European Trend Chart On Innovation

European Trend Chart on Innovation
Trend Chart Policy Workshop
"Skills for Innovation: Ensuring the competitive future of companies"
Developing Indicators for Skills and Innovation Edward Lorenz IDEFI-CNRS University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis Lorenz@idefi.cnrs.fr
The contents of this paper have not been verified by the European Commission and do not necessarily express the position of the European Commission.

1. Introduction The importance of human capital and skills as drivers of innovation in the knowledge-based economy is increasingly recognised. At the same time, as the consultation document for the New European Innovation Action Plan observes, the European Union is not always sufficiently prepared and adapted to the specific needs of the knowledge economy and innovation. There is a clear need to develop policies that support more effective investment in human resources and this requires identifying the kinds of skills enterprises need for innovation. Developing indicators for these skills can play an important role in this process by tracking progress across member states and creating a common framework for dialogue among the different stakeholders in the innovation system. It sets the stage for defining skills-enhancing policies aimed both at increasing the innovative capabilities of nations that lag far behind the average and sustaining the innovative capabilities of the leaders. Innovation depends on the skills and expertise of scientists and engineers with third-level education, but formal science and engineering training are not the only kinds of skills that firms require. Successful innovation also depends on skills developed by employees on-the-job in the process of solving the technical and production-related problems they encountered in testing, producing and marketing new products and processes.1 Developing these sorts of skills in turn depends not just on the quality of formal education, but on having the right organisational structures and work environments. Work environments need to be designed to promote learning through problem solving and to effectively use these skills for innovation. This implies that indicators of skills for innovation need to do more than capture the quality of the available pool of skills by measuring years of education. Indicators also need to capture how these skills are used and appropriate work environments for their further development. Section 2 below presents a framework developed in Jensen et al. (2004) for analysing knowledge management and skills development for innovation that takes into account both of these aspects. Section 3 illustrates the framework with some case study evidence that goes beyond the
The importance of linkages and information feedback between the R&D, production and sales departments is one of the key points developed by Kline and Rosenberg (1985) in their wellknow chain-link model of innovation.
Page 2 of 40

simple measure of the pool of scientific and technical labour. The fourth section identifies 12 main indicators of skills for innovation. Section 5 explores the relation between the indicators and measures of innovative capacity at the national level. The final section draws conclusions with a stress on policy implications.
1. A Framework for Identifying Skills for Innovation Jensen et al. (2004) develop a distinction originally proposed by B.A. Lundvall between two different, but complementary, modes of learning and skills development: the STI-mode (Science, Technology and Innovation) and the DUImode (Doing, Using and Interacting).2 The STI-mode most obviously depends on explicit know-why and the R&D-departments in big firms play a key role in STIprocesses. Specific R&D-projects will often be triggered by practice (problems with a product, new user needs, problems with producing) but almost immediately attempts will be made to restate the problem in an explicit and codified form that potential users can understand since there is a need for interaction with and feedback. This mode depends on the skills of engineers, scientists and technicians with formal university training and maintaining the absorptive capacity of the enterprise often requires continuous renewal of their knowledge through lifelong learning. The DUI-mode of learning and innovation (Doing, Using, Interacting) most obviously relies on employee know-how which is tacit and often highly localized. This mode involves building structures and organisational practices which enhance and utilize learning by doing, using and interacting. Knowledge and skills are developed through on-going problem-solving and when the process is complex it will involve interaction within and between teams and it may result in new shared routines for the organization. Learning by doing and learning by using are promoted through decision-making autonomy that allows employees to explore new novel possibilities. This is why such practices as self-managing teams and the delegation of authority
The distinction between STI and DUI-mode learning was originally developed by B.A. Lundvall in a series of workshop reports for our joint EU Accompanying Measures Project, Labour, Organisation and National Innovation Systems (Loc Nis). See the projects web page and notably Lundvall, et al. (2004) and Lorenz and Lundvall (2004). http://www.business.aau.dk/loc-nis/
Page 3 of 40

tend to show a positive relation to learning and innovative performance (see the case study evidence presented in section 2 below). Innovations can be competence-enhancing or competence-destroying (Henderson and Clark, 1990). Competence-enhancing innovations build on a firms existing competences and tend to be especially characteristic of innovation in more traditional or mature technologies (textiles, autos, mechanical engineering). Innovative activity is mostly incremental in nature and typically involves small improvements in existing technologies or new combinations of exiting technologies. Incumbent firms are typically well-placed to carry out such innovations either through investing in in-house skills or through recruiting workers on the labour market with complementary knowledge and skills. This corresponds to the phase of exploiting existing knowledge and competence in Nootebooms (2000) analysis of innovation cycles. Competence-destroying innovations, on the other hand, mark significant breaks in the technological architecture or paradigm and typically require new types of skills and knowledge. This is characteristic of innovative activity during the early phases of development of a new technological field (e.g. biotechnology). Innovative activity will be characterised by intensive forms of exploration that are favoured by looser, network forms of organisation. Incumbent firms may be at a disadvantage relative to start-up firms in part because of internal resistance to the organisational and manpower changes required to radically reconfigure their competence-base (Chesbrough, 1999).3 As Jensen et al. (2004) observe, the importance of the STI-mode of learning and knowledge management is most obvious in fast moving technology fields such as ICT, bio- and nano-technology and it is these sectors which are the focus of most
3
It would be a mistake to identify innovations that are new for the market with those that are competence destroying or, conversely, to identify innovations that are new to the firm but not to the market with those that are competence enhancing. The development of products or processes that are new to the market may be based on incremental improvements in existing technologies. The diffusion of competence destroying innovations, on the other hand, can pose a major challenge to economies precisely because incumbent firms find it difficult to undertake radical reconfigurations of their competence base.
Page 4 of 40

current policy efforts both at the national and the European level. This reflects the combination of respectively path dependency in relation to science and technology policy and the combined pressure emanating from the science community and the big science-based firms. But other traditional industries such as food, clothing and furniture as well as many service sectors also draw upon science when it comes to innovating production processes, the use of materials and designing new products. Econometric analysis for the Danish case, for example, demonstrates that small and medium-sized firms operating in such sectors tend to be the ones that benefit the most in terms of innovative capability from a stronger connection to science (Vinding, 2002). And DUI-learning is crucial in high-technology sectors. Experience-based learning takes place in daily production and in the implementation and use of advanced technologies. The speed up of science-based innovation tends to run into bottlenecks whenever the capability to absorb and efficiently use new technologies is limited. Empirical evidence shows not only that the DUI-mode of learning contributes positively to innovation across sectors, but also that the most promising results are obtained when the two modes are combined. This implies the need for some realignment of policy at the national and European levels.
Page 5 of 40
2. Case Study Results There exists a large HRM literature looking at the relation between enterprise performance and the use of new managerial practices such as problem-solving groups, enhanced autonomy in decision making and individual responsibility for quality assessment that support DUI forms of learning. A central question raised in this recent literature is whether there exist complementarities among the individual HRM practices resulting in performance benefits from adopting a set or bundle of practices simultaneously. Underlying this notion of HRM complementarities is the idea that the core high involvement work practices (problem-solving groups, autonomous team organisation, etc.) are more likely to be effective if they are supported by substantial investments in training and by forms of pay linking employees compensation to their effort and to company performance. Training can be seen as a natural complement to work arrangements that provide increased opportunities for employee participation in decision-making. Collective incentive schemes, as profit sharing and gain sharing, and individual incentive schemes, as pay for knowledge and compensation for suggestions, are seen as complementary pay devices which encourage employees to commit themselves to the goal of improving company performance. Such payment arrangements promise employees a share of the increased returns from their enhanced effort (Appelbaum et al., 2000; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Becker and Huselid , 1998; Ichniowski et al., 1997; Guest, 1997). Enterprise performance in this literature has traditionally been measured as financial performance or labour productivity and little attention has been given to innovative performance. Yet, there are good reasons to suppose that the firms capacity for innovation can be increased by the use of such practices as job rotation, interdisciplinary teams, and shop or service meetings. For example, these practices can positively contribute to the sort of interdepartmental information flows and feedbacks which Kline and Rosenbergs (1986) chain-link model of innovation identifies as critical to the firms capacity for technological innovation. A key idea in the model developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) is that innovation involves a knowledge spiral, in which tacit knowledge is converted into more explicit and
Page 6 of 40

