms”, The RAND
Journal of Economics, Vol. 24/2, pp. 198-211.
Griffith, R. et al. (2006), “Innovation and productivity across four European countries”, Oxford Review
of Economic Policy, Vol. 22/4, pp. 483-498.
Griliches, Z. (1990), “Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey”, Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. 28/4, pp. 1661-1707.
Hall, B.H. (2011), “Innovation and productivity”, NBER Working Papers, No. 17178, National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA, www.nber.org/papers/w17178.
Harrison, R. et al. (2014), “Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using
comparable micro-data from four European countries”, International Journal of Industrial
Organization, Vol. 35, pp. 29-43.
Hill, C.T. (2013), “US innovation strategy and policy: An indicators perspective”, in Handbook of
Innovation Indicators and Measurement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 333-346.
Hollanders, H. and N. Janz (2013), “Scoreboards and indicator reports”, in Handbook of Innovation
Indicators and Measurement, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 279-297.
Laursen, K, and A. Salter (2006), “Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation
performance among UK manufacturing firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27/2, pp. 131-150.
Lööf, H., J. Mairesse and P. Mohnen (2016), “CDM 20 years after”, CESIS Electronic Working Papers,
No. 442, Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS), KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, https://static.sys.kth.se/itm/wp/cesis/cesiswp442.pdf.

Mairesse, J. and P. Mohnen (2010), “Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis”, in Handbook
of the Economics of Innovation, Vol. 2, Elsevier.
McLaughlin, J.A. and G.B. Jordan (1999), “Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance
story”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 22/1, pp. 65-72.
National Research Council (2014), Capturing Change in Science, Technology, and Innovation: Improving
Indicators to Inform Policy, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/18606.
Nesta (2016), “Experimental innovation and growth policy: Why do we need it?”, Innovation Growth Lab,
Nesta, London,
https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/experimental_innovation_and_growth_policy_why_do_we_nee
d_it.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2018).
OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and
Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities,
OECD Publishing, Paris, http://oe.cd/frascati.
OECD (2013), “Knowledge networks and markets”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy
Papers, No. 7, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k44wzw9q5zv-en.
OECD (2010), Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264059474-en.
OECD (2009a), OECD Patent Statistics Manual, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056442-en.
OECD (2009b), Innovation in Firms: A Microeconomic Perspective, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056213-en.
OECD/JRC (2008), Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators - Methodology and User Guide,
OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/sdd/42495745.pdf.
OECD and SCImago Research Group (CSIC) (2016), Compendium of Bibliometric Science Indicators,
OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/sti/inno/Bibliometrics-Compendium.pdf.
Rubin, D.B. (1974), “Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies”,
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 66/5, pp. 688-701.
Tether, B. (2001), “Identifying innovation, innovators, and innovation behaviours: A critical assessment
of the Community Innovation Survey (CIS)”, CRIC Discussion Papers, No. 48, Centre for Research
on Innovation and Competition, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Todd, P.E. (2010), “Matching estimators”, in Microeconometrics, The New Palgrave Economics
Collection, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 108-121.
UN (2004), Implementation of the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics; Report of the Secretary-
General, E/CN.3/2004/21, UN Statistical Commission, New York,
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc04/2004-21e.pdf.
UNECE (2000), “Terminology on statistical metadata”, Statistical Standards and Studies, No. 53,
Conference of European Statisticians, UN Statistical Commission and UN Economic Commission for
Europe, Geneva, www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/53metadaterminology.pdf.
Wilhelmsen, L. (2012), “A question of context: Assessing the impact of a separate innovation survey and
of response rate on the measurement of innovation activity in Norway”, Documents, No. 51/2012, Statistics
Norway, Oslo, www.ssb.no/a/english/publikasjoner/pdf/doc_201251_en/doc_201251_en.pdf.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS │ 241
Glossary of terms
Activities relating to the This includes the purchase, lease, or acquisition through a takeover of buildings, machinery,
acquisition or lease of equipment, or the in-house production of such goods for own-use. The acquisition or lease
tangible assets of tangible assets can be innovation activities in their own right, such as when a firm
purchases equipment with significantly different characteristics than the existing equipment
that it uses for its business processes. The acquisition of tangible capital goods is generally
not an innovation activity if it is for replacement or capital-widening investments that are
unchanged, or with only minor changes compared to the firm’s existing stock of tangible
capital. The lease or rental of tangible assets is an innovation activity if these assets are
required for the development of product or business process innovations.
Administrative data Administrative data is the set of units and data derived from an administrative source such
as business registers or tax files.
Affiliated firm Affiliated firms include holding, subsidiary or associated companies located in the domestic
country or abroad. See also Enterprise group.
Artificial intelligence (AI) Artificial intelligence (AI) describes the activity and outcome of developing computer
systems that mimic human thought processes, reasoning and behaviour.
Asset An asset is a store of value that represents a benefit or series of benefits accruing to the
economic owner by holding or using the asset over a period of time. Both financial and
non-financial assets are relevant to innovation. Fixed assets are the result of production
activities and are used repeatedly or continuously in production processes for more than
one year.
Big data Data that are too large or complex to be handled by conventional data processing tools and
techniques.
Brand equity activities See Marketing and brand equity activities.
Business capabilities Business capabilities include the knowledge, competencies and resources that a firm
accumulates over time and draws upon in the pursuit of its objectives. The skills and
abilities of a firm's workforce are a particularly critical part of innovation-relevant business
capabilities.
Business enterprise sector The Business enterprise sector comprises:
• All resident corporations, including legally incorporated enterprises, regardless of the
residence of their shareholders. This includes quasi-corporations, i.e. units capable of
generating a profit or other financial gain for their owners, recognised by law as separate
legal entities from their owners, and set up for the purpose of engaging in market
production at prices that are economically significant.
• The unincorporated branches of non-resident enterprises deemed to be resident and part
of this sector because they are engaged in production on the economic territory on a long-
term basis.
• All resident non-profit institutions that are market producers of goods or services or serve
businesses.

