Post on 28-Mar-2015
transcript
Innovation in Portugal: Innovation in Portugal:
What do we know?What do we know? What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
Manuel J. Bóia, Pedro Conceição, Rui Santos and Manuel HeitorManuel J. Bóia, Pedro Conceição, Rui Santos and Manuel Heitor
Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, IN+,Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, IN+,Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de LisboaFaculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2 OctoberFundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2 October 2003 2003
Work partially funded by OCES
OutlineOutline1.1. From From Catching-upCatching-up to to Forging AheadForging Ahead……
2. The Third Community Innovation Survey, CIS 32. The Third Community Innovation Survey, CIS 3
3. Convergence3. Convergence• Performance Improvements in Main IndicatorsPerformance Improvements in Main Indicators Leading towards the EU MeanLeading towards the EU Mean
4. Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence4. Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence• Do results indicate latecomer growth?Do results indicate latecomer growth? Do qualitative weaknesses remain?Do qualitative weaknesses remain? Or is there evidence of qualitative changes as well?Or is there evidence of qualitative changes as well?
5. Conclusions5. Conclusions What do we know?What do we know? What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
The Imperative: improve productivity and efficiency,
not the extension with which resources are used
G7
Euro Area
América do Norte
Portugal
Grécia
Hungria
Nova Zelândia
Japão
Islândia
AustráliaEspanha
Canadá
Finlândia
Reino Unido
Suécia
Suiça
Irlanda
Dinamarca
Alemanha
Áustria
Holanda
EUA
Itália
França
Noruega
Luxemburgo
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Diferença da Produtividade Horária Face à Média Comunitária
Efe
ito
do
Nú
me
ro d
e H
ora
s d
e T
rab
alh
o
Produtividade horária menor que a média EU-15Menos horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Produtividade horária maior que a média EU-15Menos horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Produtividade horária maior que a média EU-15Mais horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Produtividade horária menor que a média EU-15Mais horas de trabalho do que a média EU-15
Contributions of Hourly Productivity and of Hours Worked to the “Gap” in GDP per Capita (1998)
How to increase productivity? There is a need to enhance innovation.
Why? Because Portugal is already competitive in low value-added activities.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
EU
OCDE
Polónia
República Checa
Turquia
Grécia
Espanha
Portugal
Hungria
México
Noruega
Bélgica/Luxemburgo
Finlândia
Itália
Coreia
Nova Zelândia
Holanda
França
Reino Unido
Canada
Austria
Dinamarca
Suécia
Alemanha
Japão
Irlanda
EUA
Austrália
Suiça
Percentagem das Exportações para a União Europeia (1996)
Alto Valor
Médio Valor
Baixo Valor
Proportion of Exports According to the Price/Quality Ratio (Value) of Exported Goods (EUROSTAT)
What is lacking to enhance productivity? a) R&D investment, namely by firms
Reino Unido
Turquia
Suiça
Suécia
Espanha
Portugal
PolóniaNoruega
Holanda
Itália
Irlanda
Hungria
Grécia
Alemanha
França
Finlândia
Dinamarca
República Checa
Bélgica
Nova Zelândia
Coreia Japão
Austrália
EUA
México
Canada
R2 = 0.7(exceptuando Irlanda e México)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4Intensidade em I&D na Indústria
(Despesa em I&D na Indústria/Produção Industrial)
Es
pe
cia
liza
çã
o d
as
Ex
po
rta
çõ
es
em
Se
cto
res
de
Alt
a T
ec
no
log
ia(E
xpo
rta
çõe
s e
m A
lta T
ecn
olo
gia
/To
tal d
e E
xpo
rta
çõe
s)
High Tech Exports and R&D Intensity in Firms (OCDE,2002)
1.6%
1.8%
2.2%
2.7%
3.2%
3.3%
3.5%
3.8%
3.9%
4.1%
4.3%
7.0%
0.7%
1.2%
2.5%
4.0%
2.1%
3.0%
1.6%
1.3%
3.0%
2.4%
3.8%
Portugal
Espanha
Bélgica
Noruega
Reino Unido
Irlanda
Áustria
Holanda
França
Alemanha
Finlândia
Suécia
Indústria Serviços
Firm Revenues Invested in Activities Oriented towards Innovation
What is lacking to enhance productivity? b) expenditure on innovation
c) Portugal also lacks technical skills and competencies
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
Highest Level of Education Attained: Population of 25-64 Years Old (2001)(Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2002)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Portugal
Turkey
Spain
Italy
Greece
Luxemburg
Belgium
Ireland
Netherlands
France
Hungary
Austria
Finland
Germany
Poland
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
UK
Slovakia
Czech Republic
US
Upper Secondary Education Terciary Education
What is lacking to enhance productivity?
