Domènec Campeny Badia
57
1 VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES Domènec Campeny Badia TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION COMPARISON BETWEEN LITHUANIA AND SPAIN Master‘s degree Thesis Industrial Engineering study programme, state code 46153081-Q Management specialisation Business Technologies study field Vilnius, 2017
Transcript of Domènec Campeny Badia
1
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
Domènec Campeny Badia
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION COMPARISON
BETWEEN LITHUANIA AND SPAIN
Master‘s degree Thesis
Industrial Engineering study programme, state code 46153081-Q
Management specialisation
Business Technologies study field
Vilnius, 2017
2
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
APPROVED BY
Head of Department
__________________ (Signature)
________________ (Name, Surname)
__________________
(Date)
Domènec Campeny Badia
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION COMPARISON
BETWEEN LITHUANIA AND SPAIN
Master‘s degree Thesis
Industrial Engineering study programme, state code 46153081-Q
Management specialisation
Business Technologies study field
Supervisor prof. doc. dr. Vida Davidavičienė ____ _____ ________ (Title, Name, Surname) (Signature) (Date)
Consultant _______________________ __________ _______
(Title, Name, Surname) (Signature) (Date)
Consultant _______________________ __________ _______
(Title, Name, Surname) (Signature) (Date)
Vilnius, 2017
3
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
APPROVED BY
Head of Department
__________________ (Signature)
________________ (Name, Surname)
________________ (Date)
OBJECTIVES FOR MASTER THESIS
.......………...No. ................
Vilnius
For student: Domènec Campeny Badia
(Name, Surname)
Master Thesis title: Technological implementation comparison between Lithuania and
Spain.
Approved on ............................................, 2017 by Dean‘s decree No. .................
(day, Month) (year)
The Final work has to be completed by ................................................., 2017 (Day, Month) (Year)
THE OBJECTIVES:
…….................................................................................................................................…….........
.............................
..........................................................................................................................................................
....……..................
Consultants of the Master Thesis: .....................................................................................................
(Title, Name, Surname)
Academic Supervisor ................................ ........................................................ (Signature) (Title, Name, Surname)
Objectives accepted as a guidance for my Master Thesis
………………………………….. (Student‘s signature)
……………………………….. (Student‘s Name, Surname)
……………………………..….... .
(Date
Business Technologies study field
Industrial Engineering programme, state code 46153081-Q
Management specialisation
4
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
LABEL OF MASTER THESIS
.......………...No. ................
Vilnius
Student: Domènec Campeny Badia
(Name, Surname)
Student‘s Weighted Grade Point Average: .......................................................................................
Master Thesis title: Technological implementation comparison between Lithuania and
Spain
Master Thesis is properly prepared and can be presented for defence at Commission granting
Master‘s degree.
Head of Department ..................... ...................................................................... (Signature) (Title, Name, Surname)
ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR‘S REVIEW ABOUT
MASTER THESIS .....................................
(Date)
Student ……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Evaluation of Master Thesis: ...........................................................................................................
Academic Supervisor ............................. ........................................................... (Signature) (Title, Name, Surname)
Business Technologies study field
Industrial Engineering study programme, state code 46153081-Q
Management specialisation
5
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
REVIEW
ABOUT MASTER THESIS
.......………...No. ................
Vilnius
Student: Domènec Campeny Badia
(Name, Surname)
Master Thesis title: Technological implementation comparison between Lithuania and
Spain
REVIEW
Student ................................................................................................................................. ..........................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
Reviewer ............................. ...................................................................... (Signature) (Title, Name, Surname)
6
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES
DOMÈNEC CAMPENY BADIA
TECHNOLOGICAL IMPLEMENTATION COMPARISON BETWEEN
LITHUANIA AND SPAIN
Master Thesis
Academic supervisor ___________________________
Vilnius, 2017
Reg. No. _____________________________
7
(the document of Declaration of Authorship in the Final Degree Project)
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(Student‘s given name, family name, certificate number)
(Faculty)
(Study programme, academic group no.)
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
IN THE FINAL DEGREE PROJECT
(Date)
I declare that my Final Degree Project entitled ____________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________ is entirely my
own work. The title was confirmed on ____________________ by Faculty
(Date)
Dean’s order No. ____________. I have clearly signalled the presence of quoted or paraphrased
material and referenced all sources.
I have acknowledged appropriately any assistance I have received by the following
professionals/advisers:___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
The academic supervisor of my Final Degree Project is
______________________________ .
No contribution of any other person was obtained, nor did I buy my Final Degree Project.
(Signature) (Given name, family name)
8
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Business Management faculty
Business Technologies department
ISBN ISSN
Copies No. ………
Date ….-….-….
Industrial Engineering study programme master thesis.
Title: Technological implementation comparison between Lithuania and Spain
Author Domènec Campeny Badia Academic supervisor …………………………
……
Thesis language
Lithuanian
Foreign (English)
X
Annotation
……………………………………………………………………………………………
...………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………….…………………………………………………………...
.…...………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………….……………………………………………………………...………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………….……………………………………………………………...………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………
Structure: introduction, …………………, conclusions and suggestions, references.
Thesis consist of: … p. text without appendixes, … pictures, … tables, … bibliographical entries.