242 │ GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Business innovation A business innovation is a new or improved product or business process (or combination
thereof) that differs significantly from the firm's previous products or business processes
and that has been introduced on the market or brought into use by the firm.
Business innovation See Innovation activities (business).
activities
Business model innovation Business model innovation relates to changes in a firm’s core business processes as well
as in the main products that it sells, currently or in the future.
Business process A business process innovation is a new or improved business process for one or more
innovation business functions that differs significantly from the firm’s previous business processes and
that has been brought into use by the firm. The characteristics of an improved business
function include greater efficacy, resource efficiency, reliability and resilience, affordability,
and convenience and usability for those involved in the business process, either external or
internal to the firm. Business process innovations are implemented when they are brought
into use by the firm in its internal or outward-facing operations. Business process
innovations include the following functional categories:
• production of goods and services
• distribution and logistics
• marketing and sales
• information and communication systems
• administration and management
• product and business process development.
Business strategy A business strategy includes the formulation of goals and the identification of policies to
reach these goals. Strategic goals cover the intended outcomes over the mid- and long-
term (excluding the goal of profitability, which is shared by all firms). Strategic policies or
plans include how a firm creates a competitive advantage or a “unique selling proposition”.
Capital expenditures Capital expenditures are the annual gross amount paid for the acquisition of fixed assets
and the costs of internally developing fixed assets. These include gross expenditures on
land and buildings, machinery, instruments, transport equipment and other equipment, as
well as intellectual property products. See also Current expenditures.
CDM model The CDM model (based on the initials of the three authors’ names, Crépon, Duguet and
Mairesse) is an econometric model widely used in empirical research on innovation and
productivity. The CDM framework provides a structural model that explains productivity by
innovation output and corrects for the selectivity and endogeneity inherent in survey data.
Cloud computing Cloud systems and applications are digital storage and computing resources remotely
available on-demand via the Internet.
Cognitive testing Cognitive testing is a methodology developed by psychologists and survey researchers
which collects verbal information on survey responses. It is used to evaluate the ability of a
question (or group of questions) to measure constructs as intended by the researcher and
if respondents can provide reasonably accurate responses.
Co-innovation Co-innovation, or “coupled open innovation”, occurs when collaboration between two or
more partners results in an innovation.

Collaboration Collaboration requires co-ordinated activity across different parties to address a jointly
defined problem, with all partners contributing. Collaboration requires the explicit definition
of common objectives and it may include agreement over the distribution of inputs, risks
and potential benefits. Collaboration can create new knowledge, but it does not need to
result in an innovation. See also Co-operation.
Community Innovation The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) is a harmonised survey of innovation in
Survey (CIS) enterprises co-ordinated by Eurostat and currently carried out every two years in EU
member states and several European Statistical System (ESS) member countries.
Composite indicator A composite indicator compiles multiple indicators into a single index based on an
underlying conceptual model in a manner which reflects the dimensions or structure of the
phenomena being measured. See also Indicator.
Computer-assisted personal Computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) is a method of data collection in which an
interviewing (CAPI) interviewer uses a computer to display questions and accept responses during a face-to-
face interview.
Computer-assisted telephone Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) is a method of data collection by telephone
interviewing (CATI) with questions displayed on a computer and responses entered directly into a computer.
Co-operation Co-operation occurs when two or more participants agree to take responsibility for a task or
series of tasks and information is shared between the parties to facilitate the agreement.
See also Collaboration.
Corporations The System of National Accounts (SNA) Corporations sector consists of corporations that
are principally engaged in the production of market goods and services. This manual
adopts the convention of referring to this sector as the Business enterprise sector, in line
with the terminology adopted in the OECD’s Frascati Manual.
Counterfactual In impact evaluation, the counterfactual refers to what would have happened to potential
beneficiaries in the absence of an intervention. Impacts can thus be estimated as the
difference between potential outcomes under observed and unobserved counterfactual
treatments. An example is estimating the causal impacts of a policy “treatment” to support
innovation activities. The researcher cannot directly observe the counterfactuals: for
supported firms, what would have been their performance if they had not been supported,
and similarly with non-supported firms.
Cross-sectional survey A cross-sectional survey collects data to make inferences about a population of interest (or
subset) at a specific point in time.
Current expenditures Current expenditures include all costs for labour, materials, services and other inputs to the
production process that are consumed within less than one year, and the costs for leasing
fixed assets. See also Capital expenditures.
Design Design is defined as an innovation activity aimed at planning and designing procedures,
technical specifications and other user and functional characteristics for new products and
business processes. Design includes a wide range of activities to develop a new or modified
function, form or appearance for goods, services or processes, including business processes
to be used by the firm itself. Most design (and other creative work) activities are innovation
activities, with the exception of minor design changes that do not meet the requirements for
an innovation, such as producing an existing product in a new colour. Design capabilities
include the following: (i) engineering design; (ii) product design; and (iii) design thinking.

