The Evaluation of 'Behavioural Additionality' - IWT

CHAPTER 1 > Evaluation of Behavioural Additionality. Concept Paper.
>
As an overall comment on this survey
approach it may be noted that a written
questionnaire may miss many of the feedback
loops that are likely to be present – for
example while the influence may initially
only be on R&D personnel, by means of
other company processes they may eventually
influence business strategy. There is also
the issue of who answers the survey – fairly
easy in an SME but more complicated in a
large firm where the grant holder may be
disconnected from strategic decisions.
Also not covered here are behavioural
spillovers to other firms which could occur
through imitation of good practice, perhaps
via the firm’s networks, or through competitive
pressure. Our experience is that the
funded firm is generally poorly informed
about any spillovers other than product imitation.
Similarly, non-participants generally
find it difficult to attribute the source of
behavioural aspects.
6. FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
The preliminary thinking embodied in this
paper raises many more issues than it
resolves. In consequence an agenda for further
research remains which includes the following
elements:
FIRST TRIAL OF QUESTIONS
The questions in this paper will after further
development be used in a survey by IWT,
Flanders of its granting programme. While
part of a real evaluation this will also serve
as a pilot for the investigation of behavioural
additionality. The strength of the
pilot will be greatly enhanced if the other
countries that have expressed interest also
join the exercise. Two possibilities exist:
1) that the same questions and approach are
used to test their efficacy and results in
different national contexts; or
2) that the other participants pursue alternative
approaches on a pilot basis chosen
from the items discussed below
CASE-STUDY APPROACH
Had there not been a need for a postal
instrument, the first choice for phase one of
this work would have been to explore the
issues through in depth case studies of firms.
For large firms this remains the preferred
option as the strategic processes are probably
too complicated to capture in a questionnaire
and in any case require multiple
respondents. Interview based approaches
would also allow more complex survey
approaches to be tried. In particular there is
a proposal to apply conjoint analysis to the
issue as a means of avoiding possible positive
bias in favour of receiving funds.
Though mainly applied to consumer preferences
in marketing analyses it is possible
that this technique could be used to compare
desired project outcomes. The main
drawback is that it requires some considerable
patience on the part of the respondent
to work through the options. Also it does
not avoid the problem of being dependent
upon the opinions of beneficiaries.
ETHNOGRAPHIC APPROACH
A more ambitious form of case study would
be to track a grant through its life cycle with
the aim of cataloguing effects as they occur
by observation rather than relying on ex
post hindsight.
EXTENSION TO OTHER INNOVATION
POLICIES AND TO POLICY MIX ISSUES
When firms are in actual or potential receipt
of multiple incentives and forms of support
for innovation it is artificial to separate only
one – the research grant. A future phase of
the study should extend the behavioural
additionality concept to other policies and to
their combined impact. Certain types of policy
(eg advisory and consultancy services) are
explicitly targeted at behaviour of firms. On
the other hand behavioural effects may interact
positively or negatively between policies.
CONSIDERATION OF NEGATIVE
BEHAVIOURAL EFFECTS
This paper has mainly assumed that behavioural
effects of grants are positive and
intentional. There is also the situation where
they are negative and unintentional - or
even in some case negative and intentional.
An example of negative and unintentional
would be to lead a firm into an alliance
which turned out to be unproductive and
20