Appendixes included.
Keywords: …………………………………………………………………………..................
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
© STUDIJŲ DIREKCIJA
9
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Innovation process…………………………………………………………. .15
2. Example of Alphabet's organization………………………………………... 17
3. Volume of innovation efforts………………………………………………. .18
4. Cumulative value creation………………………………………………….. 19
5. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ………………………………………………..19
6. S-Curve for two technologies………………………………………………. 20
7. ROI2 vs Revenue Growth …………………………………………………...30
8. The top innovators and spenders' ranking of 2016 ………………………… 30
9. 2014 Altran Index…………………………………………………………... 31
10. 2014 GII map……………………………………………………………….. 32
11. House of Innovation………………………………………………………....33
12. Lithuanian and Spain GDP per capita in EEUU dollars……………………. 37
13. Example of eTaksi service………………………………………………….. 38
14. Image used by Uber to promote its arrival in Lithuania……………………. 39
15. Map of Citybee application, representing the location of free cars………… 40
16. Image from Cabify application……………………………………………... 41
17. Valuation of Uber ban in Spain…………………………………………….. 46
10
LIST OF TABLES
1. Innovation indexes comparison between Lithuania and Spain…………… 43
2. Evaluation of Lithuanian car-sharing services……………………………. 45
3. Evaluation of Spanish car-sharing services………………………………. 45
4. Innovation level comparison……………………………………………... 46
5. Innovation level comparison for the future………………………………. 47
11
Table of contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 12
I. THEORICAL PART ...................................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Innovation ............................................................................................................................. 15
1.1.1 Types and ways of innovating: product, process, organizational and marketing .......... 16
1.1.2 Types and ways of innovating: technological, social and cultural ................................. 19
1.1.3 The 7 sources of innovation ........................................................................................... 21
1.1.4 Afraid of change ............................................................................................................. 22
1.2 Evaluation of innovation ....................................................................................................... 23
1.2.1 Business indicators ......................................................................................................... 25
1.2.2 Territory indicators ......................................................................................................... 26
1.2.3 Important indicators for the objectives of this thesis .................................................... 28
1.2.4 Multicriteria methods .................................................................................................... 28
1.2.5 Innovation indexes ......................................................................................................... 29
1.3 Methods of innovation .......................................................................................................... 32
II. EMPIRICAL PART ...................................................................................................................... 35
2.1 Methodology methods .......................................................................................................... 35
2.1 Macroeconomic comparison between Lithuania and Spain ................................................. 35
2.2 Service companies (car-sharing) in Lithuania ........................................................................ 37
Taxi (eTaksi) ............................................................................................................................. 37
Uber ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Taxify ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Citybee .................................................................................................................................... 39
2.3 Service companies (car-sharing) in Spain .............................................................................. 40
Taxi .......................................................................................................................................... 40
Uber ......................................................................................................................................... 40
Cabify ....................................................................................................................................... 41
BlaBlaCar ................................................................................................................................. 42
2.4 Indexes .................................................................................................................................. 42
2.5 Perception of citizens ............................................................................................................ 44
III. RESULTS PART ........................................................................................................................ 48
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 53
References ................................................................................................................................... 55
12
INTRODUCTION
When a Spaniard visits Lithuania, he has a strange feeling: when he looks at the
details of the country, it seems that he is not as far from Spain as he was led to believe in
his country. While in some respects the Baltic country still lags behind Spain, there are
certain Lithuanian sectors where innovation seems to have arrived in more depth. For
instance, control of recycling bottles or car-sharing services, at a glance, seem to be one
step ahead of the Mediterranean country.
That is why in this thesis will be investigated if technological innovation is better
in Spain than in Lithuania as in the beginning would be expected, and to do so will resort
to global innovation indexes. But since there is a suspicion that these indexes may not
reflect perfectly the level of innovation, the final consumer will be asked about their
perception of innovation in this two countries. In this way, a second objective will be to
evaluate the precision of the innovation indices
The thesis also deepens in one of the sectors in which Lithuania seems to be better
situated than Spain: car-sharing, with companies like Uber or Citybee. The car-sharing is
used as a tool in the questions to the users already commented, as well as to deny or not
a possible difference of mentality between the two countries.
Relevance
Innovation is a very important aspect because it helps to create solutions for social
and technological problems as well as saving time in the many processes that society
develops.
Problem
It is difficult to make a comparison of levels of innovation that fits the reality and
reflects what the citizen perceives.
Investigatory object
To analyse the situation in which technological innovation is found in Lithuania
and Spain.
13
Objective
The main objective of the thesis is determining which innovation is more
advanced, if the one of Lithuania or the one of Spain.
In order to accomplish set objective, the following tasks should be carried out:
1. Analyse theoretical material in available information sources;
2. Compare Lithuania and Spain: macroeconomically, with innovation indexes
and through consumer opinion;
3. Develop a mind map of the two countries‘ situation;
Research method
For the performance of given task such research method was used: analysis of
scientific literature, research indexes and summaries, multi-criteria evaluation method.