Design Ladder The Design Ladder is a tool developed by the Danish Design Centre for illustrating and
rating a company's use of design. The Design Ladder is based on the hypothesis that there
is a positive link between higher earnings, placing a greater emphasis on design methods
in the early stages of development and giving design a more strategic position in the
company’s overall business strategy. The four steps are: (i) non-design; (ii) design as form-
giving; (iii) design as process; and (iv) design as strategy.
Design thinking Design thinking is a systematic methodology for the design process that uses design
methods to identify needs, define problems, generate ideas, develop prototypes and test
solutions. It can be used for the design of systems, goods, and services. Collecting data on
design thinking is of value to policy because the methodology can support the innovation
activities of both service and manufacturing firms, resulting in improvements to
competitiveness and economic outcomes.
Diffusion (innovation) Innovation diffusion encompasses both the process by which ideas underpinning product
and business process innovations spread (innovation knowledge diffusion), and the adoption
of such products, or business processes by other firms (innovation output diffusion).
Digital-based innovations Digital-based innovations include product or business process innovations that contain
ICTs, as well as innovations that rely to a significant degree on information and
communication technologies (ICTs) for their development or implementation.
Digital platforms Digital platforms are information and communication technology-enabled mechanisms that
connect and integrate producers and users in online environments. They often form an
ecosystem in which goods and services are requested, developed and sold, and data
generated and exchanged.
Digitalisation Digitalisation is the application or increase in use of digital technologies by an organisation,
industry, country, etc. It refers to how digitisation affects the economy or society. See also
Digitisation.
Digitisation Digitisation is the conversion of an analogue signal conveying information (e.g. sound,
image, printed text) to binary bits. See also Digitalisation.
Dynamic managerial Dynamic managerial capabilities refer to the ability of managers to organise an effective
capabilities response to internal and external challenges Dynamic managerial capabilities include the
following three main dimensions: (i) managerial cognition; (ii) managerial social capital; and
(iii) managerial human capital.
Employee training activities Employee training includes all activities that are paid for or subsidised by the firm to
develop knowledge and skills required for the specific trade, occupation or vocation of a
firm’s employees. Employee training includes on-the-job training and job-related education
at training and educational institutions. Examples of training as an innovation activity
include training personnel to use innovations, such as new software logistical systems or
new equipment; and training relevant to the implementation of an innovation, such as
instructing marketing personnel or customers on the features of a product innovation.

