Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2019, 67(3), 871-881 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201967030871

On Measuring Countries' Innovation Performance: Organisational Level Perspective

Eva ©vandová, Michal Jirásek
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, ®erotínovo nám. 617/9, 601 77 Brno, Czech Republic

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

Keywords: innovation performance, measurement, organisation, country, innovation index, contingency approach
Grants and funding:

This work was supported by the Masaryk University under Grant [MUNI/A/0878/2016] Strategic behavior-performance cycle and factors influencing it.

Received: November 8, 2017; Accepted: February 25, 2019; Published: June 27, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
©vandová, E., & Jirásek, M. (2019). On Measuring Countries' Innovation Performance: Organisational Level Perspective. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(3), 871-881. doi: 10.11118/actaun201967030871
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BIRCHALL, D., CHANARON, J.-J., TOVSTIGA, G., et al. 2011. Innovation performance measurement: current practices, issues and management challenges. International Journal of Technology Management, 56(1): 1-20. DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2011.042492 Go to original source...
    2. BIRLEY, S. and WESTHEAD, P. 1990. Growth and performance contrasts between "types" of small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7): 535-557. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250110705 Go to original source...
    3. BJÖRKDAHL, J. and HOLMÉN, M. 2016. Innovation audits by means of formulating problems. R & D Management, 46(5): 842-856. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12133 Go to original source...
    4. BUKH, P. N. and MALMI, T. 2005. Re-examining the cause-and-effect principle of the balanced scorecard. In: Accounting in Scandinavia-The northern lights. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 87-113.
    5. BURGELMAN, R. A., KOSNIK, T. J. and VAN DER POEL, M. 1985. Toward an innovative capabilities audit framework. Stanford Graduate School of Business Working Paper 848. Stanford Graduate School of Business.
    6. CAETANO, I. 2016. Innovation measurement: practices, indicators and lessons at firm level. In: Proceedings of ISPIM Conferences. Porto, 19-22 June. Manchester: International Society for Professional Innovation Management, pp. 1-20.
    7. CALIK, E. and BARDUDEEN, F. 2016. A measurement scale to evaluate sustainable innovation performance in manufacturing organizations. Procedia CIRP, 40(1): 449-454. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.091 Go to original source...
    8. CARAYANNIS, E. G. and PROVANCE, M. 2008. Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1): 90-107. DOI: 10.1504/IJIRD.2008.016861 Go to original source...
    9. CHIESA, V., COUGHLAN, P. and VOSS, C. A. 1996. Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(2): 105-136. DOI: 10.1016/0737-6782(95)00109-3 Go to original source...
    10. COHEN, W. M. and LEVINTHAL, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128-152. DOI: 10.2307/2393553 Go to original source...
    11. COOMBS, R., NARANDREN, P. and RICHARDS, A. 1996. A literature-based innovation output indicator. Research Policy, 25(3): 403-413. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00842-X Go to original source...
    12. CORNELL. 2016. About the GII. Global Inovation index. [Online]. Available at: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/about-gii [Accessed: 2017, October, 24].
    13. DAMANPOUR, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 555-590. Go to original source...
    14. DAVILA, T., EPSTEIN, M. J. and SHELTON, R. 2013. Making innovation work: how to manage it, measure it, and profit from it. 1st Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
    15. DEWANGAN, V. and GODSE, M. 2014. Towards a holistic enterprise innovation performance measurement system. Technovation, 34(9): 536-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04.002 Go to original source...
    16. DONALDSON, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. 1st Edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Go to original source...
    17. EUROSTAT, 2016. European Innovation Scoreboard. European Commission. [Online]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_en [Accessed: 2016, November 10].
    18. EUROSTAT, 2017a. European Innovation Scoreboard. European Commission. [Online]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_cs [Accessed: 2017, August 10].
    19. EUROSTAT, 2017b. European Innovation Scoreboard 2017 - Methodology Report. European Commission. [Online]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/25101/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native [Accessed: 2017, August 10].
    20. FRY, L. W. and SMITH, D. A. 1987. Congruence, contingency, and theory building. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 117-132. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1987.4306496 Go to original source...
    21. GODIN, B. 2003. The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators? Research Policy, 32(4): 679-691. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00032-X Go to original source...
    22. GRUPP, H. and MOGEE, M. E. 2004. Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33(9): 1373-1384. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.007 Go to original source...
    23. GRUPP, H. and SCHUBERT, T. 2010. Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance. Research Policy, 39(1): 67-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.10.002 Go to original source...
    24. HAGEDOORN, J. and CLOODT, M. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8): 1365-1379. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00137-3 Go to original source...
    25. HOFSTEDE, G., HOFSTEDE, G.J. and MINKOV, M. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    26. HOLLENSTEIN, H. 1996. A composite indicator of a firm's innovativeness: an empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing. Research Policy, 25(4): 633-645. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00874-8 Go to original source...
    27. KAPLAN, R. S., NORTON, D. P. and ©USTA, M. 2007. Balanced scorecard: strategic system of company's performance measurement [in Czech: Balanced scorecard: strategický systém měření výkonnosti podniku]. 1st Edition. Prague: Management Press.
    28. LI, H. and ATUEHENEGIMA, K. 2001. Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6): 1123-1134. Go to original source...
    29. MULLER, A., VÄLIKANGAS, L. and MERLYN, P. 2005. Metrics for innovation: guidelines for developing a customized suite of innovation metrics. Strategy and Leadership, 33(1): 37-45. DOI: 10.1108/10878570510572590 Go to original source...
    30. ROSENBUSCH, N., BRINCKMANN, J. and BAUSCH, A. 2011. Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4): 441-457. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002 Go to original source...
    31. ROLSTADÅS, A. and ANDERSEN, B. 2012. Enterprise Modeling: Improving Global Industrial Competitiveness. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
    32. RUBERA, G. and KIRCA, A. H. 2012. Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Marketing, 76(3): 130-147. DOI: 10.1509/jm.10.0494 Go to original source...
    33. SANTARELLI, E. and PIERGIOVANNI, R. 1996. Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators: the Italian experience. Research Policy, 25(5): 689-711. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00849-7 Go to original source...
    34. SCHIBANY, A. and STREICHER, G. 2008. The European Innovation Scoreboard: drowning by numbers? Science and Public Policy, 35(10): 717-732. DOI: 10.3152/030234208X398512 Go to original source...
    35. SHANE, S. 1993. Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1): 59-73. DOI: 10.1016/0883-9026(93)90011-S Go to original source...
    36. TADEU, H. F. B. and SILVA, J. T. M., 2014. Management Indicators and Measurement of Innovation: Review of the Literature. Business Management Dynamics, 3(10): 52-58.
    37. TANG, H. 1998. An inventory of organizational innovativeness. Technovation, 19(1): 41-51. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4972(98)00077-7 Go to original source...
    38. THORNHILL, S. 2006. Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5): 687-703. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.001 Go to original source...
    39. TIDD, J. and BESSANT, J. 2013. Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. 5th Edition. Hoboken: Wiley.
    40. VAN EVERDINGEN, Y. M. and WAARTS, E. 2003. The effect of national culture on the adoption of innovations. Marketing Letters, 14(3): 217-232. DOI: 10.1023/A:1027452919403 Go to original source...
    41. VOSSEN, R. W. 1998. Relative strengths and weaknesses of small firms in innovation. International Small Business Journal, 16(3): 88-94. DOI: 10.1177/0266242698163005 Go to original source...
    42. ZAHRA, S. A. and GEORGE, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185-203. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2002.6587995 Go to original source...
    43. ZIZLAVSKY, O. 2016. Innovation scorecard: conceptual framework of innovation management control system. Journal of Global Business & Technology, 12(2): 10-27.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content