a b s t r a c tWhile there is growing awareness that much innovation currently takes place in the public sector, it is also recognised that more systematic efforts to promote innovation are needed to address the economic and societal challenges that public sectors face. However, there is a lack of a common understanding of what public sector innovation is and a lack of a measurement framework that can shed light on innovation processes in public sector organisations. Based on insights generated in a recent Nordic pilot study, this paper seeks to contribute to fill this gap. The paper discusses how public sector innovation can be captured and to what extent measurement can be based on frameworks originally developed in a private sector context. While there are important differences between the public and the private sector that should be reflected in a measurement framework, there is also considerable common ground that can be drawn upon.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper develops an indicator framework for examining open innovation practices and their impact on performance. The analysis, which is based on Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data for Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Norway, yields a number of interesting results. First, we find that open innovation practices have a strong impact on innovation performance. Second, results suggest that broad-based approaches yield the strongest impacts, and that the collective of open innovation strategies appear more important than individual practices. Third, intramural investments are still important for innovative performance, stressing that open innovation is not a substitute for internal knowledge building.

No abstract

This paper assesses developments in innovation measurement that have been incorporated into the recent revision of the Oslo Manual. Among the most central points emphasized in recent innovation literature are a need for: data that is adequate for the analysis of innovation systems and for policymaking; and a suitable measurement framework to capture the substantial innovation activity within services. The new measurement framework, which includes an expansion of the innovation concept beyond technological product and process innovation and a more complete treatment of linkages and knowledge flows, provides greater coverage of these topics. However, while these changes are a significant step forward in innovation measurement, there are a number of areas in which survey guidelines can be improved further, among them human resource development and the role of demand in innovation. The paper discusses some options for building on these changes in the future. FCarter Bloch is at The

The aim of this article is to suggest a framework for examining the way national policy mixes are responding to the challenges and opportunities of globally distributed knowledge networks, cross-sectoral technology flows and consequently open innovation processes occurring on an international scale. We argue that the purpose of public research and innovation policy remains one of developing and sustaining territorial knowledge bases capable of growing and supporting internationally competitive industries. But the rules of the game have changed. Public policy now needs to carefully balance between: a) promoting the formation of international linkages for knowledge sourcing and information exposure; b) providing incentives for domestic industry intramural R&D for building absorptive capacity and knowledge accumulation; and c) sustaining domestic networking to allow accumulated knowledge to diffuse and recombine

The role of competitive funds as a source of funding for academic research has increased in many countries. For the individual researcher, the receipt of a grant can influence both scientific production and career paths. This paper focuses on the importance of the receipt of a research grant for researchers' academic career paths utilizing a mixed methods approach that combines econometric analysis with in-depth qualitative interviews. The analysis has novel elements both in terms of its subject (impact of funding grants on individuals' academic career paths) and approach. The results of this study indicate that while research grants have a positive impact on the research performed under the grant itself, there are very important secondary effects on research performance through positive effects on academic career advancement. The probability of obtaining a full professorship for grant recipients is almost double that for rejected applicants, 16 percent compared to 9 percent. The probability for career advancement in general is about 9 percentage points higher for grant recipients. Qualitative interviews support these quantitative results by providing insights into how grants impact research careers, through heightened status, recognition, networking and other factors.