Engineering, design and Engineering, design and other creative work cover experimental and creative activities that
other creative work may be closely related to research and experimental development (R&D), but do not meet
activities all of the five R&D criteria. These include follow-up or auxiliary activities of R&D, or
activities that are performed independently from R&D. Engineering involves production and
quality control procedures, methods and standards. Design includes a wide range of
activities to develop a new or modified function, form or appearance for goods, services or
processes, including business processes to be used by the firm itself. Other creative work
includes all activities for gaining new knowledge or applying knowledge in a novel way that
do not meet the specific novelty and uncertainty (also relating to non-obviousness)
requirements for R&D. Most design and other creative work are innovation activities, with
the exception of minor design changes that do not meet the requirements for an innovation.
Many engineering activities are not innovation activities, such as day-to-day production and
quality control procedures for existing processes.
Enterprise An enterprise is the smallest combination of legal units with autonomy in respect of
financial and investment decision-making, as well as authority and responsibility for
allocating resources for the production of goods and services. The term enterprise may
refer to a corporation, a quasi-corporation, a non-profit institution or an unincorporated
enterprise. It is used throughout this manual to refer specifically to business enterprises.
See also Business enterprise sector.
Enterprise group A set of enterprises controlled by the group head, which is a parent legal unit that is not
controlled either directly or indirectly by any other legal unit. See also Enterprise.
Establishment An establishment is an enterprise, or part of an enterprise, that is situated in a single
location and in which only a single productive activity is carried out or in which the principal
productive activity accounts for most of the value added. See also Enterprise.
Extramural innovation Expenditures for innovation activities carried out by third parties on behalf of the firm,
expenditure including extramural R&D expenditure.
Extramural R&D Extramural research and experimental development (R&D) is any R&D performed outside
of the statistical unit about which information is being reported. Extramural R&D is
considered an innovation activity alongside intramural R&D. See also Intramural R&D.
Firm Informal term used in this manual to refer to business enterprises. See also Enterprise.
Filters Filters and skip instructions direct respondents to different parts of a questionnaire,
depending on their answers to the filter questions. Filters can be helpful for reducing
response burden, particularly in complex questionnaires, but they can also encourage
satisficing behaviour.
Focal innovation Data collection using the object-based method can focus on a firm’s single, “focal”
innovation. This is usually defined as the firm’s most important innovation in terms of some
measurable criteria (e.g. the innovation’s actual or expected contribution to the firm’s
performance, the one with the highest innovation expenditures, the one with the greatest
contribution to sales), but can also be the firm’s most recent innovation.
Follow-on activities Follow-on activities are efforts undertaken by firms for users of an innovation after its
implementation, but within the observation period. These include marketing activities,
employee training, and after-sales services. These follow-on activities can be critical for the
success of an innovation, but they are not included in the definition of an innovation activity.
Framework conditions Broader set of contextual factors related to the external environment that facilitate or hinder
business activities in a given country. These usually include the regulatory environment,
taxation, competition, product and labour markets, institutions, human capital,
infrastructure, standards, etc.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) Full-time equivalent (FTE) is the ratio of working hours actually spent on an activity during a
specific reference period (usually a calendar year) divided by the total number of hours
conventionally worked in the same period.
General government General government consists of institutional units that, in addition to meeting their political
(sector) and regulatory responsibilities, redistribute income and wealth and produce services and
goods for individual or collective consumption, mainly on a non-market basis. The General
government sector also includes non-profit institutions controlled by the government.
Global value chains Pattern of organisation of production involving international trade and investment flows
whereby the different stages of the production process are located across different
countries.
Goods Goods are physical, produced objects for which a demand exists, over which ownership
rights can be established and whose ownership can be transferred from one institutional
unit to another by engaging in transactions on markets. See also Products.
Government support Government support programmes represent direct or indirect transfers of resources to
programmes firms. Support can be of a financial nature or may be provided in kind. This support may
come directly from government authorities or indirectly, for example when consumers are
subsidised to purchase specific products. Innovation-related activities and outcomes are
common targets of government support.
Households Households are institutional units consisting of one or more individuals. In the System of
National Accounts, individuals must belong to only one household. The principal functions
of households are to supply labour, to undertake final consumption and, as entrepreneurs,
to produce market goods and services.
Implementation Implementation refers to the point in time when a significantly different new or improved
product or business process is first made available for use. In the case of product
innovation, this refers to its market introduction, while for business process innovations it
relates to their first use within the firm.
Imputation Imputation is a post-survey adjustment method for dealing with item non-response. A
replacement value is assigned for specific data items where the response is missing or
unusable. Various methods can be used for imputation including mean value, hot-/cold-
deck, nearest-neighbour techniques and regression. See also Item non-response.
Informal sector (or The informal sector is broadly characterised as consisting of units engaged in the
economy) production of goods or services with the primary objective of generating employment and
incomes to the persons concerned. These units typically operate at a low level of
organisation, with little or no division between labour and capital as factors of production
and on a small scale.
Indicator An indicator is a variable that purports to represent the performance of different units along
some dimension. Its value is generated through a process that simplifies raw data about
complex phenomena in order to compare similar units of analysis across time or location.
See also Innovation indicator.
Industry An industry consists of a group of establishments engaged in the same, or similar, kinds of
activity. See also ISIC.
Innovation An innovation is a new or improved product or process (or combination thereof) that differs
significantly from the unit’s previous products or processes and that has been made
available to potential users (product) or brought into use by the unit (process).

Innovation-active firm An innovation-active firm is engaged at some time during the observation period in one or
more activities to develop or implement new or improved products or business processes
for an intended use. Both innovative and non-innovative firms can be innovation-active
during an observation period. See also Innovation status.
Innovation activities Institutional units can undertake a series of actions with the intention to develop
innovations. This can require dedicated resources and engagement in specific activities,
including policies, processes and procedures. See also Innovation activities (business).
Innovation activities Business innovation activities include all developmental, financial and commercial activities
(business) undertaken by a firm that are intended to result in an innovation for the firm. They include:
• research and experimental development (R&D) activities
• engineering, design and other creative work activities
• marketing and brand equity activities
• intellectual property (IP) related activities
• employee training activities
• software development and database activities
• activities related to the acquisition or lease of tangible assets
• innovation management activities.
Innovation activities can result in an innovation, be ongoing, postponed or abandoned.
Innovation barriers and Internal or external factors that hamper or incentivise business innovation efforts.
drivers Depending on the context, an external factor can act as a driver of innovation or as a
barrier to innovation.
Innovation expenditure Economic cost of innovation activities undertaken by a firm or group of firms. Expenditure
(business) can be intramural (activities carried out in-house) or extramural (carried out by third parties
on behalf of the firm). See also Innovation activities (business).
Innovation indicator An innovation indicator is a statistical summary measure of an innovation phenomenon
(activity, output, expenditure, etc.) observed in a population or a sample thereof for a
specified time or place. Indicators are usually corrected (or standardised) to permit
comparisons across units that differ in size or other characteristics. See also Indicator.
Innovation management Innovation management includes all systematic activities to plan, govern and control
internal and external resources for innovation. This includes how resources for innovation
are allocated, the organisation of responsibilities and decision-making among employees,
the management of collaboration with external partners, the integration of external inputs
into a firm’s innovation activities, and activities to monitor the results of innovation and to
support learning from experience.
Innovation objectives Innovation objectives consist of a firm’s identifiable goals that reflect its motives and
underlying strategies with respect to its innovation efforts. The objectives can concern the
characteristics of the innovation itself, such as its specifications, or its market and
economic objectives.
Innovation outcomes Innovation outcomes are the observed effects of innovations, including the extent to which
a firm’s objectives are met and the broader effects of innovation on other organisations, the
economy, society, and the environment. These can also include unexpected effects that
were not identified among the firm’s initial objectives (e.g. spillovers and other
externalities).

