What is you confidence in innovation?

As some of you know, I'm currently on the Board for the Institute For Innovation and Information Productivity (IIIP).  One of the projects we fund is the annual Innovation Confidence Index.  Some background: IIIP commissioned the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship at the University of Strathclyde in 2007 to develop reliable cross-national measures of consumer demand for innovation (Consumer Innovation Confidence – CIC). This year, with the third  a new element was added measuring organizational confidence in innovation (Organization Innovation Confidence – OIC).

This is the third IIIP survey of innovation confidence.  Following a successful pilot in the US in early 2007, 12 research teams participated in the first global measurement of national consumer innovation confidence (CIC) in the summer of that year. In 2008, over 81,000 individuals in 25 countries were surveyed, and a pilot survey of organization confidence index (OIC) was conducted in the UK . In 2009, CIC and OIC scores were calculated from the responses of 51,000 individuals in 18 nations plus two important commercial regions of China (Shen Zhen and Hong Kong SAR). Scanning all of the reports, national estimates of CIC are now available for 33 nations plus Hong Kong and Shen Zhen for at least one year, and national estimates of OIC are available for 18 nations plus Hong Kong and Shen Zhen.

Some have predicted that the low ranking for some countries was tied to the severe drop in consumer confidence between 2007 and 2008 and again in 2009 e. AC Nielsen found that General Consumer Confidence (GCC) in April 2008 dropped by an average of 8% for countries that participated in 2007 and 2008 IIIP survey.  By contrast, the IIIP CIC Index in the six nations dropped by only 1% on average of the 2007 value; only in the UK did it drop by as much as 9% from the previous year.

So what is the ranking??  Below is the list in rank order (highest confidence to lowest) based on mean of the 2007 to 2009 survey results.

  1. Colombia
  2. United Arab Emirates
  3. India
  4. Peru
  5. Uruguay
  6. Jamaica
  7. Angola
  8. South Africa
  9. Argentina
  10. Brazil
  11. Chile
  12. Ireland
  13. Spain
  14. Ecuador
  15. Iran
  16. Macedonia
  17. Mexico
  18. Denmark
  19. China
  20. United States
  21. Italy
  22. Iceland
  23. Turkey
  24. United Kingdom
  25. Belgium
  26. Shen Zhen
  27. Israel
  28. Croatia
  29. Slovenia
  30. Finland
  31. Switzerland
  32. Korea Republic
  33. Netherlands
  34. Hong Kong SAR
  35. Japan

Interesting … Thoughts??

For the details, download the IIIP report “The IIIP Innovation Confidence Indexes 2009 Report”

RELATED POSTS:  Core Attributes For An Innovation Culture
Zoom - 2017 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Meeting Solutions - Is a sponsor of the Killer Innovations Show

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

5 thoughts on “What is you confidence in innovation?

  1. When I looked at the types of questions that were asked (on page 5) it looked like the survey was focused more on adoption than innovation — granted I only scanned the document.

    This would seem to slant the results in favor of countries that have investment $$ and are behind in the adoption of previous technologies and planning to leap frog others.

    Is this perspective correct?

  2. As always, scientists have made something that is relatively simple into something complex.

    Innovation is largely about utility… an “innovation” is generally something that facilitates a greater efficiency. It’s not enough to do something differently, an innovation allows one to do it better or may reveal an entirely new set of more efficient actions that may otherwise have not been recognized to be performed. Innovations also make it possible to contextualize knowledge in better ways. For instance, 3D technology adds new information that helps the viewer contextualize the space presented on a screen for the purpose of creating an experience to which a person more closely relates.

    Ultimately it doesn’t matter if a group or society is less or more “open” to new things, the new things that have the most profound effect on improving utility or better contextualizing information will take root and ultimately become the norm. The prime example of this idea is evolution… the mutations that have provided the most utility or improvements in efficiencies are the ones that take root, ultimately supplanting specimens with the less efficient traits. Real innovation works the same way… it doesn’t matter if an individual, group or culture is receptive to the innovation, a true innovation will embed itself simply because it provides a significant improvement.

    As with much in the technology community, this report is reactive in nature rather than proactive. There would have been much more value evaluating people’s responses to recent innovations. What made products like the iPod, iPhone or iPad so embraceable by consumers? There are also technologies like Swype that are on the cusp of changing the way people interact with a class of devices, what is appealing/unappealing about new innovations such as that? Judging people’s receptiveness to new technology makes a fundamental assumption that new technology = innovation. The study places the onus of the success of new technology squarely at the feet of the public rather than at the feet of the creators of new technology. Because there is no way to judge the value of innovation of a new technology before it is exposed to the market, judging the receptiveness of the public to new technology is moot. The bottom line is, a great innovation will take root regardless of a person or group’s receptiveness to it if the innovation is significant enough. Otherwise, it is simply a personal choice at the level of the individual to judge whether an innovation is useful to him/her.

  3. Well Phil, you put yourself up as an Innovation Mentor/Consultant, you tell us what this all means!

Comments are closed.