d) Portugal is behind in organizational, as much as in technological, innovation
Rotação dos Trabalhadores
Organização do Trabalho em
Equipas
Maior Envolvimento dos Trabalhadores menos Qualificados
Horizontalização das Estrutura de
Gestão
Alemanha 7 20 19 30Dinamarca 28 40 10 42Espanha 14 34 33 -França 6 30 44 21Holanda 9 9 46 47Irlanda 10 27 32 23Itália 13 28 24 10Portugal 9 22 9 3Reino Unido 13 33 48 45Suécia 38 29 60 46Média (não ponderada) 15 27 33 29
Adoption of Flexible Management Practices OCDE (1999). Employment Outlook
What does Portugal have going for it?
200 220 240 260 280 300 320
Chile
Portugal
Polónia
Eslovénia
Irlanda
Reino Unido
Hungria
Nova Zelândia
EUA
Austrália
Canadá
Bélgica
Finlândia
Holanda
Alemanha
Noruega
República Checa
Dinamarca
Suécia
Resultados Médios, População entre 16 e 65 Anos, 1994-1998 (Escala de 0 a 500)
Quantitativa
Leitura
Escrita
a) Portugal is now a dual country: excellence coexists with poor performance
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Chile
Hungria
Polónia
EUA
Eslovénia
Irlanda
Nova Zelândia
Reino Unido
Austrália
Canadá
República Checa
Dinamarca
Bélgica
Noruega
Alemanha
Portugal
Holanda
Suécia
Finlândia
Resultados Médios, População entre 20 e 25 Anos com Educação Secundária Avançada Concluída, 1992-1998 (Escala de 0 a 500)
Written Literacy: Results for Population between 20 and 25
Years with Advanced High School Diplomas
Literacy: Results for the Entire Population
b) Portugal has been growing fast, but less so than other “catching-up” countries
What does Portugal have going for it?
Canada
México
EUA
AustráliaJapão
Coreia
Nova Zelândia
Austria Bélgica
Dinamarca
Finlândia
FrançaAlemanha
Grécia
Hungria
Irlanda
Itália
HolandaNoruegaPolónia
PortugalEspanha
Suécia
Suiça
Turquia
Reino Unido
EU
OCDE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Taxa Média de Crescimento Anual de Patentes Submetidas ao EPO (1990-1996)
Ta
xa
Mé
dia
de
Cre
sc
ime
nto
An
ua
l d
e A
rtig
os
Cie
ntí
fic
os
Pu
bli
ca
do
s
(19
90
-19
95
)
Variation in the Number of Patents and Number of Published Scientific Articles
What does Portugal have going for it?
c) Portugal has a new wealth in incoming people
-50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0% 300.0% 350.0%
EU
OCDE
França
Australia
Bélgica
Holanda
Canada
Suécia
Noruega
Reino Unido
Alemanha
EUA
Irlanda
Suiça
Luxemburgo
Japão
Espanha
Dinamarca
Portugal
Itália
Austria
Finlândia
Crescimento da Proporção da População Estrangeira (1988-1998)
Growth in the Population of Each Country with Foreign Origin (1988-1998), OECD(2000)
In the way of a summary.......
There may be agreement on some general and generic areas for investment (education, science and technology, infrastructures, “social capital” defined in a broad way). But the design and implementation of specific policies meets two challenges:– The lack of understanding of the barriers and opportunities – A lack of qualified people able to understand and interpret
the developmental shortcomings of the country and of designing and implementing, at the firm level or in the public sector, the measures that could overcome these shortcomings.
Portugal needs to jump from a “catching-up” model of economic growth and development, to a model of “forging-ahead” by exploring creativity and ingeniousness by developing and diffusing innovation.