Innovation project An innovation project is a set of activities that are organised and managed for a specific
purpose and with their own objectives, resources and expected outcomes. Information on
innovation projects can complement other qualitative and quantitative data on innovation activities.
Innovation sales share The innovation sales share indicator is the share of a firm’s total sales in the reference year
that is due to product innovations. It is an indicator of the economic significance of product
innovations at the level of the innovative firm.
Innovation status The innovation status of a firm is defined on the basis of its engagement in innovation
activities and its introduction of one or more innovations over the observation period of a
data collection exercise. See also Innovative firm and Innovation-active firm.
Innovative firm An innovative firm reports one or more innovations within the observation period. This
applies equally to a firm that is individually or jointly responsible for an innovation. The term
“innovative” is only used in the manual in this context. See also Innovation status.
Institutional unit An institutional unit is defined in the System of National Accounts as “an economic entity
that is capable, in its own right, of owning assets, incurring liabilities, and engaging in
economic activities and transactions with other entities.” Institutional units can undertake a
series of actions with the intention to develop innovations.
Intangible assets See Knowledge-based capital.
Intellectual property (IP) Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind such as inventions; literary and
artistic works; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. See also Intellectual
property rights.
Intellectual property (IP) Intellectual property (IP) related activities include the protection or exploitation of
related activities knowledge, often created through research and experimental development (R&D), software
development, and engineering, design and other creative work. IP activities include all
administrative and legal work to apply for, register, document, manage, trade, license-out,
market and enforce a firm’s own intellectual property rights (IPRs), all activities to acquire
IPRs from other organisations such as through licensing-in or the outright purchase of IP,
and activities to sell IP to third parties. IP activities for ideas, inventions and new or
improved products or business processes developed during the observation period are
innovation activities. See also Intellectual property and Intellectual property rights.
Intellectual property Intellectual property products (IPPs) are the result of research, development, investigation
products (IPPs) or innovation leading to knowledge that the developers can market or use to their own
benefit in production because use of the knowledge is restricted by means of legal or other
protection. They include:
• research and experimental development (R&D)
• mineral exploration and evaluation
• computer software and databases
• entertainment, literary and artistic originals; and other IPPs.
Intellectual property rights Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are legal rights over intellectual property. See also
(IPRs) Intellectual property.

International Standard The International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) consist
Industrial Classification of of coherent and consistent classification structure of economic activities based on a set of
All Economic Activities internationally agreed concepts, definitions, principles and classification rules. It provides a
(ISIC) comprehensive framework within which economic data can be collected and reported in a
format that is designed for purposes of economic analysis, decision-taking and policy-
making. The scope of ISIC in general covers productive activities, i.e. economic activities
within the production boundary of the System of National Accounts (SNA). The
classification is used to classify statistical units, such as establishments or enterprises,
according to the economic activity in which they mainly engage. The most recent version is
ISIC Revision 4.
Intramural R&D Intramural research and experimental development (R&D) expenditures are all current
expenditures plus gross fixed capital expenditures for R&D performed within a statistical
unit. Intramural R&D is an innovation activity alongside extramural R&D. See also
Extramural R&D.
ISO 50500 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards on innovation management
fundamentals and vocabulary developed by the ISO/TC 279 Technical Committee. The
definitions of innovation and innovation management in the Oslo Manual are aligned with
those used by ISO.
Item non-response When a sampled unit responds to a questionnaire incompletely.
Kind-of-activity unit (KAU) A kind-of-activity unit (KAU) is an enterprise, or a part of an enterprise, that engages in only
one kind of productive activity or in which the principal productive activity accounts for most
of the value added. See also Enterprise.
Knowledge Knowledge refers to an understanding of information and the ability to use information for
different purposes.
Knowledge-based capital Knowledge-based capital (KBC) comprises intangible assets that create future benefits.
(KBC) It comprises software and databases, Intellectual property products, and economic
competencies (including brand equity, firm-specific human capital, organisational capital).
Software, databases and intellectual property products are currently recognised by the
System of National Accounts as produced assets. See also Intellectual property products.
Knowledge-capturing Knowledge-capturing products concern the provision, storage, communication and
products dissemination of information, advice and entertainment in such a way that the consuming
unit can access the knowledge repeatedly.
Knowledge flows Knowledge flows refer to inbound and outbound exchanges of knowledge, through market
transactions as well as non-market means. Knowledge flows encompass both deliberate
and accidental transmission of knowledge.
Knowledge management Knowledge management is the co-ordination of all activities by an organisation to direct,
control, capture, use, and share knowledge within and outside its boundaries.
Knowledge network A knowledge network consists of the knowledge-based interactions or linkages shared by a
group of firms and possibly other actors. It includes knowledge elements, repositories and
agents that search for, transmit and create knowledge. These are interconnected by
relationships that enable, shape or constrain the acquisition, transfer and creation of
knowledge. Knowledge networks contain two main components: the type of knowledge and
the actors that receive, supply or exchange knowledge.
Logic model A logic model is a tool used by funders, managers, and evaluators of programmes to
represent the sequence of impacts and evaluate the effectiveness of a programme.
Longitudinal survey A longitudinal survey collects data on the same units (panel) over multiple time periods.