Structure
This work consists of three parts:
The first part analyses innovation from the theoretical point of view. Definition
on what is innovation and what types of innotvation there are given, as well as some notes
about afraid of change. Another crucial point for the thesis is addressed: how the
innovation is evaluated, making an excutive review of the existing indicators, as well as
some notes about multicriteria methods for this indicators. To finish the first part, the
most important innovation implementation methods are reviewed, according to published
literature.
The second part consists of an extensive comparison between Lithuania and
Spain, either through macroeconomic values or the values of the most important
innovation indexes worldwide. Also in this section, an analysis of the consumer
perception of the services in the two countries is presented, as well as a detailed report of
the situation of one of the sectors that has been emphasized: car-sharing.
Finally, in the third part, we present a mind map made by the author based on the
results found in the comparative that is used as a tool for a very detailed analysis of the
situation.
In the end of this work conclusions are presented.
14
Volume of this thesis is 69 pages. There are 15 tables and 26 figures in this thesis.
Literature list consists of 75 information sources. This work discusses integrated information
system evaluation processes with information collected from scientific articles and one of the
engineering consulting services providing company, located all over the world.
15
I. THEORICAL PART
1.1 Innovation
One of the first person who talked about innovation was Joseph Schumpeter as he
used this term in the Creative Destruction Theory developed in Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy (1942). According to Schumpeter, the "gale of creative destruction" describes
the "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure
from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one". To
achieve this disruptive process of transformation, it is needed a good amount of
innovation.
Writes of Peter Drucker (1980) showed that innovation is the specific instrument
of entrepreneurship, the act that gives the resources with a new capacity to create well-
being. To innovate it’s not just to have a good idea, but also to work hard with it and
achieve a positive impact. The proof of the innovation is not its novelty or its scientific
content, or how good your idea is ... is its success in the market.
An innovation process always involves risks and uncertainties that must be
overcome if we want to succeed. If you are not taking any risk, you are not innovating
really. According to that, Clayton M. Christensen said (2003) that the ability to generate
innovative ideas is not only an intellectual task, it is also a question of attitude. If people
can change their behaviour, they can improve the creative impact.
Fig. 1 - Innovation process. Made by the author. Source: “The innovator’s solution”
Considering all this literature we could define innovation as the process to find,
develop and transform new ideas into marketable products, services or processes that
generate sustainable value.
There are many ways to classify types of innovation. Two of them are explained
below.
16
1.1.1 Types and ways of innovating: product, process, organizational and
marketing
According to OCDE (2005), the most four important types of innovation are
product, process, organizational and marketing.
Product innovation (Offering)
Product innovation consists on introduce goods or services that are new or
represent a significant improvement to their characteristics or use. This includes such new
and revolutionary products as profound changes in current products (for instance,
introducing new materials or components).
To consider that implemented changes are indeed product innovation, it’s needed
to be accepted by the markets. A good example of product innovation could be
smartphones.
In this type of innovation, sometimes there are problems with the costs because
innovate in materials is usually expensive. Some ways to reduce that costs can be to share
process for multiple variants of a basic product or customize the product at the end of the
process.
Process innovation
Implementation of a new or significantly improved methodology of production or
distribution (changes in equipment or software). The goals of process innovation are
basically reduce production and distribution costs, improve the quality and produce or
distribute with new technologies.
Some examples of this type of innovation could be implementation of barcode
system or efficiency mills as six-sigma. All of them are examples that generate some
value.
Organizational innovation (Finance)
Implantation of a new organizational methodology in the procedures of a business
company, in the organization of the workplace (as new methods for distributing
responsibilities) or external relations (new ways of organizing relations with other firms
or public institutions).
17
Its application helps to increase business performance by reducing administrative
costs, improving employee satisfaction and reducing supplies costs. A suitable example
it’s a first implementation of a database to improve the establishment of new types of
collaborations with research organizations.
Fig. 2 - Example of Alphabet's organization. Source: “Company filings”
Marketing innovation (Delivery)
Implementation of new marketing methodologies involving significant changes in
what is known as 4 marketing P’s: Product, Place, Promotion or Price:
Product: changes in the shape and appearance that do not alter the functionality or
features of the product.
Place: new sales channels.
Promotion: new concepts for promoting products and services of a company to
increase the sales.
Price: new pricing strategies to position the company products to market.
18
As we can see at the Figure 3, the ratio of the volume of projects is very different
for each type of innovation. The vast majority of efforts are applied to product innovation
(also known as offering innovation) and, on the other hand, there are few investments in
organizational innovation (also known as finance innovation).
Fig. 3 - Volume of innovation efforts. Source: “Oslo Manual” (OCDE)
However, if we look the cumulative value creation graph (Figure 4), we realise
that exactly those that generate more benefit are the ones that less investment receive by
the companies.
19
Fig. 4- Cumulative value creation. Source: Manual Oslo (OCDE)
1.1.2 Types and ways of innovating: technological, social and cultural
Another way of classifying innovation is according to which knowledge it uses to
develop. Then we can distinguish three large branches: technological, social and cultural
innovation.
Technological innovation
As Guy Kawasaki explains (2004), technology is the collection of techniques,
skills or methods used to environment transform, satisfy wishes and satisfy human
impulses. That’s why the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Figure 5) is so eloquent to explain
how the humanity push the technological innovation.