codified forms that are then embodied in new product and services. HRM practices such as team organisation, quality circles, suggestion schemes and shop meetings can be used in order to provide a framework within which employees can articulate and make more explicit their tacit knowledge. More recently, a number of scholars interested in the relation between organisation and innovation have drawn on nationally representative data sets to explore the relation between HRM bundling and innovation. The results consistently show that the likelihood of innovating is increased by the use of managerial practices that support DUI forms of learning. One of the first empirical studies exploring these links is that of Michie and Sheehan (1999) using private sector establishment-level data for the UK from the 1990 Workplace and Industrial Relations Survey (WIRS3). Two indirect measures of the firms innovative activities are used: R&D expenditures and whether the firm has introduced advanced technological change. HRM practices are divided between 3 basic categories: practices which increase opportunities to participate in decisionmaking (e.g. teamwork, flexible job assignments), practices which increase information sharing across the enterprises (e.g. consultation, use of shop meetings) and practices which provide incentives for participation (e.g. profit sharing, job appraisal). Establishments are grouped into one of three HRM systems going from traditional to modern. Modern systems are characterised by teamwork, innovative incentive systems, implicit employment security pledges, flexible job assignments and regular information-sharing. The regression analysis, which controls for firm size and industrial sector, shows that firms that use more innovative work practices are more likely to engage in R&D and to introduce technical change. Two studies, which use data from the Danish DISKO survey, use more direct measures of innovation to test the relation between HRM practices and innovative performance (Laursen and Foss, 2003; Lundvall and Nielsen, 2003). The DISKO survey identifies firms which have introduced a new product or process over the last three years and further distinguishes between innovations that are new to the firm, new to the Danish market and new to the world. Laursen and Foss (2003) use principal components analysis to identify different HRM systems based on 9 measures: interdisciplinary groups, quality circles, suggestion schemes, job rotation,
Page 7 of 40

delegation of responsibility, integration of functions, performance-related pay, firminternal training and firm-external training. They identify two HRM systems that are positively related to the likelihood of innovating, one that combines the two training variables and a second that combines the other 7 organisational practices. Moreover, their results point to important sector effects with those firms belonging to the wholesale and ICT sectors tending to be associated with the first system and firms belonging to the manufacturing sectors tending to be associated with the second system. The study by Lundvall and Nielsen (2003), in addition to exploring the relation between innovation and HRM bundling, looks for possible effects of employee representation and cooperation with clients, subcontractors and knowledge institutions (universities and research institutes). Their results support those of Laursen and Foss in showing that the likelihood of successful product innovation increases when the firm promotes learning through the bundling of innovative work and pay policies. There results also point to positive complementarities between HRM practices on the one hand and the use of systems of employee representation and cooperating with external institutions on the other. The study by Lorenz et al. (2004) is the first internationally comparative empirical investigation of the HRM/performance link. The analysis draws on data from two nationally representative surveys of public and private sector establishments: the WERS98 survey which covers UK workplaces with 10 or more employees, and the REPONSE98 survey which covers French establishments with 20 or more employees. The analysis is restricted to the trading sector and excludes public services (government, health, education, etc) resulting in samples of 2086
4 establishments for France and 1165 establishments for the UK. In common with the
study by Lundvall and Nielsen (2003), the econometric analysis includes measures of employee representation as well as the more conventional HRM variables (problem-solving groups, job rotation, teams, information sharing). Innovative performance is measured by a question asking whether the firm has introduced a
4
In both cases the samples of workplaces were arrived at through a process of stratified random sampling using variable sampling fractions. The response rates for WERS98 and REPONSE97 were 83 and 65 per cent respectively. These rates compare well to those achieved for most US-
Page 8 of 40

new product or service over the last 3 years in the case of France and over the last 5 years in the case of the UK. The econometric results show positive effects of HRM bundling on innovative performance in the both countries, while revealing important differences for the effects of systems of employee representation. Employee representation has neutral effects on innovative performance in France, while in the UK those firms which combine employee representation with innovative HRM practices are more likely to innovate. The authors account for this by differences in the regulatory environment between the two countries, which imply that that the indicators of employee representation are capturing different levels of commitment of employers to representation. As they observe, A possible explanation of this (difference) is simply that since representation is a legal requirement in France all or most firms will have it, while commitment to involving employees in decision-making will vary much more widely and in many cases may be quite low. On the other hand, where representation is not a legal requirement, as in the UK, only those firms that are seriously concerned to involve their employees in decision making are likely to have it. The above studies explore the role of the largely neglected DUI learning dynamics in innovative performance. The first study to explicitly examine the importance of complementarities between the science and technology mode of skills development and the informal experience-based mode is Jensen et al. (2004). Drawing on the DISKO data set for Danish enterprises, they use latent cluster analysis to identify four groups of firms according to mode of skills development: those using neither the DUI nor the STI mode, those using the DUI-mode alone, those using the STI mode alone and those combining both modes of learning. Logit regression analysis shows that firms that use one of the two modes alone are about twice as likely to develop a new product or service as those using neither of the modes. Those combining both modes are about five times as likely to innovate as a firm using neither of the modes. The results points to strong complementarities between informal experience-based
based surveys which rarely top 25%. UK workplaces in the 10 to 19 employee size range were excluded from the descriptive statistics and econometric analysis.
Page 9 of 40

ways of acquiring knowledge and improving skills and more formal scientificallybased ways of getting access to and using knowledge.
Page 10 of 40