Management capabilities Management capabilities can influence a firm’s ability to undertake innovation activities,
introduce innovations and generate innovation outcomes. For the purpose of innovation,
two key areas are considered: (i) a firm’s competitive strategy; and (ii) the organisational
and managerial capabilities used to implement this strategy. See also Managerial
capabilities.
Managerial capabilities Managerial capabilities include all of a firm’s internal abilities, capacities, and competences
that can be used to mobilise, command and exploit resources in order to meet the firm’s
strategic goals. These capabilities typically relate to managing people; intangible, physical
and financial capital; and knowledge. Capabilities concern both internal processes and
external relations. Managerial capabilities are a specific subset of organisational capabilities
that relate to the ability of managers to organise change. See also Management capabilities.
Marketing and brand equity Marketing and brand equity activities include market research and market testing, methods
activities for pricing, product placement and product promotion; product advertising, the promotion of
products at trade fairs or exhibitions and the development of marketing strategies.
Marketing activities for existing products are only innovation activities if the marketing
practice is itself an innovation.
Marketing innovation Type of innovations used in the previous edition of this Manual, currently these are mostly
subsumed under business process innovation, except for innovations in product design
which are included under product innovation.
Metadata Metadata are data that define and describe other data. This includes including information
on the procedure used to collect data, sampling methods, procedures for dealing with non-
response, and quality indicators.
Moments (statistical) Statistical indicators providing information on the shape of the distribution of a database.
Examples include the mean and the variance.
Multinational enterprise A multinational enterprise (MNE) refers to a parent company resident in a country and its
(MNE) majority-owned affiliates located abroad, which are labelled controlled affiliates abroad.
MNEs are also referred to as global enterprise groups. See also Enterprise group.
New-to-firm (NTF) Lowest threshold for innovation in terms of novelty referring to a first time use or
innovation implementation by a firm. A new-to-firm (NTF) innovation can also be new-to-market (NTM)
(or world), but not vice versa. If an innovation is NTF but not NTM (e.g. when adopting
existing products or business processes – as long as they differ significantly from what the
firm offered or used previously – with little or no modification), it is referred to as “NTF
only”. See also New-to-market innovation.
New-to-market (NTM) An innovation by a firm that has not been available in the market(s) served by the firm.
innovation New-to-market innovation represent a higher threshold for innovation than a new-to-firm
innovation in terms of novelty. See also New-to-firm innovation.
Nominal variable Categorical variable with no intrinsic ordering. See also Ordinal variable.
Non-innovative firm A non-innovative firm is one that does not report an innovation within the observation
period. A non-innovative firm can still be innovation-active if it had one or more ongoing,
suspended, abandoned or completed innovation activities that did not result in an
innovation during the observation period. See also Innovative firm.
Non-profit institution (NPI) Non-profit institutions (NPIs) are legal or social entities created for the purpose of
producing goods and services, whose status does not permit them to be a source of
income, profit or other financial gain for the units that establish, control or finance them.
They can be engaged in market or non-market production.