OutlineOutline1.1. From Catching-up to Forging AheadFrom Catching-up to Forging Ahead
2. The Third Community Innovation Survey, CIS 32. The Third Community Innovation Survey, CIS 3
3. Convergence3. Convergence• Performance Improvements in Main IndicatorsPerformance Improvements in Main Indicators Leading towards the EU MeanLeading towards the EU Mean
4. Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence4. Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence• Do results indicate latecomer growth?Do results indicate latecomer growth? Do qualitative weaknesses remain?Do qualitative weaknesses remain? Or is there evidence of qualitative changes as well?Or is there evidence of qualitative changes as well?
5. Conclusions5. Conclusions What do we know?What do we know? What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
Survey SampleSurvey Sample• Initial Sample: Initial Sample: 47274727 firms stratified by firm size and sector firms stratified by firm size and sector
(INE–1999 Data)(INE–1999 Data)
• Corrected sample: Corrected sample: 41274127 firms firms
Sectors SurveyedSectors Surveyed• Mining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale Mining and Quarrying, all Manufacturing, Utilities, Wholesale
Trade and a selection of industries in the Service SectorTrade and a selection of industries in the Service Sector
Survey Target PopulationSurvey Target PopulationAll Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employeesAll Manufacturing and Service firms with more than 10 employees
2. The Third Community innovation Survey: CIS 32. The Third Community innovation Survey: CIS 3Application to PortugalApplication to Portugal
Innovation Defined as: Innovation Defined as: Market introductionMarket introduction of a product (Good or Service) of a product (Good or Service) new or significantly improvednew or significantly improved, or the introduction of new or significantly , or the introduction of new or significantly improved processes, based on new technological developments, new improved processes, based on new technological developments, new combinations of existing technologies or on the use of other type of knowledge combinations of existing technologies or on the use of other type of knowledge acquired.acquired.
• Harmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and other Harmonized questionnaire (the same for Services and Manufacturing and other industries)industries)
• Questions regarding:Questions regarding:
General InformationGeneral Information
Basic Economic InformationBasic Economic InformationProduct and Process InnovationProduct and Process InnovationPatents and Other Protection MethodsPatents and Other Protection Methods
Innovation Activities and ExpenditureInnovation Activities and ExpenditureIntramural R & DIntramural R & DOther Strategic and Organizational Important ChangesOther Strategic and Organizational Important Changes
Effects of InnovationEffects of InnovationPublic FundingPublic FundingInnovation Co-operationInnovation Co-operationSources of Information for InnovationSources of Information for InnovationHampered Innovation ActivityHampered Innovation Activity
Companies Characteristics
Innovation Extension
Companies Options
Systemic Characteristics
2. The Third Community innovation Survey2. The Third Community innovation Survey QuestionnaireQuestionnaire
3. Convergence : 3. Convergence : Performance Improvements as Measured by Main Quantitative IndicatorsPerformance Improvements as Measured by Main Quantitative Indicators
Main indicators CIS II/CIS IIIServices
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CIS II CIS III
Eff iciency Rate
Engaged
Inovators
Main indicators CIS II/CIS IIIManufacture
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CIS II CIS III
Eff iciency Rate
Engaged
Innovators
Process
Product
Main indicators CIS II/CIS IIIAll
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CIS II CIS III
Eff iciency Rate
Engaged
Inovators
(results obtained throuhg OCES)
Ireland
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
UK
Sweden
Norway
France
Luxemburg
Belgium
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of Manufacturing Innovating Enterprises
Proportion of Service
Innovating Enterprises
PortugalItaly
(1) For comparison with the data of 1995-1997 some Sub sectors (NACE 63, 73, 74.3 e 64 except 64.2) and the manufacturing companies in between 10 and 20 employees which were part of the CIS 3 survey are not considered
(2) Includes the results not considered in (1).Note: Final disaggregated and comparable results are not yet available for the other
participants in the exercise.
(1)(2)
CIS III(Preliminary)
CIS II
Finland
3. Convergence3. ConvergenceLeading the Convergence towards the EU MeanLeading the Convergence towards the EU Mean
Ireland
GermanyAustria
NetherlandsUK
Sweden
NorwayFrance
Finland
BelgiumPortugal
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0%
Expenditure in Innovating Activities as Share of Turnover
Po
rpo
rtio
n o
f In
no
va
tiv
e E
nte
rpri
se
s
Manufacturing Sector
CIS III(Preliminary)
CIS II
3. Convergence: 3. Convergence: Input vs OutputInput vs Output
3. Convergence3. ConvergenceSmaller Improvement in the Share of Turnover due to InnovationSmaller Improvement in the Share of Turnover due to Innovation
Share of Turnover due to New or Improved Products
CIS II/CIS III
0,0%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
20,0%
CIS II CIS III
Manufacture
Services
Or Or
Is there evidence of qualitative Is there evidence of qualitative changes as well?changes as well?
4. Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence4. Purely quantitative vs. qualitative convergence
Do results indicate latecomer growth?Do results indicate latecomer growth?
Do qualitative weaknesses remain?Do qualitative weaknesses remain?
Questions to be raised:
4.14.1 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeChange
ME’s Catching UpME’s Catching Up
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1995-1997 1998-2000(1)
1998-2000(2)
1995-1997 1998-2000(1)
1998-2000(2)
1995-1997 1998-2000(1)
1998-2000(2)
Manufacturing Services National (3)
Prop
ortio
n of
Inno
vatin
g En
terp
rises
(%)
Small Medium Large Manufaturing Total Services Total National Total
(results obtained throuhg OCES)
0102030405060708090
100C
oke
an
dC
he
mic
als
Ma
chin
ery
an
dE
qu
ipm
en
t
Tra
nsp
ort
Eq
uip
me
nt
Ele
ctri
cal a
nd
Op
tica
lE
qu
ipm
en
tB
asi
c M
eta
lsa
nd
Fa
bri
cate
dR
ub
be
r a
nd
Oth
er
No
n-
Me
talli
cM
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gN
EC
an
dR
ecy
clin
gF
oo
dp
rod
uct
s;B
eve
rag
es
Wo
od
, Pu
lpa
nd
Pu
blis
hin
g
Te
xtile
s a
nd
Le
ath
er
High and Medium-High Medium-Low Low
Technological Sectors (CIS II)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vatin
g E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
0102030405060708090
100C
oke
an
dC
he
mic
als
Ma
chin
ery
an
dE
qu
ipm
en
t
Tra
nsp
ort
Eq
uip
me
nt
Ele
ctri
cal a
nd
Op
tica
lE
qu
ipm
en
tB
asi
c M
eta
lsa
nd
Fa
bri
cate
dR
ub
be
r a
nd
Oth
er
No
n-
Me
talli
cM
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gN
EC
an
dR
ecy
clin
gF
oo
dp
rod
uct
s;B
eve
rag
es
Wo
od
, Pu
lpa
nd
Pu
blis
hin
g
Te
xtile
s a
nd
Le
ath
er
High and Medium-High Medium-Low Low
Technological Sectors (EVCISII)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vatin
g E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
0102030405060708090
100C
oke
an
dC
he
mic
als
Ma
chin
ery
an
dE
qu
ipm
en
t
Tra
nsp
ort
Eq
uip
me
nt
Ele
ctri
cal a
nd
Op
tica
lE
qu
ipm
en
tB
asi
c M
eta
lsa
nd
Fa
bri
cate
dR
ub
be
r a
nd
Oth
er
No
n-
Me
talli
cM
an
ufa
ctu
rin
gN
EC
an
dR
ecy
clin
gF
oo
dp
rod
uct
s;B
eve
rag
es
Wo
od
, Pu
lpa
nd
Pu
blis
hin
g
Te
xtile
s a
nd
Le
ath
er
High and Medium-High Medium-Low Low
Technological Sectors (CIS III)
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vatin
g E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
4.14.1 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeChange
Innovation pervades the economyInnovation pervades the economy
Note: Note: Less confined to the Technologically advanced sectorsLess confined to the Technologically advanced sectors
(results obtained throuhg OCES)
4.14.1 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeChange
Shift of innovation expenditure toward intangibles: services sectorShift of innovation expenditure toward intangibles: services sector
However, weak However, weak and ambiguous in and ambiguous in
the the manufacturing manufacturing
firms - decrease firms - decrease in marketing & in marketing & training, rise in training, rise in
R&D…R&D…
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Acquisition of Machineryand Equipment
Design, Training andMarketing
Intramural R&D
Extramural R&D
Acquisition of otherExternal Knowledge
Proportion of Total Innovation Expenditures in 2000 (%)
1998-2000 1995-1997
Manufacturing
(E
xpe
nd
iture
s)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Acquisition of Machineryand Equipment
Design, Training andMarketing
Intramural R&D
Extramural R&D
Acquisition of otherExternal Knowledge
Proportion of the Total Innovation Expenditure (%)
1998-2000 1995-1997
(E
xpe
nd
iture
s)
Services
4.14.1 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeChange
… … consistent with the rise of BERD since 1997, still quite low by EU standards…consistent with the rise of BERD since 1997, still quite low by EU standards…
(Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002)(Source: R&D Survey, IPCTN, 2002)
Business Expenditure in R&D and average growth rates, 1992-2001
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1992 1995 1997 1999 2001
Millio
n P
TE
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Gro
wth
ra
te
BERD at constant 1995 prices
Annual growth rates
4.14.1 Evidence Supporting Qualitative Evidence Supporting Qualitative ChangeChange
… … and with the observed correlation between technological and other innovationsand with the observed correlation between technological and other innovations
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0 C
hang
ing
En
terp
rise'
sM
ark
etin
gC
once
pts
/Str
ate
gie
s
Adv
ance
dM
ana
gem
ent
Tech
niqu
es
Sig
nific
ant
Ae
sthe
tics'
Cha
nge
Ne
w C
orp
orat
eS
trate
gie
s
Cha
nge
dO
rga
niza
tion
alS
truc
ture
s
Cha
ngi
ng
Ent
erp
rise'
sM
arke
ting
Co
ncep
ts/S
trate
gie
s
Ad
vanc
edM
ana
gem
ent
Tech
niq
ues
Sig
nifi
cant
Aes
thet
ics'
Cha
nge
New
Cor
pora
teS
trate
gies
Ch
ang
edO
rgan
izat
iona
lS
truct