Fig. 5 - Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Source: “Jerarquia sobre Maslow”
20
A very suitable tool to explain the technological innovation is the S-Curve. The S-
Curve is a mathematical model (Figure 6) that describes the pattern of slow acceptance
(A), explosive growth (B), and levelling off (C) that occurs with any given technology.
When a new technology comes in to replace the old one, the curve begins again. The
pattern has been found to inevitably emerge with the launch of new products, economic
trends, population growth, and even the spread of cancer.
Fig. 6 - S-Curve for two technologies. Source: UPC University
Social innovation
Social innovation is a controversial term when defining it. According to the
Stanford Graduate School of Business (2015) social innovation is a new solution to a
social problem which is more effective, efficient, sustainable or fair than the current
solution which added value contributes mainly to society as a whole, instead of only to
individuals.
In Murray et. al. (2008) works, social innovation is defined as new ideas (products,
services and models) that simultaneously satisfy social needs and create new
collaborative relationships. In other words, there are innovations that are both good for
society and increase the capacity of society to act. Also Mulgan et. al. (2007) define social
innovation as activities and services that are motivated by the goal to satisfy social needs
21
and are mainly developed and socialized through organizations whose main purpose is
social.
According to Howaldt and Schwarz (2010), the term social innovation refers to a
process of creation, implementation and diffusion of new social practices in very different
areas of society. In innovation research, we talk about how technical innovations arise
from social innovations and vice versa. Today we discuss what elements make an
innovation social and what we understand when we talk about 'good for society'. Also,
social innovations are becoming increasingly important for the analysis of society and
public policy. For this reason, this type of innovation has become an alternative of
national prosperity, both individually and collectively as it is the product of research and
economic development seeking improvement or processes that have the purpose of
solving problems within the society
However, social innovation is not necessarily the creation of a completely new
idea, but rather is a reorganization of existing elements to get a better use of them in order
to improve areas of daily life. In recent years, this concept has been increasingly used,
consolidating the idea that an innovation effort is now a key factor to improve
competitiveness. This factor is considered and applicable in all sectors, companies,
institutions and agencies, whether subsidized, public or private.
Cultural innovation
As Saper said in 1997, cultural inventions is any innovation developed by people
that is not made by a physical construct. Cultural inventions include sets of behaviour
adopted by groups of people. They are perpetuated by spreading the world on to others
within the group or outside it.
1.1.3 The 7 sources of innovation
The researches of Peter Drucker (1985) concluded that systematic innovation
implies constant monitoring of seven sources of innovative opportunities. There are four
internal sources (own company or market) and three external sources (outside world:
social fields, politicians or academics).
22
INTERNAL
1. Unexpected event.
2. Contradiction. For example, gap between reality and forecasts or differences
between expected behaviour and real of customers.
3. Changes in work processes. Identify the weakness of the processes and make
changes.
4. Changes in the structure of industry or market.
EXTERNAL
5. Demographic changes.
6. Changes in vision markets.
7. New knowledge and technologies.
1.1.4 Afraid of change
In 2013, Andrea Simon talked about why we are so afraid of change (and why that
holds businesses back). For business leaders, change is literally pain. CEOs know they
have to change but are typically:
Afraid of the unknown
Driven by well-honed habits
Convinced the past will reappear and save them
In 2009, Steve McKee concluded that 41.2% of nearly 5,700 companies he studied
stalled in the previous decade. The number of reasons why are staggering, namely: a
failure to focus, no competitive point of difference, and weak brand images and identities,
to name just a few.
Given this reality, we can turn to science to explain why businesses stagnate.
Growing research from the neurosciences and cognitive sciences reveal that change really
is difficult for humans. Resistance comes from three forces:
Habits are powerful and efficient. As you mature, your brain creates a mind map
that sorts reality into a perceptual order and creates effective, quickly established
habits. The result: your brain limits what it sees and reality conforms to past
23
perceptions. Early lessons in life and business play a heavy-handed role in keeping
you from seeing things in fresh ways.
Your brain hates change. When you’re learning something new, your prefrontal
cortex must work very hard as you experiment with unfamiliar ideas. Since your
brain uses 25% of your energy, no wonder you feel tired and your head hurts when
learning!
You have to “see and feel” new ways of doing things, not just read about them.
Experiential learning is critical. As you learn, your brain actually changes,
reflecting new decisions, mind maps, and reality sorting. As soon as a challenge
presents itself, your brain will want to hijack the new thought patterns.
This is why it’s so difficult for CEOs, division managers or employees to realize
that limitations to growth are really self-imposed by their mind maps of former business
successes. Their past perceptions limit what they “see” in the present. Fortunately, there
are ways to help initiate meaningful change:
Get out of the office. Venture into the world. Stop going to industry’s trade shows;
instead, see what other industries are doing. Rather than focusing on current
market segments, look at new ones.
Go exploring. Transformed into amateur anthropologists, clients spend a day in
the life of their customer, or noncustomer. Shadowing these consumers, clients
watch how they do their jobs, listen to their pain points, and quickly come up with
new solutions to nagging consumer problems.
Build an innovative culture. This is really important: change is threatening.
Building a culture of innovation means creating a methodology for encouraging
the free exchange of ideas, which ultimately turns good thoughts into actions and
measurable results.