3. Indicators for skills and innovation This section draws on the framework developed in Jensen et al. (2004) to propose twelve skills- for-innovation indicators. The indicators fall under four different categories: STI-mode indicators. Four of the indicators capture the STI-mode of learning and skills development. They are strongly overlapping with S&T indicators used in other TrendChart reports and I explain their particular relation to skills development. DUI-mode indicators. Four are indicators of the DUI-mode. They are a subset of the indicators used in Lorenz and Valeyre (2003) to develop a taxonomy of organisational forms for the EU-15. I use the indicators that are most clearly relevant to skills development. Skill maintenance indicators. Two indicators capture lifelong learning that contributes to the development and maintenance of the skills of adult workers. Foundation skills indicators. Two indicators capture foundation skills that are relevant to workers capacity for lifelong learning. Paragraph 3.5 discusses obstacles to successful development and deployment of skills for innovation. The section concludes with a table summarising the 12 indicators, comparing the means for the EU-15 and the new member countries. 3.1. STI-mode indicators 3.1.1. HRSTC (Human Resources in Science and Technology Core) The innovative performance of enterprises depends both on the societys production of highly trained science and technology (S&T) human resources and on the firms capacity to integrate such human resources into innovative activities involving the production and use new knowledge. There are a number of ways to measure such human resources and the HRSTC measure based on the Canberra manual is used here. HRST is defined as people who fulfil one or other of the following conditions:
Page 11 of 40

- successfully completed education at the third level in a S&T field of study5 - not formally qualified as above but employed in a S&T occupation where the above qualifications are normally required. A weakness of HRST as a STI-mode indicator is that it includes all people with a third level-degree in a S&T field including those who are inactive or employed in a non-science and technology occupation. For this reason HRSTC is chosen as the indicator. HRSTC is restricted to those who have a third level degree and are employed in an S&T occupation. Figures for HRSTC are available for the EU-25 and are provided annually to Eurostat. The figures for 2000 presented in Figure 1.1 below show that amongst the EU-15, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium and the Netherlands are leaders. Amongst the new member countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Cyprus are leaders.
Fig u re 1.1 HRSTC as p er ce nt o f e m p loye d p op u lation age d 24-6 5
30
25
24 22 21
20 19 18 18 18
20
17
17
16
16
15
15
15
14 13 12 11 10 10 10 9 9 8 8
10
0 SE FI DK BE NL LU LT CY UK DE FR EE IE ES EL SI HU LV PL MT AT CZ IT PT SK
S&T fields of study are defined to include: natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical sciences, agricultural sciences and social sciences.
Page 12 of 40

3.1.2. BERD (Business Expenditures on R&D) as a percent of GDP Since the publication of Cohen and Levinthals (1990) classic article on absorptive capacity it has been appreciated that an important by-product of in-house R&D activity is the development of the skills and competence engineers and technicians need to access new external sources of scientific and technical knowledge for innovation. While developing this absorptive capacity is especially important in technologically fast-moving sectors such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, it also plays a role in the ability of firms in more traditional sectors to absorb new scientific and technical developments. As an indicator of this sort of skills development, we use business expenditures on R&D which provides arguably the best measure of how much in-house R&D activity is being performed by enterprises. Figures on BERD are provided annually to Eurostat and can be found on Newcronos. The figures for 2000, as presented in Figure 1.2, are available for all member countries with the exception of Austria.
Figu re 1.2 BERD as a pe r cen t o f GDP
3,50 3,1 3,00
2,50
2,4
2,00 1,8 1,6 1,50 1,2 1,1 1,00 0,8 0,8 1,5 1,5
0 ,7 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4
0,50
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0 ,1
0,1
0,00 SE FI DE LU DK BE UK NL FR SI CZ IE IT ES SK HU PT PL EL LV EE LT MT CY
As in the case of indicator 1, amongst the EU-15 Sweden and Finland are the leaders. Germany ranks third on this scale. Amongst the new member countries, Slovenia and the Czech Republic are leaders.
Page 13 of 40

3.1.3. HRST job-to-job mobility as a percentage of employed HRST Science and technology skills for innovation can be developed internally through formal R&D and knowledge management activities or they can be acquired on the labour market. HRSTC provides a measure of the degree to which those with thirdlevel training are employed in science and technology occupations. Firms can also acquire science and technology skills through the mobility of mid-career scientists, engineers and technicians and the third STI indicator provides a measure of how active the labour market is for science and technology human resources. Such mobility may be of especial importance in fast moving technological sectors where tight competitive conditions call for a quick reconfiguration of the firms competence base. Such mobility may also be important for relatively mature technological sectors confronted with a need to incorporate new technologies (e.g. ICT) into established products.
Figu re 1.3 HRST M ob ility as a p er ce nt of e m p loye d HRST
16
14
13,3 12 ,2
12
11,6
10 8,3 8 8,2 7, 4 6,8 6 6,6 6,6 6,4 6,2 6,2 5,8 5,7 5,5 5,5 5,5 5,4 5,2 4,9 4, 0 4 2,5 2
0 DK UK FI EE FR DE ES BE LV CY MT LU LT PT SE IT AT CZ PL SI HU SK
Mobility is defined as the movement of individuals aged 24 to 65 between one job and another from one year to the next and does not include inflows into the labour market from a situation of unemployment or inactivity. People must fulfil the condition of belonging to HRST in both periods of time. HRST job-to-job mobility is provided to Eurostat on an annual basis and can be found on Newcronos. The
Page 14 of 40

figures for 2000, as presented in Table 1.3, are available for all EU-member countries with the exception of Ireland, Greece and the Netherlands. The ranking in suggests that two types of regulatory environments are adapted to high levels of HRST mobility: those combining strong systems of unemployment protection with relatively low levels of employment protection (Denmark and Finland), and those with overall weak systems of labour market regulation (the UK). 3.1.4. Computer training This indicator measures the percent of the actively employed population using a computer in work that has received computer training. We use this as an STI measure, rather than figures on ICT expenditures or the level of internet access of enterprises, because such training is arguably a prerequisite for the use of advanced forms of ICT in the innovation process, such as computer simulation and computer-aided design. The figures, which are taken from a November 2001 Eurobarometer survey6, are only available for the EU-15. Denmark and Finland are leaders.
Eurobarometer 56.0, Les Europens et les technologies de la communication et de linformation dans le cadre de lemploi, 2001. This is a non-periodic survey. The new European survey instrument on ICT, which will be undertaken for the first time in 2006, will contain detailed information on the various forms of ICT use by firms and should provide the basis for the construction of an alternative measure of computer skills.
Page 15 of 40

