Posted by [Jan 2014, on this topic : NamSor Applied Onomastics to help Lithuania become a talent magnet in BioTech]
Recently, the French-based INSEAD and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published The Global Innovation Index 2012 (GII), in collaboration with Alcatel-Lucent, Booz&Co, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.
Why is innovation is such a strategic issue? For different reasons depending on the country’s economic situation:
– traditional industrial countries would like to maintain their lead : for example Switzerland leads the pack, Germany keeps it’s pace, France is slowly loosing it;
– some countries depend too much on a specific sector and would like to diversify their economy : for example the United-Kingdom relies too much on Financial Services, the Russian Federation relies too much on Oil, Gas and other commodities;
– the emerging countries that have big service and manufacturing industries would like to join the club of advanced countries, through innovation : for example Brazil, China and India.
It’s not just a matter for one country to reach sustainable economic growth : the world’s economic balance is at stake. Should China for example, with its immense trade surpluses and its population, reach the status of a innovative country – the economic balance as well as the strategic balance with its neighbours will have definitively shifted.
The Global Innovation Index 2012 report is an excellent document, very useful to guide governmental policies on innovation. However, we believe something is missing : innovation, like financial resources, moves around. Students, researchers, inventors, entrepreneurs travel. Ideas travel with them and sometimes without them. This is not accounted in the Global Innovation Index report.
On page 6 (and excerpt below), we can see the overall structure of the Global Innovation Index : it distinguishes Innovation Input (for example, Education and Investment) and Innovation Output (for example, Knowledge creation and Online creativity). But what if a country has a good education system, but not enough Investment or a poor Business environment? You guessed right : students, researchers, inventors, entrepreneurs will go somewhere else and their ideas will grow some other country’s Innovation Output. This natural movement can be reinforced by an active brain drain by a country with the means to do it.
We believe Onomastics can help account for those movements of ideas across borders. Below, a (very draft) account of where the Polish brain juice went over the past 20 years.
Over the past 20 years, Polish ideas went to grow the following countries’ innovation output : the United-States, Germany, Poland, Canada, Great-Britain, Israel, Switzerland, Netherland, France … and some other countries.
Call for collaboration : we would be delighted to work with a Consulting firm, a Think tank or a University to help and prepare a comprehensive report on the global gaps between Innovation input and Innovation output, using onomastics analysis. We believe it will help countries tune their innovation policy and reduce the innovation IO gap : with great business value and strategic benefits in the long term.
Follow us on Twitter
©2013 NameSorts.com – NamSor™ NomTri™
— EXCERPT – slide P6 – Structure of the Global Innovation Index —
Innovation Input
Institutions (Political environment, Regulatory environment, Business environment)
Human capital & research (Education, Tertiary education, Research & development)
Infrastructure (ICT, General infrastructure,Ecological sustainability)
Market sophistication (Credit Investment, Trade & competition)
Business sophistication (Knowledge workers, Innovation linkages, Knowledge absorption)
Innovation Output
Knowledge & technology outputs (Knowledge creationn Knowledge impact, Knowledge diffusion)
Creative outputs (Creative intangibles, Creative goods & services, Online creativity)
3 comments