1.2 Evaluation of innovation
Evaluating innovation is important to make a proper diagnosis of the situation in
certain companies or countries and use it to improve performance. It is also a good option
to make a precise comparison between different companies or territories. For this
evaluation, of course, is needed to define some criteria that are explained by certain
indicators.
24
An indicator can be defined as something that helps us understand where we are,
where we are going and how far we are considering a specific target. Therefore, they can
be a sign, a number or a graphic. In fact, an indicator quantifies and simplifies phenomena
and helps us understand complex realities
As we will be seen below, the most important indexes of innovation uses this
indicators. They built them thanks to statistics and data, often collected through
specialized surveys. They use two types of indicators:
Basic indicators: based on a single question.
Compound indicators: a method that combines various questions for obtain
answers that allow to examine a number of factors considered relevant in
innovation policies. It also allows to capture better the diversity of
innovative companies and factors that encourage innovation.
Researches of Fernando Trias de Bes and Philip Kotler (2011) say that the
indicators must meet desirable characteristics:
Be understandable
Do not make it too complicated to calculate
Use indicators used before
Be related to the client
Take into account both inputs, outputs and the innovation process itself
Depending on which situation and for which company, it is better to choose some
indicators or others. The choice depends on three options:
Indicators should be complemented to elicit the desired behavior.
Metrics should reflect the strategy and objectives of innovation.
Type of industry.
There is quite literature on relevant indicators in innovation, a part form Trias de
Bes. Authors like Adams et al. (2006), Branzei and Vertinsky (2006) or Shenhar et al.
(2001), have written about innovation indicators. Roughly, all authors agree with the most
important indicators and it is summarized below. We can divide the indicators into two
big groups: business indicators and territory indicators.
25
1.2.1 Business indicators
The two main business indicators are:
Total spending in innovation (in percentage of total turnover)
Expenditure on innovation by type of expenditure (in percentage of total
spending in innovation)
A part from that, there are others business indicators. The most important ones
can be classified into 4 groups: economic, of intensity, of effectiveness and of culture.
Economic indicators
They measure the positive or negative results of the innovation, using variables
like the economic-financial statements of the company. Examples:
Sales that come from the launching of new products (2 temporary
horizons)
Benefits arising from the launch of new products
Sales that come from a different innovation to the new products
Benefits that come from innovation other than new products
Cost savings from innovation
Indicators of intensity
They measure the amount of innovation, without taking into account the results of
innovations. Examples:
Number of patents
Number of inventions in products, services, customer experiences,
processes or business models
Number of Marks
Number of ideas generated per year
Number of innovation projects in the portfolio
Number of innovation projects underway
Investment in R&D&I
26
Indicators of effectiveness
Measure the achievement of benefits in relation to the use of resources. Some
examples:
New product success ratio
Time to market (time from the time innovation is decided until it is
marketed)
Average investment per project
Average impact of investments per successful project
Average spend on rejected ideas and projects
Number of years leading the industry
Indicators of culture
They measure how widespread are innovation and creativity in the company.
Some examples:
Percentage of employees who produce ideas
Percentage of employees evaluating ideas
Ratio of ideas per employee and year
Percentage of time devoted to innovation
Number of departments that innovate on a recurring basis
Risk inclination (subjective assessment of superiors over whether the
person is risky or not)
1.2.2 Territory indicators
As business indicators, territory indicators can be divided into some groups,
specifically eight. Here are presented with some indicators examples:
Socioeconomic
GDP per capita
GVA (gross value added)
Population and workforce
27
Number of companies
Budget planning
Public budget on R&D
Budget planning for R&D
Public R&D budget
Public financing of R&D
Expenditure in R&D
Total internal expenditure on R & D for execution
Total internal expenditure on R & D for funding
Internal charge current activities R & D by type of research
Total internal expenditure for researcher
High technology
Business expenses, human resources, foreign trade, etc. with high-tech
companies
Human resources in R&D
Personnel employed in R&D
Researchers in R&D
Population with PhD studies
Foreign PhD students
Participation in international programs
Program membership international R & D and innovation
Innovation dimension
Companies with innovative activities
Total expenditure on business innovation
Innovative sales
28
Companies cooperating with research centres
Companies with non-technological innovations
Results
Scientific production (publications)
Doctoral theses
Number of patents applied
Concessions patent (country)
Quality of scientific production (impact)
1.2.3 Important indicators for the objectives of this thesis
Of course, for this thesis only some of these indicators are necessary since we are
only interested in those that are directly related to the innovation perceived by the end
user. Here are the most relevant (As you can imagine, they belong to the group of
indicators of effectiveness or economic):
Sales that come from the launching of new products (2 temporary
horizons)
Benefits arising from the launch of new products
Sales that come from a different innovation to the new products
Benefits that come from innovation other than new products
Cost savings from innovation
New product success ratio
Time to market (time from the time innovation is decided until it is
marketed)
Number of years leading the industry
1.2.4 Multicriteria methods
To make a decision considering in the right way the indicators enrolled in each
case we can use multicriteria analysis. Multicriteria decision is known as an instrument
that is used to evaluate various possible solutions to a given problem, considering a
variable number of criteria, is used to support decision making in the selection of the most
convenient solution. Susana Martín (2011) highlighted two important multicriteria
methods: monetary, multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) and outranking methods.