Figu re 1.4 Pe rce n t o f active ly e m ploye d p op u latio n us ing co m pu te rs in w o rk havin g re ce ive d co m p u te r t rainin g
70 70,0 0 66 66 65 65 60 60,0 0
80,0 0
58
57
55 51
50,0 0 44 44 39 38
40,0 0
36
30,0 0
20,0 0
10,0 0
0,0 0 DK FI IE DE SE AT UK NL LU FR EL ES PT BE IT
3.2. DUI indicators As discussed above, there are a number of national enterprise-level surveys of organisational innovation that can be used to develop measures of DUI forms of learning and skills development. However, at present there are no EU-wide harmonised survey data on organisational innovation. In order to develop measures of informal experience-based learning and skills development, I draw here on the results of the third European Survey on Working Conditions undertaken by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions7. The survey, which was carried out in March 2000, covers only the EU-15. The survey is carried out every 5 years and the next version in 2005 will be addressed to all member nations of the EU-25. The survey questionnaire was directed to approximately 1500 active persons in each country with the exception of Luxembourg with only 500 respondents. The
7
The initial findings of the survey are presented in a European Foundation report by D. Merlli and P. Paoli [2001].
Page 16 of 40

total survey population is 21703 persons, of which 17910 are salaried employees. The four DUI-indicators are based on the responses of the 8081 salaried employees working in establishments with at least 10 persons in both industry and services, but excluding agriculture and fishing, public administration and social security, education, health and social work, and private domestic employees. The use of employee-level data presents advantages and disadvantages compared to enterprise-level data. An advantage is that it allows for a much richer characterisation of actual work content, the sorts of skills required and the learning that results. A disadvantage is the lack of enterprise performance measures which can only be derived by matching the survey with other surveys. An arguably bestpractice approach to this problem is to use joint survey instruments addressed both to firm representatives and to a representative sample of their employees.8 The first two indicators capture employee involvement in decision-making, the third captures autonomy in work and the fourth is a general measure of employee learning in work.
3.2.1. Individual responsibility for quality assessment A key indicator of employee involvement is individual responsibility for quality assessment. This form of employee involvement plays a central role in the development of the sorts of skills and knowledge that contribute to the feedbacks and knowledge flows that Kline and Rosenberg identify as fundamental to innovative capacity. The percentage of employees engaged in such activity ranges from a high of 86 percent in Denmark to a low of 51 percent in Greece.
This method is applied by the French Changement Organisationnel and Informatisation (COI) survey. See Greenan and Mareisse (1999).
Page 17 of 40

Figu re 2.1 Per ce nt o f e m p loye e s re s po ns ible fo r qu ality as s e ss m en t
100, 00 90, 00 80, 00 86 82 78 77 75 71 70, 00 60, 00 51 50, 00 40, 00 30, 00 70 70 68 67 67
65
65
65
20, 00 10, 00 0, 00 DK NL FR FI UK SE IE AT BE PT DE ES IT LU EL
3.2.2. Employee involvement in problem-solving Since the classic study by Newell and Simon (1972) cognitive scientists, and social scientists more generally, have appreciated the close links between problem-solving activity and the development of new knowledge. The indicator presented in Figure 2.1 captures problem-solving emerging out of learning-by-doing and learning-byusing in daily work activity.
Page 18 of 40

Figu re 2.2 Per ce ntal of e m p lo ye e s w h o se w or k e ntails pr o blem -s olvin g
100, 00 93 90, 00 91 89 85 83 80 80, 00 79 77 77 75
73
73 68 67 59
70, 00
60, 00
50, 00
40, 00
30, 00
20, 00
10, 00
0, 00 NL DK SE FR BE UK ES AT LU DE IT FI IE EL PT
This form of problem-solving contributes to development of the tacit forms of knowledge that can contribute to innovation in a subsequent phase of articulation (e.g. through off-line problem-solving groups), as developed in Nonaka and Takeuchis (1995) model of product innovation. Amongst the EU-15, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are leaders on this indicator. 3.2.3. Autonomy in determining work methods Autonomy contributes to innovation because it increases the scope for the exploration of new knowledge. Greater autonomy increases the likelihood of a creative response to unanticipated problems that will usefully add to the stock of inhouse knowledge. The importance of autonomy has been documented by a number of authors including Lam (2003) who has analysed the role of teams in the product development process. The case studies referred to above all find a positive relation between innovative performance and such factors as the delegation of responsibility or the use of autonomous team organisation. The measure used here is the percentage of employees exercising control over their work methods.
Page 19 of 40

Figu re 2.3 Pe rce n tag e o f e m p loye e s e xe rcis ing con tr ol ove r the ir w o rk m e thod s
90 .00 81 80 .00 79 72 70 .00 68 63 60 .00 62 60 60 60 57 56 49 50 .00 48 43 40 .00 41
30 .00
20 .00
10 .00
0 .00 SE NL DK DE FI IT AT LU FR UK BE IE ES EL PT
3.2.4. Learning new things in work The fourth DUI indicator provides a general measure of whether work is organised in a manner that promotes learning.
Figu re 2.4 Pe rce nt age o f em p lo yee s th at le arn ne w thing s in w o rk
100, 00 90, 00 80, 00 88
85 79 78 75
75
74
71
70, 00 60, 00
69
68
66
63
61
51 50, 00 40, 00 30, 00
49
20, 00 10, 00 0, 00 FI DK NL SE BE LU UK FR AT IT IE ES DE PT EL
This indicator captures informal learning dynamics in the broadest sense and is highly associated with the other three DUI-indicators (see the discussion of the DUIscale and its relation to the innovation taxonomy in Section 4 below). Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are leaders.
Page 20 of 40
3.3. Lifelong learning indicators Two indicators of lifelong learning relevant to the maintenance of the skills of older employees are included. The first, available for the EU-25 and taken from the annual Labour Force Survey, is the percentage of the population aged 24-65 in 2001 engaged in any form of training during the four weeks prior to the survey.9 This indicator captures learning activity both on and off the job and includes learning that though not directly related to employment could be of importance for maintaining or improving future learning capacity and skills development. The second, based on the 1999 Continuous Vocational Training Survey, is the percentage of all enterprises providing training of any type in 1999. This survey, which is undertaken every 6 years, provides a measure of the importance of enterprise investments in the skills development of their employees. The figures, taken from Newcronos, are available for the EU-25 with the exception of Malta, Cyprus and the Slovak Republic.
Although more recent data are available for indicator 3.1, figures for 2001 are used in order to keep all indicators at roughly the same time period.
Page 21 of 40

Fig u re 3.1 Pe rcen tag e of th e w o rk in g -age po pu latio n e ng ag ed in tr ain ing , 2001
2 5,0 0
22
21
21 20
20 ,0 0
16 15,0 0
10 ,0 0
9 8 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 5
5,0 0
4 3 3 3
0 ,0 0 SE UK DK FI NL SK AT LV IE SI BE EE CZ IT DE ES LU PL MT PT CY HU FR LT EL
Page 22 of 40
Figure 3.2 Percentage of enterprises providing training in 1999

