Measuring performance of public procurement for innovation

Innovation and public procurement: Terminology, concepts, and applications

“…While qualitative case study research provides valuable insights, it has limitations in terms of generalization and robustness (Eisenhardt, 1989;Lee and Baskerville, 2003). In line with (Georghiou et al, 2014;Peng and Cai, 2008), who point to the need for new measurement and evaluation models for public procurement, this study confirms that practitioners need tangible and generalizable results based on robust data to support policy-and decisionmaking. Large-scale surveys of supplier-buyer relationships as well as statistical data from national or supranational institutions can provide a firm basis for further investigations and analyses, as is demonstrated by the few articles based on a quantitative research design (see, e.g., Georghiou et al, 2014;Guerzoni & Raiteri, 2015;Rullan et al, 2012).…”

“…However, with a change from predominantly supply-side policies to an emphasis on the demand side (including PPfI), evaluation strategies have to be adapted accordingly (Edler et al, 2012). Peng & Cai (2008) propose three specific impact measurement criteria for PPfI: service quality, efficiency, and effectiveness. Specifically, effectiveness, i.e.…”

“…With a perspective on stimulating and managing R&D at the national level, Geroski (1990) concludes that public procurement policy is the most effective demand-side instrument in nurturing development early the product life-cycle, because this is the stage where technological advances are made but where there is no demand. Companies innovation capability and their R&D efforts are strengthened as an effect of governments' innovation policy (Peng and Cai, 2008). Aschhoff and Sofka (2009) furthermore demonstrate a positive effect on market success.…”