4IpaUJbnm

from OECD member countries (OECD, 2015). In 1967 the US Department of Commerce
published so named the Charpie Report, which showed that R&D does not constitute the
main source of technological innovation. Despite the report was criticized by then time
economists and statisticians, “it contributed to conventionalizing a definition of innovation
as a technological innovation and as a process leading to commercialized innovation” (as
cited in Godin, 2008).
Later on a considerable body of work was undertaken by OECD and Eurostat specialists in
cooperation with various experts developing indicators to capture the nature and landscape
of business sector related innovation and provide policy makers with appropriate tools of
analysis. It is led to origination in 1992 of the first edition of the Oslo Manual (Manual), a
methodological guidelines that were focused on measuring technological product and
process (TPP) innovation in manufacturing (OECD & Eurostat, 2005). In particular this
became the groundwork for the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), currently available from
Eurostat in its eight rounds (CIS, n.d.). Results from the first four CISs and other alike foreign
surveys had driven further refinements in Manual framework in terms of conceptual
background, definitions and methodology in series leading to a second edition published in
1997 and a third edition published in 2005.
The second edition of the Manual substantially expanded coverage of TPP innovation to
service sectors and introduced non-technological innovation concept, in particular pointed
out organisational innovation (OECD & Eurostat, 1997). Since then, the analysis of
appropriate CISs results and changing policy needs has led to the launching of second
revision of Manual. As it was found that much of innovation in service sectors is not duly
captured by the TPP innovation concept, the scope of what is considered an innovation has
been expanded. Two new types of innovation – organisational and marketing – were
included in the third edition of Manual. Inferences drawn from results of previous CISs also
have been implicated in order to address the systematic dimension of innovation through
innovation linkages, refine used concepts, methodological issues, and data collection
methods. Withal it was found that a growing number of countries through all over the world
have begun to undertake surveys grounded on Manual methodology although adapted to
own specific needs. In the issue the special annex of guidelines for innovation surveys in non
OECD countries was added to Manual. Thereby yet final edition of Manual has provided
guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data of business firms in an
internationally comparable manner (OECD & Eurostat, 2005).
The measurement framework used in Manual in broad outline represents an integration of
insights from various firm-based theoretical models of innovation with those of approaches
that view innovation as a system. Such models of the innovation process as the “innovation
dynamo” and the “chain-link model” of Kline and Rosenberg firstly introduced in Manual
(OECD & Eurostat, 1997, pp. 30-31) serve as a useful theoretical base to grasp innovation
process but are less suitable to underline CIS pattern. Therefore, the main aspects of the
framework used in Manual are: innovation in the firm, linkages with other firms and public
research institutions, the institutional framework in which firms operate, the role of
demand, sector and regional aspects of innovation; globalisation. In summary innovation in
the firm pertains to intended significant changes in its activities with a view to improving
performance by implementing particular types of innovation in the process of innovation
276