100.00 96 91 90.00 88 87 82 80.00 79 76 75 72 70.00 71 70 69 63 60.00 53 50.00 48 43 40.00 39 37 36
30.00
24
22 18
20.00
10.00
0.00 DK SE NL UK FI IE FR DE AT LU BE CZ EE LV SI LT PL HU ES IT PT EL
3.4. Foundation skills In common with Innovation Scoreboard Report 5, indicators of foundation skills are included based on the OECDs Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The PISA survey is carried out every 3 years and the next assessment will be in 2006. PISA measures basic literacy and numerical skills that play a central role in the ability of individuals to continuously learn throughout their lives. PISA aims to assess not only what students know but also their capacity to apply that knowledge to real world issues including those at the workplace. As the OECD report on the first results observes, PISA is based on a dynamic model of lifelong learning in which new knowledge and skills necessary for successful adaptation to a changing world are continuously acquired throughout life (OECD, 2000, p. 14). Foundation skills are especially important to sustaining dispersed forms of DUImode learning which concern employees at all levels of the hierarchy and across functional services. Such forms of skills development are particularly important for incremental innovation which draws on the full in-house knowledge base to progressively improve product design and product quality. Enterprises operating in countries where a large fraction of population has such foundation skills will be better placed to sustain DUI forms of learning and skills development.
Page 23 of 40
Two PISA-based measures from 2000 are used10. The first, a measure of reading literacy, is the percentage of 15 year olds reading at levels 4 or 5. This requires a capacity to locate and sequence multiple pieces of deeply embedded information, possibly in accordance with multiple criteria.
Figu r e 4.1 PISA r eading liter acy: p e rce ntage o f 15 yr . o ld s r e ad ing at leve ls 4 o r 5
60,0 0
50 50,0 0
41 40,0 0
40 38 37 34 32 30
30,0 0
28
27 25 25 24 23 23 21
20,0 0
18
10,0 0
0,0 0 FI IE UK BE SE AT FR DK DE CZ ES PL IT EL HU PT LV
The second, a measure of mathematical literacy, is the percentage of 15 yr. olds scoring 600 or above. This requires a capacity to connect and integrate more than one piece of material and to translate and create appropriate models within unfamiliar context. Both types of literacy are arguably important to the sorts of problem-solving capabilities required in learning organisations. The two measures are available for all member nations of the EU-15 with the exception of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Amongst the new member countries, the measure of reading literacy is unavailable for Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Poland and the measure of mathematical literacy is available for Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland.
10
The OECD released the results of PISA 2003 in early December 2004, but these results were available too late to be incorporated into this report.
Page 24 of 40

Figu re 4.2 PISA m ath e m atical lite r acy: p er ce ntag e o f 15 yr . o ld s s cor in g 600 o r be tte r
30,00
25,00
24 23 22
20,00 18 18 16 15,00 16 15 14 13 12 10 10,00 9 7 5 5,00 4 4
0,00 BE UK FI FR AT DK SE CZ DE HU IE PL ES EL IT LU PT
3.5 Obstacles to the successful development and deployment of skills for innovation At present there exist no European-wide data that would allow us to develop indicators of the obstacles to the development and deployment of skills for innovation. The 3rd Community Innovation Survey asks whether the lack of qualified personnel hampers innovative activity. However, it doesnt address the factors which impede the development and deployment of those skills. Some indication of the nature of the obstacles to DUI-forms of skills development can be gained from a recent survey of 800 European firms with 50 employees or more carried out by the European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs.11 The survey classified firms into three groups based on the progress they have made towards implementing new forms of work organisation: Non-users, Transitional or partial users, and System users. System users are defined as firms having introduced a wide range of new working practices and account for 10 percent of the population of firms. Non-users account for 40 percent, while Transitional or partial users account for the remaining 50 percent. The results show
11
DG Employment and Social Affairs, 2002, New Forms of Work Organisation: The Obstacles to Wider Diffusion.
Page 25 of 40

that the main obstacles are linked to the attitudes of employees and management, and more generally to resistance to major changes in the companys culture. A change in work organisation thus requires a change in understanding as well as in behaviour, and there is a perceived need for tools to help change the behaviour of management as well as employees. 3.6 Summary statistics and European leaders Table 1 summarizes the 12 indicators for skills and innovation, comparing the means for the EU-15 and for the new member countries.
Page 26 of 40
Table 1 Summary Statistics: Skills for Innovation Indicators Mean: EU-25 Mean: EU-15 Leaders: EU-15 Mean: New member countries 12.41 0.31 5.51 NA Leaders: New Member countries
Indicator STI-Mode Indicators 1.1 HRSTC as a percentage employed population aged 2465, 2000 1.2 BERD as a percent of GDP, 2000 1.3 HRST mobility as a percentage of HRST, 2000 1.4 Percentage of employees using a computer having received computer training, 2000 DUI-Mode Indicators
14.82 0.84 6.80 NA
16.42 1.22 7.86 54.13
SE (23.81) SE (3.12) DK (13.34) DK (69.90)
FI (22.06) FI (2.41) UK (12.18) FI (66.00)
LT (17.66) SI (0.81) EE (8.31) NA
CY (17.61) CZ (0.74) LV (6.55) NA
2.1 Percentage of employees NA 70.52 DK NL NA responsible for quality (86.44) (82.38) assessment, 2000 2.2 Percentage of employees NA 77.80 NL DK NA whose work involves problem (92.59) (91.38) solving, 2000 2.3 Percentage of employees NA 59.87 SE NL NA exercising control of work (80.85) (78.54) methods, 2000 2.4 Percentage of employees NA 70.00 FI DK NA whose work involves learning (87.71) (84.5) new things, 2000 Skill Maintenance Indicators 3.1 Percentage of the working 8.17 9.96 SE UK 5.49 age population engaged in (21.6) (21.1) training of any type four week prior to survey, 2001 3.2 Percentage of enterprises 60.86 55.87 DK (96) SE (91) 50.29 offering training of any type, 1999 Foundation Skills Indicators 1 4.1 PISA Reading literacy: 30.35 32.54 FI (50) IE (41) 23.25 percentage 15 yr. olds reading at levels 4 or 5, 2000 2 4.2 PISA Mathematical literacy: 13.53 13.71 BE (24) UK (23) 12.67 percentage of 15 yr. olds scoring 600 or over, 2000 1. Average for four member countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Latvia 2. Average for three member countries: Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
LV (8.2)
SI (7.6)
CZ (69)
EE (63)
CZ (27) CZ (15)
PL (25) HU (13)
Page 27 of 40

Only 5 of the 12 indicators are available for at least 22 members of the EU-25: indicators 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.2. For these five indicators Latvia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia are most often leaders amongst the new member countries. The comparison of means for the EU-15 and the new member countries shows that the STI-gap is greater in the area of R&D expenditures than it is for HRSTC or HRST mobility. This may partly be explained by differences in industrial structure and the relative weighting of new member countries towards low R&D sectors which nonetheless require scientifically trained personnel for incorporating new science-based technologies. With respect to lifelong learning, the gap is greater for general adult training than it is for enterprise investments in training. 4. Skills-for-Innovation Indices for the EU-15 and EU-25 This section develops a Skills-for-Innovation Index for the EU-15 on the basis of all 12 indicators. A partial index for the EU-25 is developed below on the basis of the 5 indicators that are available for at least 22 member nations. In order to develop the indices, standardized variables are created for each of the indicators with mean 0 and standard deviation 1. These are summed and divided by the number of indicators. 4.1. A 12-indicator Skills-for-Innovation index for the EU-15 Figure 5 ranks the EU-15 countries according to the 12-indicator Skills Index. The Scandinavian countries are leaders on this performance index. The Netherlands
th th and the UK follow in 4 and 5 place.
Page 28 of 40

Fig ur e 5 Sk ills -fo r-In no vation In de x: EU15
1,0000
0,88 0,77 0,74 0,59 0,56
0,5000 0,20
0,14
0,14 0,02
0,0000 FI DK SE NL UK LU DE BE AT FR -0,11 IE - 0,13 ES IT PT EL
- 0,5000 - 0,59 -0,79 -1,0000
- 1,14 -1,22 -1,5000
Two of the indicators used in the 12-indicator Skills-for Innovation index are also used in the construction of TrendCharts 2001 Summary Innovation Index for the EU-15. Figure 6 below shows the relation between the Skills Index, calculated without these two indicators, and the Summary Innovation Index. The correlation coefficient between the two indices is 0.93 and significant at the .001 level. This positive relationship supports the view that that the skills indicators impact positively on innovative performance.
Page 29 of 40