Non-profit institutions Non-profit institutions serving households (NPISHs) are legal entities that are principally
serving households engaged in the production of non-market services for households or the community at large
(NPISHs) and whose main resource is from voluntary contributions. If controlled by government, they
are part of the General government sector. If controlled by firms, they are assigned to the
Business enterprise sector. See also Non-profit institution.
Non-response survey A non-response survey is a survey aimed to identify likely significant differences between
responding and non-responding units and to obtain information on why non-responding
units did not answer. See also Unit non-response,
Novelty Novelty is a dimension used to assess whether a product or business process is
“significantly different” from previous ones and if so, it could be considered an innovation.
The first and most widely used approach to determine the novelty of a firm’s innovations is
to compare these with the state of the art in the market or industry in which the firm
operates. The second option is to assess the potential for an innovation to transform (or
create) a market, which can provide a possible indicator for the incidence of radical or
disruptive innovation. A final option for product innovations is to measure the observed
change in sales over the observation period or by asking directly about future expectations
of the effect of these innovations on competitiveness.
Object-based approach The object approach to innovation measurement collects data on a single, focal innovation
(the object of the study). See also Subject-based approach.
Observation period The observation period is the length of time covered by a question in a survey. See also
Reference period.
Open innovation Open innovation denotes the flow of innovation-relevant knowledge across the boundaries
of individual organisations. This notion of “openness” does not necessarily imply that
knowledge is free of charge or exempt from use restrictions.
Ordinal variable An ordinal variable is a categorical variable for which the values are ordered. See also
Nominal variable.
Organisational capabilities See Managerial capabilities.
Organisational innovation Type of innovation used in the previous edition of this Manual, currently subsumed under
business process innovation.
Panel A panel is the subset of units that are repeatedly sampled over two or more iterations of a
longitudinal survey. See also Longitudinal survey.
Paradata Paradata refers to the data about the process by which surveys are filled in. Paradata can
be analysed to identify best practices that minimise undesirable respondent behaviour such
as premature termination or satisficing, in order to improve future iterations of the survey
instrument.
Product A product is a good or service (including knowledge-capturing products as well as
combinations of goods and services) that results from a process of production. See also
Goods and Services.
Product innovation A product innovation is a new or improved good or service that differs significantly from the
firm’s previous goods or services and that has been introduced on the market. Product
innovations must provide significant improvements to one or more characteristics or
performance specifications. See also Product.
Production processes Production processes (or production activities) are defined in the System of National
Accounts as all activities, under the control of an institutional unit, that use inputs of labour,
capital, goods and services to produce outputs of goods and services. These activities are
the focus of innovation analysis.

Public sector The public sector includes all institutions controlled by government, including public
business enterprises. The latter should not be confused with publicly listed (and traded)
corporations. The public sector is a broader concept than the General government sector.
Public infrastructure Public infrastructure can be defined by government ownership or by government control
through direct regulation. The technical and economic characteristics of public
infrastructure strongly influence the functional capabilities, development and performance
of an economy, hence the inclusion of public infrastructure as an external factor that can
influence innovation. Public infrastructure includes areas such as transport, energy,
information and communication technology, waste management, water supply, knowledge
infrastructure, and health.
Public research institution Although there is no formal definition of a public research institution (PRI) (sometimes also
(PRI) referred to as a public research organisation), it must meet two criteria: (i) it performs
research and experimental developmentas a primary economic activity (research); and (ii)
it is controlled by government. Private non-profit research institutes are therefore excluded.
Reference period The reference period is the final year of the overall survey observation period and is used
as the effective observation period for collecting interval level data items, such as
expenditures or the number of employed persons. See also Observation period.
Regulation Regulation refers to the implementation of rules by public authorities and governmental
bodies to influence market activity and the behaviour of private actors in the economy. A
wide variety of regulations can affect the innovation activities of firms, industries and
economies.
Reporting unit The reporting unit refers to the “level” within the business from which the required data are
collected. The reporting unit may differ from the required statistical unit.
Research and experimental Research and experimental development (R&D) comprise creative and systematic work
development (R&D) undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge – including knowledge of
humankind, culture and society – and to devise new applications of available knowledge.
Sampling fraction The sampling fraction is the ratio of the sample size to the population size.
Satisficing Satisficing refers to respondent behaviours to reduce the time and effort required to
complete an online or printed questionnaire. These include abandoning the survey before it
is completed (premature termination), skipping questions, non-differentiation (when
respondents give the identical response category to all sub-questions in a question, for
example answering “slightly important” to all sub-questions in a grid question), and
speeding through the questionnaire.
Services Services are the result of a production activity that changes the conditions of the
consuming units, or facilitates the exchange of products or financial assets. They cannot be
traded separately from their production. Services can also include some knowledge-
capturing products. See also Products.
Social innovation Innovations defined by their (social) objectives to improve the welfare of individuals or
communities.
Software development and Software development and database activities include:
database activities
• The in-house development and purchase of computer software, programme descriptions
and supporting materials for both systems and applications software (including standard
software packages, customised software solutions and software embedded in products or
equipment).
• The acquisition, in-house development and analysis of computer databases and other
computerised information, including the collection and analysis of data in proprietary
computer databases and data obtained from publicly available reports or the Internet.

• Activities to upgrade or expand the functions of information technology systems, including

