The Evaluation of 'Behavioural Additionality' - IWT

CHAPTER 2 > Measuring Additionality of R&D Subsidies with Surveys:
Towards an Evaluation Methodology for IWT-Flanders
>
5. QUESTIONNAIRE
During this research we have developed a
questionnaire, taking the preliminary work
from Georghiou (2003) as a starting point.
The survey model was elaborated and
refined during the process. Although in
the beginning of the process tailor-made
questionnaires were used in order to capture
the information on additionality in an
optimal way for each of the groups, we
ended up with one basic questionnaire at
the project level for all four groups and
one additional module for the large R&D
intensive firms. The questionnaire was setup
in several modules. The basic unit of
observation was the project level. For small
firms and large firms with one or a few
subsidized projects we found that the project
level virtually coincided with the firm
level. However, for large R&D-intensive
firms with a large portfolio of grantfunded
projects, it was found useful to
have a separate module that provided
information at the company level and that
helped to provide contextual information
for the project-level data. Figure 2 gives an
overview of the different modules of each
questionnaire and shows the degree of
similarity.
Part 1 of the questionnaire contains the
general information about the company.
This part overlaps with the R&D survey and
can be extracted from that survey if the
company filled in the questionnaire properly.
The information from part 1 allows
us to link the additionality results with the
characteristics of the company such as size,
export orientation, and ownership.
Part 2 of the questionnaire asks for information
concerning the different product
groups, which the company has both at the
moment of interview and at the moment
that it started receiving IWT grants. We
subsequently ask to which of these product
categories the IWT grants were most closely
related. For the selected product category
we inquire about the competitive position
of the firm. This allows us to analyze:
a) Whether the projects subsidized in the
past are embodied in products that are
still sold today. These projects can be
both related to the development of
these products or to the improvement of
their production processes.
b) Whether projects subsidized in the past
are embodied in product categories
where the company has today a monopoly
like position or where it is involved
in fierce competition. We might assume
that really innovative products lead to
monopoly like situations and high value
Figure 2 >
Questionnaire Structure
Modules No permanent R&D activities Permanent R&D activities
SME’s Large High tech start-ups Large firms
In-take Project
interview interview
Modules I II IV III III
1. General information about the firm = = = = =
2. Competitive market position = = = =
3. R&D budget, grants and personnel = = = =
4. Description of the project = = = (1) =
5. Project development process = = = Innovation =
and organization
portfolio
6. Project output, results and impact = = = Innovation =
output
The equal sign means that the content of that part of the questionnaire is identical for all types.
(1)
The project level basically corresponds with the company level.
28