Figu re 6 Re lation be twe e n S k ills In de x and S u mmary Inn novation Inde x : EU15
1 ,50
DK
1 ,00
NL
FI SE
0,50
UK FR DE
Skills Indx for 10 indicators
BE
0,00 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
IE
0 2 4 6 8
AT
-0,50
ES IT
-1 ,00
PT
EL
-1 ,50
S um m ary i n novati on i n de x
-2,00
4.2. A 5-Indicator Skills-for-Innovation index for the EU-25 Five of the skills for innovation indicators are available for 22 or more of the EU-25. These are: BERD as a percent of GDP, HRSTC, HRST job-to-job mobility and the two indicators of skills maintenance for older workers. On this basis, a 5-indicator Skills-for-Innovation Index has been constructed. The main weakness of this index is that it fails to captures DUI-mode skills development and the foundation skills that sustain such dispersed on-the-job learning. However, if we restrict our attention to the EU-15, the correlation coefficient between the 5-indicator index and the 12indicator index is 0.96, implying that nations that are strong in the STI and lifelong learning dimensions captured in the 5-indicator index also tend to be strong in the other dimensions of the full index.
Page 30 of 40

Figure 7 shows that the three Scandinavian countries, which are leaders on the scale of the 12-indicator index, are also leaders on the scale of the 5-indicator index. Amongst the new member countries, Estonia, Cyprus and the Czech Republic are leaders.
Fig ure 7 Sk ills -for -Innn ovation In de x b as e d on 5 in dicators : EU-25
2
1.64
1.62
1.55
1.5
1.22
0.90
0 .5
0.43
0.37 0.26 0.12 0.10
0 DK FI SE UK NL BE DE LU FR IE EE
-0.08 -0.28
AT
CY
CZ
SI
ES
LV
LT
MT
PL
IT
HU
SK
EL
PT
- 0 .5
-0.33
-0.38
-0.38
-0.39
-0.42
-0.46
-0.73
-0.78
-1
-0.81
-0.82
-0.87 -0.96 -0.98
- 1.5
4.3. Relating the Skills Indices to a taxonomy of modes of innovation The relation between the Skills-for-Innovation Indices and enterprise innovative performance can be explored further for the EU-15 and the EU-25 by using a taxonomy of innovation modes developed by TrendChart in conjunction with Eurostat. The taxonomy, which draws on the work of Tether (2001) and Arundel (2003), is derived from CIS-3 data. It covers 12 member nations of the EU-15 and 7 new member countries. Four categories of innovators are distinguished: strategic innovators, intermittent innovators, technology modifiers and technology adopters. The two criteria upon which the classification is based are the degree of novelty of the innovations and the creative effort that the firm expends on in-house innovative activities. The taxonomy also distinguishes non-innovators.
Page 31 of 40

For strategic innovators, innovation is a core component of their competitive strategy and they perform R&D on a regular basis. Intermittent innovators develop innovations in-house when necessary or favourable but innovation is not a core strategic activity. Technology modifiers modify existing products or processes mainly through non-R&D based innovative activities. Technology adopters innovate primarily by adopting innovations developed by other firms or organisations. Table A.2 in the Annex gives the percentage distribution of enterprises for the four innovation modes and non-innovators for the 19 EU nations for which data are available. In order to summarise this data, cluster analysis is used to group nations that are close in terms of the percentage distribution of strategic innovators, intermittent innovators, modifiers, adopter and non-innovators. Table 2 presents the outcome of this analysis which resulted in four distinct clusters of nations. Table 2 Percentage Distribution of the 4 Innovation Modes and Non-innovators for Each Cluster Countries in cluster Cluster 1
BE, DE, FR, NL, AT, FI, SE
Cluster 2
IT, PT, LU
Cluster 3
CZ, EE, ES, LT
Cluster 4
EL, LV, SI, SK, HU
EU-19
STRATEGIC INTERMIT MODIFIER ADOPTER NONINNOVATOR
13% 17% 15% 9% 46%
6% 17% 17% 5% 55%
4% 11% 5% 16% 64%
5% 9% 5% 6% 75%
8% 13% 11% 9% 59%
The first cluster groups the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Austria. This cluster is distinctive both for the over-representation of the three innovation modes that are highest in terms of novelty requirements and inhouse creative effort and for being the only cluster in which the percentage of
Page 32 of 40

strategic innovators is above the average for the 19 nations. The second cluster groups Italy, Portugal and Luxembourg. In this cluster both intermittent innovators and modifiers are over-represented relative to the population average and this is the cluster with the highest percentage of modifiers. Cluster 3 groups together Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Spain and Lithuania. Cluster 4 groups Greece, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Slovenia and Hungary. These two clusters can be distinguished from the first two by the over-representation of noninnovators and the under-representation of the three innovation modes that are highest in terms of novelty requirements and in-house creative effort. Cluster 3 can be distinguished from Cluster 4 by the over-representation of adopters, while cluster 4 stands out for being the one with the highest percentage of non-innovators. In order to explore the relation between the taxonomy and DUI and STI-modes of learning, separate DUI and STI-indices, as well as a combined DUI/STI index, are constructed for the twelve members of the EU-15 for which the taxonomy could be applied. As with the overall skills index, these indices are constructed by first creating standardised variables for each indicator with mean 0 and standard deviation 1. The standardised variables are summed and the result is divided by the number of indicators. Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients between the modes of innovators in percentage of all firms and the DUI, STI and combined DUI/STI indices.
Page 33 of 40
Table 3 Correlations between Types of Innovators and Dimensions of Skills for Innovation: EU-12
DUI/STI Index DUI/STI Index DUI Index STI Index STRAG INTERM MODIF ADOPT NON-INV 1.00 .95 .92 .82 .59 .21 -.34 -.55 1.00 .76 .75 .51 .26 -.27 -.53 1.00 .77 .59 .11 -.35 -.48 1.00 .62 .33 -.43 -.65 1.00 .73 -.61 -.78 1.00 -.38 -.79 1.00 .10 1.00 DUI Index STI Index STATEGIC INTERMIT MODIFIER ADOPTER NONINNVATOR
1. Correlations in bold are significant at the .05 level or better.
The results show positive and significant correlations between the relative importance of strategic innovators and each of the three skills indices. Although the correlations with adopters and non-innovators are not significant they are negative. The positive correlation between the percentage of strategic innovators and the STI-index is to be expected to some extent, since all strategic firms perform R&D on a continuous basis and BERD is one of the four indicators used in the STI-index. The positive and significant correlation with the DUI-index suggests that these very same strategic firms draw a critical advantage for their innovative activities by combining high levels of R&D with an emphasis on organisational forms and practices that foster experience-based learning. Further support for the idea that the best results are achieved where the two modes of learning are combined at a high level is given by the larger size of the coefficient on the combined DUI/STI scale when compared with the coefficients on the DUI or the STI-scales alone. Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients between the 5-indicator Skills-forInnovation Index and the different types of innovators for all 19 EU nations for which the innovation taxonomy could be applied.
Page 34 of 40
Table 4 Correlations between types of innovators and the 5-indicator Skills-for-Innovation Index: 19 nations
Skills index: 5 indicators 1.00 .78 .65 .39 -.18 STRATEGIC INTERMIT MODIFIER ADOPTER NONINNVATOR
Skills index: 5 indicators STRAG INTERM MODIF ADOPT
1.00 .61 .54 -.36 1.00 .74 -.27 1.00 -.19 1.00 -.09 1.00
NON-.62 -.68 -.83 -.87 INNOV 1. Correlations in bold are significant at the .05 level or better.
The correlations between the skills index and both the strategic and intermittent modes of innovators are positive and significant. The higher value of the coefficient for the strategic mode points to a positive relation between the two dimensions of skills development captured in the index and the importance of novelty requirements in innovative activity.
Page 35 of 40