ure
s
Non-Innovators Innovators
Pro
porti
on
of E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
Manufacturing Services
(results obtained throuhg OCES)
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
Industrial structure skewed to very small and small enterprises...Industrial structure skewed to very small and small enterprises...
CIS III population by size
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Manufacture Services All
Small
Medium
Large
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
… … which are much less prone to innovate…which are much less prone to innovate…
CIS III
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Manufacturing Services NationalPro
porti
on o
f Inn
ovat
ing
Ent
erpr
ises
(%)
10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 More than 500 employees
(results obtained throuhg OCES)
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
… … and to middle-low and low technology sectors…and to middle-low and low technology sectors…
CIS III population by Technological Intensity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
High andMedium-HighTechnologies
Medium-LowTechnologies
LowTechnologies
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
… … also less innovativealso less innovative
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Small Medium Large
Enterprise Dimension
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f In
no
vativ
e E
nte
rpri
ses
(%)
Low Medium-Low High and Medium-High Technological Sectors
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
Limited market scopeLimited market scope
Main market scope of innovative enterprises
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Manufacture Services Total
International
National
Local
• The restriction of most firms' targets to the national and local markets sets The restriction of most firms' targets to the national and local markets sets lower innovative challenges;lower innovative challenges;• It also accounts for the unusually high percentage of products "new to the It also accounts for the unusually high percentage of products "new to the market“, especially of servicesmarket“, especially of services
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
Protection MethodsProtection Methods
• Protection of innovation, though mainly developed in house and new to the market, Protection of innovation, though mainly developed in house and new to the market, relies heavily on informal procedures (secrecy, complexity of design, time-to-market)relies heavily on informal procedures (secrecy, complexity of design, time-to-market)
• This also helps to explain the persistence of a low use of formal IPR (patents, This also helps to explain the persistence of a low use of formal IPR (patents, registration of design patterns, copyright): The only exception is trademarks.registration of design patterns, copyright): The only exception is trademarks.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rsManufacturing Services National
Pro
port
ion
of E
nter
pris
es P
rote
ctin
g In
nova
tions
(%
)
At least one Formal Method At least one Informal Method
Patent Applications
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Non
-In
nova
tors
Inno
vato
rs
Manufacturing Services NationalN
umbe
r of
Pat
ent A
pplic
atio
ns
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
The relatively low academic qualification of the labor force persists, The relatively low academic qualification of the labor force persists, especially in the manufacturing sectorespecially in the manufacturing sector
This is all the more important as there is a significant difference This is all the more important as there is a significant difference in in
qualification between innovative and non-innovative firmsqualification between innovative and non-innovative firms
Workforce with tertiary education
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Manufacture Services Total
Non-innovative Innovative
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
As in CIS II, firms' perception of the obstacles hindering innovation As in CIS II, firms' perception of the obstacles hindering innovation contrasts with that of EUcontrasts with that of EU
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Qua
lifie
dP
erso
nnel
Org
anis
atio
nal
Rig
iditi
es
Inno
vatio
n C
osts
Sou
rces
of
Fin
ance
Info
rmat
ion
onT
echn
olog
y
Eco
nom
ic R
isks
Info
rmat
ion
onM
arke
ts
Reg
ulat
ions
and
Sta
ndar
ds
Cus
tom
erR
espo
nsiv
enes
s
Pro
porti
on o
f Ent
erpr
ises
(%)
CIS III CIS II CIS II EU Average
4.24.2 Evidence Supporting persistent Evidence Supporting persistent structural weaknessesstructural weaknesses
• Firms tend not to consider, and even less than in Firms tend not to consider, and even less than in
CIS II, organizational rigidities and lack of qualified CIS II, organizational rigidities and lack of qualified
personnel as barriers.personnel as barriers.