29
Monetary method
It is a very extended method that consists in a cost-benefit analysis.
It evaluates cost and profit of each alternative in monetary terms. It’s a simply method
and is not necessary programming computing.
It has several alternatives and one of the most popular are minimax and maximin.
Maximin (Linkov et al in 2004), for example, tries to avoid the worst alternatives and it
is chosen the alternative whose weaker criterion is the highest. This method applies only
when the criteria are comparable on a common scale.
Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT)
These methods consist of adding different criteria to a function that has to be
maximized. This theory allows the compensation between criteria and the gain with a
criterion can be compensated with the loss in other. Here are the most known methods of
this teory:
Simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART)
SAW
WPM
TOPSIS
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
1.2.5 Innovation indexes
All this indicators are used by some institutions, consultants or research centers to
create indexes to compare innovation situation between countries or territories. Below are
the most important indexes.
ROI2: Return on Innovation Investment
RIO2 appeared in 2004 in US business schools, popularized by consulting firm
Booz & Co. It is a financial index used to assess the efficiency of a company's investment
in creation of new products and services.
It is calculated by comparing profits of new products or services against
investment in research and other development direct expenses related to these areas. It‘s
a good tool to make some comparisitions between different companies analyzing ROI2
and revenue growth, as we can see in Figure 7.
30
Figure 7 - ROI2 vs Revenue Growth. Source: Booz & Co
The top innovators and spenders
PwC analyses every year the investment in R&D of the 1000 largest companies
over the world and elaborate a ranking. In the Figure 8, we can see the ranking of the year
2016.
Fig. 8 - The top innovators and spenders' ranking of 2016. Source: PwC
31
Altran
The Altran Index of Innovative Potential is a synthetic index of innovation,
science and technology that represents the innovative and technological potential of the
countries of the European Union, as well as its main components and factors.
Its objective is to assess the innovative capacity of European countries and
determine the best recommendations for each country in order to improve their science,
technology and innovation potentials.
Fig. 9 - 2014 Altran Index. Source: Innovative Potential
Global innovation index (GII)
The Global Innovation Index ranks the innovation performance of 141 countries
and different economies regions of the world. The index is a joint publication of WIPO,
Cornell University and INSEAD and was created in 2010 by United Nations. It is based
in 79 indicators (combining direct data and surveys).
32
Fig.10 - 2014 GII map. Source: United Nations
1.3 Methods of innovation
Nowadays, there are a large number of methods of innovation. Here we would
highlight three of them, considering its importance and effectiveness.
Stage-Gate-Process (Cooper)
Robert G. Cooper identified (1986) a standardized approach for development projects,
which he calls “game plan”, as a critical success factor. The product development process
starts with an idea originating from basic research, seed or unfounded projects, customer-
based techniques, and creativity techniques. Here you will find a short resume:
Gate 1: At gate 1, the idea is evaluated according to must meet and should meet
criteria such as strategic alignment, feasibility or fit with company policies. Stage
1 is a quick and inexpensive assessment of the project in terms of market,
technology, and financials.
Gate 2: After passing a second gate, a detailed investigation follows during stage
2. Output of this stage is a business plan which is the basis for the decision on
business case at gate 3.
Gate 3: Stage 3 contains the actual development of the product and a marketing
concept. The result of this stage is a prototype product.
33
Gate 4: Gate 4 ensures that the developed product is consistent with the definition
specified at gate 3. In-house product tests, customer field trials, test markets, and
trial productions are typical activities during the validation stage 4.
Gate 5: Gate 5 decides on production start-up and market launch, which follow
during stage 5. Objective of a terminating review is to compare actual with
expected results and assess the entire project.
The 2inno Method
The 2inno Method is based on the A.T. Kearney’s idea about House of innovation
(Figure 11). The 2inno consortium is aware of the need to have the “big picture” in mind,
when implementing Innovation Management in a company. But: there are different ways
to do so. The 2inno method starts with the Innovation Life Cycle (Idea, Concept, Market)
by implementing a pilot project together with SMEs (Small and medium-sized
enterprises). While working on this project, all members of staff involved will get more
knowledge on Innovation Management.
Fig. 11 - House of Innovation. Author: A.T. Kearney
34
The 2inno method focusses on a practical approach and does not want to
“overload” SMEs with theoretical information on Innovation Management. One of the
major problems when working on Innovation with companies is that owners of small
companies do not want (or do not have the time or money) to get theoretical knowledge.
They just want to sell their products. While working together on a concrete pilot project
with the 2inno owners and key staff of SMEs will understand why further processes
regarding Innovation Strategy and Innovation Culture are important.
I-Model
The Institute for Innovation and Technology in Slovenia introduced this method
in 2005. I-model is a frame of methodology, procedures and "ready to implement"
materials for introducing an efficient innovation management. The main steps towards
achieving the project objectives were as follows:
Analysis (diagnostic) of existing situation of innovation management process
in selected wood-processing companies in participating countries ("before"-
analysis).
Development of an innovative learning organisational model, based on using
modern Information Communication Technologies.