6. Conclusion There exist large differences in the development of skills for innovation across EUnations. Portugal, Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy, as well as a number of the new member countries, show an enormous lag. The science and technology-based perspective implies that scientifically-based ways of getting access to, producing and utilizing knowledge dominate the innovation process.12 This STI-perspective, along with the combined pressure emanating from the science community and the big science-based firms, accounts for the fact that such high-tech fields as ICT, bio and nano-technology are most often the focus of current policy efforts at the national and European levels. But other traditional industries such as food, clothing and furniture as well as many service sectors also draw upon science when it comes to innovating production processes, the use of materials and designing new products. At the same time, it would clearly be a mistake to assume that STI-mode learning is sufficient and that DUI-mode learning will take care of itself. DUI-mode initiatives are needed to overcome the bottlenecks high-tech faces in absorbing and using new technologies. Low-tech needs DUI to sustain its capacity for incremental improvements in product quality and design. Moreover, the empirical evidence presented in this report highlights both the considerable variance in capacity for DUI-mode learning that exists across European nations and the important differences in this capacity that exist across firms within the same nation.13 Irrespective of whether the focus is on promoting catch-up among the nations that lag behind, or promoting the sustained development of the leaders, this implies a need for a realignment of policy. On the one hand, there is a need to give more attention to developing the science and technology base of the services and low and medium-tech manufacturing. These are the sectors which account for the bulk of employment and growth in Europes economies. On the other hand, DUI-mode
12
For a further discussion of the points raised in this concluding section, see Lundvall et al. (2004). http://www.business.aau.dk/loc-nis/ See pp. 6-9 above for a discussion of detailed national survey evidence for France, the UK and Denmark.
13
Page 36 of 40

learning cannot be taken for granted and initiatives are need to actively promote this experience-based skills development in both low and high-tech sectors. One way in which these issues can be brought to the fore in policy is through the development of more adequate DUI-mode measures and benchmarks. There currently exist specialised Manuals setting norms and guidelines for collecting harmonised data at the European level on innovation (Oslo Manual), R&D (Frascatti Manual) and HRST (Canberra Manual). A preliminary step towards developing European-wide harmonised data on DUI-mode skills development would be a Manual on Organisational Innovation. The European Survey on Working Conditions, while providing some useful characterisations of individual work experience in terms of problem-solving, responsibility for quality assessment and degrees of autonomy, is first and foremost a survey of working conditions and it cannot substitute for a focused survey on organisational innovation. Adequate DUI measures would require complementary establishment-level data providing information on the use of such collective organisational forms as problem-solving groups, shop and department meetings and the way knowledge flows and sharing is organised among different services and departments. Finally, while the skills indices developed in this report clearly identify leading and lagging nations, it would be a mistake to try to identify a best practice method for creating learning organisation on the basis of these aggregate measures. Although the indicators identify common features of learning organisations, as Lorenz and Valeyre (2004) discuss in more detail, there are multiple ways to build them and whats best in a particular case will depend both on sector-specific features and on the national institutional context. This bench-marking should be interpreted in the spirit of the open-method of coordination with the idea that each nation will develop the organisational practices and skills that support innovation in a way that is adapted to its distinctive cultural and institutional resources.
Page 37 of 40

References Applebaum, E., T. Bailey, P. Berg, and A. Kalleberg, 2000, Manufacturing Competitive Advantage: the effects of High Performance Work Systems of Plant Performance and Company Outcomes, Cornell University press, Ithica, NY. Arundel A. The Knowledge Economy, Innovation Diffusion, and the CIS. Proceedings of the 21st CEIES Seminar, Innovation Statistics - More than R&D Indicators, Athens, April 10-11, 2003, Eurostat, General Statistics, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2003. Becker, B. and B. Gerhart, 1996, The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organisational Performance: progress and prospects, Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 779-801. Becker, B. and M. Huselid, 1998, High-performance Work Systems and Firm Performance: a synthesis of research and managerial implications, in G. Ferris (ed.) Research in personnel and Human Resources, Vol. 16, Greewick, Conn., JAI Press, pp. 53-102. Chesbrough, H. (1999). The Organisational Impact of Technological Change: a Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors, Industrial and Corporate Change, Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 128-52. Greenan, N. and J. Mairesse (1999) Organizational Change in French Manufacturing: What do we learn from firm representatives and from their employees? Paper prepared for the NBER conference on organisational change and performance, April, 1999. Guest, D. (1997) Human Resource Management and Performance: a review and research agenda, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8: 3, pp. 263-26. Ichiniowski, C., K. Shaw and G. Prennushi, "The Effects of Human Resource Management Policies on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines", American Economic Review, June 1997. Jensen, M., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz and B.A. Lundvall (2004). Absorptive Capacity, Forms of Knowledge and Economic Development, paper presented at the 2nd International Globelics Conference, Beijing, China. Kline, S. and N. Rosenberg 1986. An Overview of Innovation, in: R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. Lam, A. (2003) Organisational Learning in Multinationals: R&D Networks of Japanese and U.S. MNEs in the UK, DRUID Working Paper, http://ideas.repec.org/s/aal/abbswp.html.
Page 38 of 40

Laursen, K. and N. Foss (2003) New HRM Practices, Complementarities, and the Impact on Innovation Performance, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Lorenz, E. and B.A. Lundvall, Final Report, Labour, Organisation and Competence in National Innovation Systems, (Loc Nis), EU Accompanying Measures Project, Contract nHPSE-CT-2001-60004 Lorenz, E., J. Michie and F. Wilkinson (2004) HRM Complementarities and Innovative Performance in French and British Industry, forthcoming in J. L Christensen & B-A Lundvall (eds.) Product Innovation, Interactive Learning and Economic Performance, Esivier Ltd. Lorenz, E. and A. Valeyre (2003) Organisational Change in Europe: National Models or the Diffusion of a New One Best Way? DRUID Working Paper, http://ideas.repec.org/s/aal/abbswp.html.
Lundvall, B.A. and P. Nielsen (2003). Knowledge creation and innovation in the context of learning organizations and industrial relations, DRUID Working Paper, http://ideas.repec.org/s/aal/abbswp.html. Lundvall, B. A., Lorenz, E. and I. Drejer (2004) Report from the Loc Nis Policy Workshop, How Europes Economies Learn, European Commission, Brussels,
http://www.business.aau.dk/loc-nis/
Merlli D. and Paoli P., 2001, Third European Survey on Working Conditions (2000), Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities, 2001.
Michie, J. and M. Sheehan (1999a). HRM Practices, R&D Expenditure and Innovative Investment: Evidence from the UK's 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 8, 211-234. Newell, A. and Simon, H., 1972. Human Problem-Solving, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Tether B. Identifying Innovation, Innovators, and Innovation Behaviours: A Critical Assessment of the Community Innovation Survey, CRIC Discussion Paper 48, UMIST, December 2001. Vinding, A., 2002. Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: A human capital approach, Ph.-D.-dissertation, Department of Business Studies, Aalborg University, Aalborg.
Page 39 of 40