• Firms overemphasize obstacles beyond their control Firms overemphasize obstacles beyond their control (finance, costs, risk) and underemphasize those they (finance, costs, risk) and underemphasize those they can influence.can influence.
• But both qualification of personnel and organizational But both qualification of personnel and organizational
change are in fact associated to innovative firms, and change are in fact associated to innovative firms, and
Portugal has comparatively under-qualified workforcePortugal has comparatively under-qualified workforce
• The The innovative performance of Portuguese firms has innovative performance of Portuguese firms has improvedimproved over the second half of the 1990s, as far as one can over the second half of the 1990s, as far as one can learn from self-reported indicators.learn from self-reported indicators.
5. Conclusions I:5. Conclusions I: What do we know?What do we know?
• Technological innovation appears to be strongly correlated Technological innovation appears to be strongly correlated withwith Organizational Innovation and Change Organizational Innovation and Change -- there may be there may be limited value-added and returns in looking at technological or limited value-added and returns in looking at technological or organizational innovation per se.organizational innovation per se.
• Important structural weaknesses remainImportant structural weaknesses remain – both – both associated with factors external to the firms and with firm associated with factors external to the firms and with firm behavior, with firms attributing more importance to the former behavior, with firms attributing more importance to the former when asked to indicate barriers to innovationwhen asked to indicate barriers to innovation
• The enhancement in innovative performance has been The enhancement in innovative performance has been accompanied by limited, but significant, accompanied by limited, but significant, structural changesstructural changes – – that is, the improvement in performance goes beyond that is, the improvement in performance goes beyond catching-up dynamics. catching-up dynamics.
• What would the characterization of innovation in Portugal What would the characterization of innovation in Portugal would be like based, instead of self-reported indicators, on would be like based, instead of self-reported indicators, on “independent” assessments“independent” assessments? More specifically, what should ? More specifically, what should we learn, compare, typify and seek to explain about we learn, compare, typify and seek to explain about innovative processesinnovative processes as a whole? as a whole?
• What has the What has the impact of policiesimpact of policies been on the innovation been on the innovation performance of firms? When has it been positive, negative, performance of firms? When has it been positive, negative, redundant (that is, crowding-out what firms would do anyway redundant (that is, crowding-out what firms would do anyway as a response to changing market dynamics). as a response to changing market dynamics).
• What explains the What explains the correlation between technological and correlation between technological and other types of innovationother types of innovation? What are the ? What are the organizational organizational adjustment and learning costs to innovationadjustment and learning costs to innovation and how can and how can they be minimized? Which are the they be minimized? Which are the organizational organizational opportunitiesopportunities and how can they be optimized? and how can they be optimized?
5. Conclusions II:5. Conclusions II: What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
55. Conclusions II:. Conclusions II: What would we like to know?What would we like to know?
• What is generic, and what is specific, to the (still weak) innovative performance of the Portuguese firms? From what we would know to be generic, which lessons from other contexts could we apply in Portugal? From the specificity, what would constitute adequate responses?
• How important is innovation to enhance the welfare of Portugal? What alternatives to “becoming more innovative” would be available to meet the challenge of reaching the European average economic performance?