computer programmes and databases. This includes statistical data analysis and data
mining activities.
Software development is an innovation activity when used to develop new or improved
business processes or products, such as computer games, logistical systems, or software
to integrate business processes. Database activities are an innovation activity when used for
innovation, such as analyses of data on the properties of materials or customer preferences.
Standards Document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides,
for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their
results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
Statistical unit A statistical unit is an entity about which information is sought and for which statistics are
ultimately compiled; in other words, it is the institutional unit of interest for the intended
purpose of collecting innovation statistics. A statistical unit can be an observation unit for
which information is received and statistics are compiled, or an analytical unit which is
created by splitting or combining observation units with the help of estimations or
imputations in order to supply more detailed or homogeneous data than would otherwise
be possible.
Stratified sample A stratified sample is a sample selected from a population which has been divided into
separate groups (“strata”) to control the representation of key sub-populations. Separate
samples are drawn from each stratum and the target sample size for each will depend on
precision criteria, as well as on the number of units, the size of the units and the variability
of the main variables of interest within each stratum.
Subject-based approach The subject approach focuses on the firm (the subject) and collects data on all its
innovation activities. See also Object-based approach.
Success of innovations Success of innovations refer to economic returns generated by the commercialisation or
the internal use of innovations. The definition of business innovation does not require an
innovation to be a commercial, financial or strategic success at the time of measurement. A
product innovation can fail commercially or a business process innovation may require
more time to meet its objectives.
Suppliers Suppliers are firms or organisations that supply goods (equipment, materials, software,
components etc.) or services (consulting, business services, etc.) to other firms or
organisations. This includes providers of knowledge-capturing products such as intellectual
property rights.
Survey frame The frame population is the set of target population members that has a chance to be
selected into the survey sample.
System of National The System of National Accounts (SNA) is a statistical framework that provides a
Accounts (SNA) comprehensive, consistent and flexible set of macroeconomic accounts for policymaking,
analysis and research purposes. The most recent version is the 2008 SNA.
Tangible assets See Activities related to the acquisition or lease of tangible assets.
Technological capabilities Technological capabilities include knowledge about technologies and how to use them,
including the ability to advance technologies beyond the state of the art. Technological
capabilities include (i) technical expertise; (ii) design capabilities; and (iii) capabilities for the
use of digital technologies and data analytics. See also Technology.

Technical expertise Technical expertise consists of a firm’s knowledge of and ability to use technology. This
knowledge is derived from the skills and qualifications of its employees, including its
engineering and technical workforce, accumulated experience in using the technology, the
use of capital goods containing the technology, and control over the relevant intellectual
property. See also Technology.
Technology Technology refers to the state of knowledge on how to convert resources into outputs. This
includes the practical use and application to business processes or products of technical
methods, systems, devices, skills and practices.
Training See Employee training activities.
Unit non-response When a sampled unit that is contacted does not respond to a survey.
User innovation User innovation refers to activities whereby consumers or end-users modify a firm’s
products, with or without the firm’s consent, or when users develop entirely new products.
Value creation The existence of opportunity costs implies the likely intention to pursue some form of value
creation (or value preservation) by the actors responsible for an innovation activity. Value is
therefore an implicit goal of innovation, but cannot be guaranteed on an ex ante basis. The
realisation of the value of an innovation is uncertain and can only be fully assessed
sometime after its implementation. The value of an innovation can also evolve over time
and provide different types of benefits to different stakeholders.

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
(92 2018 03 1 P) ISBN 978-92-64-30455-0 – 2018
The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities
Oslo Manual 2018
GUIDELINES FOR COLLECTING, REPORTING AND USING DATA
ON INNOVATION
4th EDITION
What is innovation and how should it be measured? Understanding the scale of innovation activities, the
characteristics of innovative firms and the internal and systemic factors that can influence innovation is a
prerequisite for the pursuit and analysis of policies aimed at fostering innovation. First published in 1992, the
Oslo Manual is the international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation. In this fourth
edition, the manual has been updated to take into account a broader range of innovation-related phenomena
as well as the experience gained from recent rounds of innovation surveys in OECD countries and partner
economies and organisations.
Consult this publication on line at https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.
Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.
ISBN 978-92-64-30455-0
92 2018 03 1 P
9HSTCQE*daeffa+

Manual de Oslo - 2018-3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual de Oslo - 2018-3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual de Oslo - 2018-3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PART III.

METHODS FOR STATISTICS ON BUSINESS INNOVATION │ 175

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

Chapter 9. Methods for collecting data on business innovation

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.2. Population and other basic characteristics for a survey

9.2.1. Target population

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

 The unincorporated branches of non-resident enterprises deemed to be resident and

9.2.2. Statistical units and reporting units

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

Main economic activity

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

Table 9.1. Economic activities for inclusion in international comparisons of business

Based on UN ISIC Rev.4 sections and divisions

Section Division Description

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.2.3. Data linkage

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.2.4. Frequency of data collection

9.2.5. Observation and reference periods

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.3. Question and questionnaire design

9.49. Chapters 3 to 8 of this manual identify different concepts and characteristics of

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

Figure 9.1. From innovation theory to innovation data

Theoretical world: Empirical world:

Theory Data file

Measurements and operational

9.3.1. Question design

Question adaptation and translation

Question comprehension and quality

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

Nominal and ordinal response categories

9.3.2. Questionnaire design

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.3.3. Short-form questionnaires

9.3.4. Combining innovation and other business surveys

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

innovation surveys, for instance by combining questions on innovation with questions on

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

 Care should be taken in comparisons of innovation results from combined surveys

9.3.5. Questionnaire testing

9.4.1. The survey frame

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.4.2. Census versus sample

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

Domains (sub-populations of high interest)

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.4.3. Longitudinal panel data and cross-sectional surveys

9.5. Data collection methods

9.5.1. Postal surveys

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.5.2. Online surveys

Collecting paradata in online surveys

OSLO MANUAL 2018 © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2018

9.5.3. Telephone and face-to-face interviews