Annex Table A.1: Skills-for-Innovation Indicators and Indices Indicators 1.1 HRSTC as a percentage employed population aged 24-65, 2000 1.2 BERD as a percent of GDP, 2000 1.3 HRST mobility as a percentage of HRST, 2000 1.4 Percentage of employees using a computer having received computer training, 2000 2.1 Percentage of employees responsible for quality assessment, 2000 2.2 Percentage of employees whose work involves problem solving, 2000 2.3 Percentage of employees exercising control of work methods, 2000 2.4 Percentage of employees whose work involves learning new things, 2000 3.1 Percentage of the working age population engaged in training of any type four week prior to survey, 2001 3.2 Percentage of enterprises offering training of any type, 1999 4.1 PISA Reading literacy: percentage 15 yr. olds reading at levels 4 or 5, 2000 4.2 PISA Mathematical literacy: percentage of 15 yr. olds scoring 600 or BE 20.4 1 1.48 6.64 37.7 68.3 83.0 55.7 74.9 6.8 70 38 24 CZ 9.48 .74 5.35 27.0 NA NA NA NA 5.9 69 15 NA DK 21.1 2 1.51 13.3 4 69.9 86.4 91.4 72.0 84.8 20.8 96 30 16 DE 16.5 7 1.75 7.36 64.8 66.6 74.7 67.7 61.3 5.2 75 28 14 EE 15.5 1 .14 8.31 NA NA NA NA NA 6.0 63 NA NA EL 14.0 2 .223 NA 44.3 50.9 66.8 43.0 49.1 1.1 18 23 7 ES 14.9 1 .5 6.79 43.7 65.3 79.0 48.1 62.8 5.1 36 25 9 FR 16.2 5 .83 8.16 51.1 77.9 85.0 59.5 71.2 2.8 76 32 18 IE 15.3 4 .53 NA 65.5 70.4 68.1 49.2 65.9 7.7 79 41 12 IT 9.4 .53 5.52 36.2 65.3 72.7 62.0 68.0 7 5.5 24 24 5 CY 17.6 1 .05 6.42 NA NA NA NA NA 3.11 NA NA NA LV 11.0 5 .18 6.55 NA NA NA NA NA 8.2 53 18 NA LT 17.6 6 .13 5.75 NA NA NA NA NA 2.8 43 NA NA
Page 40 of 40

over, 2000 Indices 12 Indicator skills index 5 Indicator skills index .14 .43 NA -.38 .77 1.64 .14 .37 NA -.08 -.12 -.96 -.59 -.39 -.11 .12 -.13 .10 -.79 -.81 NA -.33 NA -.42 NA -.46
Table A.1 (contd) Skills-for-Innovation Indicators and Indices Indicators 1.1 HRSTC as a percentage employed population aged 24-65, 2000 1.2 BERD as a percent of GDP, 2000 1.3 HRST mobility as a percentage of HRST, 2000 1.4 Percentage of employees using a computer having received computer training, 2000 2.1 Percentage of employees responsible for quality assessment, 2000 2.2 Percentage of employees whose work involves problem solving, 2000 2.3 Percentage of employees exercising control of work methods, 2000 2.4 Percentage of employees whose work involves learning new things, 2000 3.1 Percentage of the working age population engaged in training of any LU 18.19 1.58 6.17 55.33 65.1 76.9 60.0 74.5 4.8 HU 12.17 .35 3.99 NA NA NA NA NA 33.1 MT 9.80 .07 6.20 NA NA NA NA NA 4.4 NL 19.13 1.11 NA 56.7 82.4 92.6 78.5 78.7 15.6 AT 9.8 NA 5.49 59.6 69.8 77.0 60.3 68.7 8.3 PL 9.93 .24 5.22 NA NA NA NA NA 4.8 PT 8.48 .29 5.71 39.1 66.7 58.5 41.0 50.8 3.4 SI 12.58 .811 4.90 NA NA NA NA NA 7.6 SK 8.31 .43 2.45 NA NA NA NA NA 9.0 FI 22.06 2.41 11.59 66.0 76.5 72.6 63.3 87.7 19.6 SE 23.81 3.12 5.54 64.5 71.0 88.7 80.9 77.7 21.6 UK 16.9 1.12 12.18 57.5 75.3 79.9 5.0 73.5 21.1
Page 41 of 40

type four week prior to survey, 2001 3.2 Percentage of enterprises offering training of any type, 1999 4.1 PISA Reading literacy: percentage 15 yr. olds reading at levels 4 or 5, 2000 4.2 PISA Mathematical literacy: percentage of 15 yr. olds scoring 600 or over, 2000 Indices 12 Indicator skills index 5 Indicator skills index 71 NA 4 37 23 13 NA NA NA 88 NA NA 72 34 18 39 25 10 22 21 4 48 NA NA NA NA NA 82 50 22 91 37 16 87 40 23
.20 .26
NA -.82
NA -.73
.58 .90
.02 -.28
NA -.78
-1.1 -.98
NA -.38
NA -.87
.88 1.6
.4 1.5
.56 1.2
Page 42 of 40

Table A.2 1 Taxonomy of Innovation Modes (percentage of all enterprises) Strategic Intermitten Modifiers Adopters Innovator t s Innovators 11.0 16.0 17.0 15.0 13.0 4.0 3.0 12.0 7.0 7.0 12.0 13.0 3.0 17.0 12.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 11.0 4.0 21.0 8.0 7.0 14.0 13.0 22.0 19.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 15.0 8.0 13.0 6.0 16.0 10.0 11.0 8.0 22.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 17.0 18.0 16.0 18.0 17.0 11.0 15.0 3.0 9.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 22.0 11.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 6.0 16.0 13.0 6.0 14.0 7.0 1.0 5.0
Noninnovators 41.0 34.0 73.0 62.0 53.0 59.0 50.0 45.0 46.0 55.0 50.0 52.0 68.0 60.0 77.0 64.0 77.0 72.0 77.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
BE DE EL ES FR IT LU NL AT PT FI SE CZ EE HU LT LV SI SK
1. Based on CIS-3 data.
Page 43 of 40

European Trend Chart On Innovation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

European Trend Chart On Innovation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

European Trend Chart on Innovation

Trend Chart Policy Workshop

"Skills for Innovation: Ensuring the competitive future of companies"