Preparation and implementation of a specific modern in-company training
programme for top and middle management from selected companies. The aim
of training was to improve their knowledge and skills for efficient work in the
innovation area in a company's daily routine.
Preparation of innovative strategy and operational plans for selected
companies.
Analysis "after" and optimisation of the -model.
Development of self-learning tool, which provides managers, trainers and
consultants of different business sectors with the opportunity of continuous
improvement of companies’ innovation potential through a set of easy-to-use
tool for self-evaluation and instructions for training program implementation.
35
II. EMPIRICAL PART
2.1 Methodology methods
As already mentioned, the objective of this work is to compare the innovation of
Lithuania and Spain. In this brief section, the methodology in which this comparison is
made is explained.
After a thorough review of the published literature on the subject, a first
comparative economic level will be made between the two countries. To do this, we
analyse the values provided by the most important state and European agencies.
Next, an investigation will be done between the state-level innovation indices
(already presented) to try to determine which country is more advanced according to the
indicators that the agencies consider more important. With the suspicion that these indices
may not perfectly reflect the user's perception of innovation, it also delved into the
valuation of Lithuanians and Spaniards.
For this purpose, a questionnaire will be carried out to Lithuanian and Spanish
citizens who have been in both countries. This is a survey aimed at people over 18 and is
answered online. In it, he asks, through simple questions, the assessment they make of
innovation in Lithuania and Spain in general as well as evaluation certain services in their
country.
2.1 Macroeconomic comparison between Lithuania and Spain
Considering that this thesis wants to make a comparison between the innovation
of Lithuania and Spain, it is pertinent to make also a comparison of general and
macroeconomic features between the two countries. Thus, the data for each country are
described below on certain characteristics that have been considered important.
General considerations
Lithuania, officially the Republic of Lithuania, is a country in Northern Europe.
One of the three Baltic states, it is situated along the south-eastern shore of the Baltic Sea,
to the east of Sweden and Denmark. The history of Lithuania as a nation goes back to the
beginning of the second millennium but has been occupied several times having to seek
its own independence: the last time was in 1990, separating from the Soviet Union. That’s
36
why we can consider Lithuania as a young country. Nowadays, it is a democratic country
and one of the 28 member states of the European Union.
Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain, is a state located on the Iberian Peninsula
in southwestern Europe (border with France and Portugal) with two large archipelagos,
the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean Sea and the Canary Islands off the North
African Atlantic coast. Has maintained its sovereignty from the Spanish empire of the
mid-second millennium so it can be considered an old state. It is also a democratic country
and one of the 28 member states of the European Union.
Size and population
Lithuania is a small state: it has an area of about 65.300 km2. In consequence, its
population is not very high, it is estimated that 2.9 million people live there and, as is
typical in developed countries, has a fairly old population.
Spain is much larger as it has an estimated area of 506.000 km2 and has a
population of more than 46 million people. As in the case of Lithuania, it has a very aged
population.
Economic growth
Since Spain is a much larger country than Lithuania, it makes little sense to
compare the GDP of the two countries. It is more appropriate to make a macroeconomic
comparison by GDP per capita (since it takes into account the population). As we can see
in figure 12, Spain has a greater GDP per capita than Lithuania: approximately, 26.000
dollars/person against 14.000 dollars/person.
We can also see that since the year 2000, Lithuania has had more growth than
Spain: about 250% against about 75%. One of the reasons, among others, is that Spain
suffered much more from the global economic crisis of the years 2008-2014 than
Lithuania.
37
Fig.12 - Lithuanian and Spain GDP per capita in EEUU dollars. Source: Google data
Unemployment
As is well known, Spain has poor employment data: its unemployment rate has
always been among the highest in the EU. By the end of 2016, 18.6% of the working
population had no work. This fact became even worse during the worst years of the
economic crisis, exceeding by far the rate of 20%.
On the other hand, the unemployment rate in Lithuania is much lower, similar to
the average of the European Union: At the end of 2016, its rate was 8.1%. In addition,
unemployment in Lithuania has followed a very positive development since 2010, when
there was an unemployment rate of 18%.
2.2 Service companies (car-sharing) in Lithuania
Taxi (eTaksi)
As it is well known, a taxi is a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in
return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter. The taxi is a type of
transport with a great history and expansion around the world and Lithuania is no
exception.
38
Even so, new forms of car-sharing transport endanger the taxi business. As a
reaction to these new companies (to be presented in the following sections) some taxi
drivers organized to create the company eTaksi. It consists of a mobile application that
allows you to request a taxi indicating previously the point of origin and destination of
the trip. Through the application, you can see when it will arrive to pick you up as well
as how much it will cost approximately the service (to be paid in cash to the taxi driver).
Fig.13 - Example of eTaksi service. Source: eTaski
Uber
Uber is a transport service that uses the web for all operations management, is also
an application with support for large mobile platforms such as iOS, Android and
Windows Phone. The first service of Uber was in the United States in 2012. Later the
company has been expanding to many other countries arriving at Lithuania in the
beginning of 2016.
