First of all, the first thing that we should consider is that the OSLO Manual provides us a rich, broad and useful content on how measuring, what are the better methods, and the main theorical framework on innovation. Well, the OSLO Manual provides us some guidelines to interpreting and measuring innovation, with examples from all part of the world. Also, it shows us that we can compare innovative data, innovative index within an adapted method to economy and any sort of contexts (OECD, 2018).
From Oslo Manual 2015 to Oslo Manual 2018, there were some differences on dividing analysis. In 2015, we had four units of analysis: "product and service", "process", "marketing", and "organization". Nowadays, we have only two: the "product and service" and the "business processes" in which this last one includes the "process", "marketing" and "organization" on business innovation (OECD, 2018).
Innovation occurs when a product or service is new or enhanced in comparision with the previous one, such as a new knowledge, some disruption on its real or potential use, and most important, it has to be highly valued to the target audience and clients. Thus, a product have to be inserted on the industry market and the new processes be internalized into the organization. Then, the triple-helix agents are highly interested on that, such as managers, scholars and government public administrators (OECD, 2018).
Well, in order to assess and measure objects and activities of the innovation structure, we can use qualitative and quantitative methods (when we write on "qualitative" we are thinking on a good qualitative approach), and then, the organizational goals and outcomes should be minded. Furthemore, primary data should be rigorously collected and if we will be using secondary data, this one should be reliable. Also, the Oslo Manual 2018 sugests to utilizing a subject topic approach, or even the own activities or/and objects (OECD, 2018).
As measuring activities, take into account the following: research and developing (R&D) activities; creativity related activities; marketing; intelectual property and copyrights; humans resource enhancement; informational and technological resource improvement; finance management (as tangible assets); and the own innovation management. Internal and external activities related to innovation should be qualitatively assessed, and activities on financial expenses, financial collections and accounting should be quantitatively assessed. Also, we can use the resource-based view as a measuring (such as general issues, management, human and technological capital), based on business and organizational knowledge flow (diffusion, flow and open innovation), based on the environment (key external elements, local, market, environment, policies, social and natural environment, and environmental facilitators, drivers and obstacles) (OECD, 2018).
The literature has giving attention on the importance of patents and measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Lanjouw, Pakes and Putnam, J. (1996) stated that the amount of the years whose a patent is renewed and the amount of countries in which some invention is looked for, these measures should reveal the extent of the innovation. Although the patent citation represents the public research flow, Roach and Cohen (2012) also found that it ignores the knowledge from private sector, contractual and the own research made within firms conduct by these one. Thus, underestimating innovation effect on firm's performance is an inconvenient outcome of patent citation measuring. Furthemore, Hagedoorn and Cloodt (2002) suggest that innovation performance variable can be measured in "R&D input", patent amount, "patent citation" and new product announcements which reflects the size, qualitity and level of such innovations. Even more, some factors impacts more on innovation performance depending on the industry and business nature, such as high technology induestries have greater level on R&D and patent amound than others.
In sum, the innovation have a lot of ways to be measured and assessed, especially taking into account the amount of patents, products novelty, R&D investments, and of course, without exception, a good qualitative analysis on these numbers and/or these processes and/or the own product.
References:
Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2002). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365-1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00137-3
OECD (2018). Oslo Manual 2018 - The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Lanjouw, J. O., Pakes, A., & Putnam, J. (1996). How to count patents and value intellectual property: uses of patent renewal and application data. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 405-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00081
Roach, M., & Cohen, W. M. (2012). Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research. Management Science, 59(2), 504-525. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1644
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity