IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ieu/wpaper/34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How composite indicators of innovation can influence technology policy decision?

Author

Listed:
  • Nuno Boavida

    (IET, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia)

Abstract

This working paper is based on the development of the Thesis Plan presented for the Units Project II and Project III at the 1st Winter School of PhD programme on Technology Assessment at FCT/UNL. It focuses the methodology analysis and includes empirical information elements, in order to understand how composite indicators of innovation can influence technology policy decisions. In order to test the hypotheses raised in the Thesis Plan, two separate phases were designed. On the first part, the work tests hypotheses 1 and partially 2, identifying the quality, depth and limitations of three famous complex indicator-based systems, namely the Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, the European Innovation Scoreboard 2008 and Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010. On the second phase, the remaining hypotheses are tested adding media databases analysis, which will provide complementary information to a set of interviews to policy makers, in order to understand the role of the composite indicators on technology decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuno Boavida, 2011. "How composite indicators of innovation can influence technology policy decision?," IET Working Papers Series 03/2011, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    • Handle: RePEc:ieu:wpaper:34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/6142
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grupp, Hariolf & Schubert, Torben, 2010. "Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-78, February.
    2. Michela Nardo & Michaela Saisana & Andrea Saltelli & Stefano Tarantola & Anders Hoffman & Enrico Giovannini, 2005. "Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/3, OECD Publishing.
    3. Kuhlmann, Stefan & Boekholt, Patries & Georghiou, Luke & Guy, Ken & Heraud, Jean-Alain & Laredo, Philippe & Lemola, Tarmo & Loveridge, Denis & Luukkonen, Terttu & Moniz, António & Polt, Wolfgang & Rip, 1999. "Improving Distributed Intelligence in Complex Innovation Systems," MPRA Paper 6426, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 1999.
    4. Charles I. Jones, 2002. "Sources of U.S. Economic Growth in a World of Ideas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 220-239, March.
    5. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    6. Nuno Boavida & Susana Martins Moretto, 2010. "Innovation Assessment of a Portuguese Railway branch of a foreign multinational - A case study," IET Working Papers Series 05/2010, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    7. Robert J W Tijssen, 2003. "Scoreboards of research excellence," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 91-103, August.
    8. M. Saisana & A. Saltelli & S. Tarantola, 2005. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 307-323, March.
    9. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    10. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura, 2008. "Alternative Approaches On Constructing A Composite Indicator To Measure Agricultural Sustainability," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6489, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abdurrahman M. Yazan, 2016. "Methods Used in Future Technology Analysis and its Selection: an application to VTOL transportation system," IET Working Papers Series 03/2016, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nuno Boavida, 2011. "Decision making processes based on innovation indicators: which implications for technology assessment?," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 7(7), pages 33-55, November.
    2. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.
    3. Milica Maricic & Jose A. Egea & Veljko Jeremic, 2019. "A Hybrid Enhanced Scatter Search—Composite I-Distance Indicator (eSS-CIDI) Optimization Approach for Determining Weights Within Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 497-537, July.
    4. Andrea Saltelli, 2007. "Composite Indicators between Analysis and Advocacy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 65-77, March.
    5. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    7. Qingyun Du & Yanxia Wang & Fu Ren & Zhiyuan Zhao & Hongqiang Liu & Chao Wu & Langjiao Li & Yiran Shen, 2014. "Measuring and Analysis of Urban Competitiveness of Chinese Provincial Capitals in 2010 under the Constraints of Major Function-Oriented Zoning Utilizing Spatial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-26, May.
    8. Laurens CHERCHYE & Willem MOESEN & Nicky ROGGE & Tom VAN PUYENBROECK, 2009. "Constructing a knowledge economy composite indicator with imprecise data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces09.15, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    9. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Elias G. Carayannis & Evangelos Grigoroudis, 2016. "Using multiobjective mathematical programming to link national competitiveness, productivity, and innovation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 635-655, December.
    11. Edson Kogachi & Adonias Ferreira & Carlos Cavalcante & Marcelo Embiruçu, 2021. "Development of Performance Evaluation Indicators for Table Grape Packaging Units. 2. Global Indexes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    13. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    14. Laurens Cherchye & Erwin Ooghe & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2008. "Robust human development rankings," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 6(4), pages 287-321, December.
    15. Tiiu PAAS & Helen POLTIMÄE, 2012. "Consistency between innovation indicators and national innovation performance in the case of small economies," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 3, pages 101-121, June.
    16. Paula Trivino-Tarradas & Manuel R. Gomez-Ariza & Gottlieb Basch & Emilio J. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Annual and Permanent Crops: The Inspia Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Van den Bossche, Filip & Rogge, Nicky & Devooght, Kurt & Van Puyenbroeck , Tom, 2009. "Robust CSR Investment Screening," Working Papers 2009/05, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    18. Stefano Landi & Enrico Ivaldi & Angela Testi, 2018. "Measuring Change Over Time in Socio-economic Deprivation and Health in an Urban Context: The Case Study of Genoa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 745-785, September.
    19. Magda M. Smink & Marko P. Hekkert & Simona O. Negro, 2015. "Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 86-101, February.
    20. Laurens Cherchye & Willem Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2007. "An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 111-145, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    composite indicators; innovation; technology policy decisions; European Innovation Scoreboard; Innovation Union Scoreboard;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C82 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Macroeconomic Data; Data Access
    • E61 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Policy Objectives; Policy Designs and Consistency; Policy Coordination
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ieu:wpaper:34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Brandão Moniz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieunlpt.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.