39
Fig. 14 - Image used by Uber to promote its arrival in Lithuania. Source: Uber
The application is very simple to use, you just have to install it, give you the data
of your credit card, which is totally safe, and follow the following instructions:
Thanks to the GPS of your Smartphone, the application knows your location and
you can see it clearly on the map that shows you along with the locations of Uber
cars closest to you.
You have to enter your destination and then request a driver who should be
closest to you.
You can see in real time the route of your designated driver and the estimated
time of arrival.
The driver takes you to your destination without having to pay in cash, the cost
of the trip is deducted from your credit card along with the tip.
Taxify
Another important company that has entered the market of shared transport in
Lithuania is Taxify, which roughly provides the same services as Uber. For the time
being, the main difference is that Taxify has a lower price with the intention of stealing
Uber’s market share.
Citybee
Citybee is a company that rents cars in a very practical way for the user in the
most important cities of Lithunia. Anyone who wants to drive a Citybee car just has to
40
have the driver's license and installed their mobile application. The user just have to look
at the map (see figure 15) where the nearest car is, open it with the same phone, drive to
the destination and park anywhere free as if it were their car.
Fig 15 - Map of Citybee application where they are represented the location of free cars. Source: Citybee
The user does not have to worry about insurance or maintenance. He only has to
pay a price per service that depends exclusively on how long the vehicle has been used.
2.3 Service companies (car-sharing) in Spain
Taxi
The taxi is a transport with a long history in Spain and it has always had many
customers, especially in the big cities. In fact, according to the latest data, there is a taxi
for every 670 Spaniards.
Despite the recent competition from other companies in the sector, and unlike
what Lithuanian taxi drivers have done with the eTaksi app, Spanish taxi drivers have
generally not incorporated any relevant innovation into their services.
Uber
Uber arrived in Spain earlier than in Lithuania - at the beginning of 2014 - with
the intention of offering the same services described above. But, unlike with the Baltic
country, he encountered problems very soon.
41
Since it began operations in in Spain, the company had been the target of a series
of protests by the Madrid Taxi Association, which considers the app to be unfair
competition. On December 9, 2014, a judge ordered Uber to cease all activities in Spain.
In a statement after the ruling, the Spanish court stated that drivers "lack the
administrative authorisation to carry out the job, and the activity they carry out constitutes
unfair competition." The company suspended its operations in Spain on December 30,
2014.
Cabify
Cabify operates as the contact point between customers and carefully selected
private drivers by means of its mobile app for Android and iPhone, as well as its web
page. Users pay for the service via their credit card or PayPal account.
The app shows the location of drivers to the customer, calls the closest driver,
directs the driver, and plays the role of intermediary for payments, taking a commission
of around 20%. Once the ride is over, Cabify sends a summary to the customer's mobile
phone, including information such as the distance, duration and cost of the ride.
Fig. 16 - Image from Cabify application. Source: Cabify
42
BlaBlaCar
BlaBlaCar connects drivers with passengers who want to make the same trip.
Drivers publish available seats in their car and passengers who are interested can book
their seats.
The price is fixed by the driver when he publishes his trip. It is not negotiable and
applies the same price for all passengers. The driver calculates the price per seat according
to the itinerary and the costs of the trip. Drivers are free to adjust that price within
reasonable limits taking into account the comfort of their car or their willingness to
deviate. The price can never exceed the ceiling imposed by BlaBlaCar to ensure that the
costs are well distributed and that the driver has no benefit.
2.4 Indexes
Global innovation index
The Global Innovation Index (GII) is an annual ranking of countries by their
capacity for, and success in innovation. It is published by Cornell University, INSEAD,
and the World Intellectual Property Organization, in partnership with other organisations
and institutions, and is based on both subjective and objective data derived from several
sources, including the International Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and
the World Economic Forum. The GII is commonly used by corporate and government
officials to compare countries by their level of innovation.
The GII is computed by taking a simple average of the scores in two sub-indices,
the Innovation Input Index and Innovation Output Index, which are composed of five and
two pillars respectively. Each of these pillars describe an attribute of innovation, and
comprise up to five indicators, and their score is calculated by the weighted average
method.
As can be seen in Table 1, in the last update of the index (2016), Lithuania
occupies the position 36th and Spain the 28th, out of a total of 128 countries of the world
analysed.
43
Bloomberg Index
The Bloomberg Innovation index classify the 50 most innovative countries in the
world through the following indicators: RD intensity, manufacturing value-added,
productivity, high-tech density, tertiary efficiency, researcher concentration and patent
activity.
In the year 2016 update of the index, Lithuania's best indicator was patent activity
and the worst tertiary efficiency. On the part of Spain, the country excels in manufacturing
value-added and high-tech density, but has to improve in productivity.
Altran Index
Another important index of countries on innovation is the Altran index, made by
the consultant Altran, which makes a classification of the countries of the European
Union. To do this, it considers, among others, the following indicators: new graduates
doctors, employment of high technology services, researchers in the business sector and
companies with e-commerce.
Summary of indexes’ results
Analysing the rankings of these three indexes (Table 1), it can be verified as all
coincide in placing Lithuania and Spain in the middle-low of the classification in
innovation of developed countries. They also indicate that Spain has better innovation
indicators than Lithuania although, in general, the distance between the two countries is
not very large.
LITHUANIA SPAIN
Index Number of
countries Score Ranking Score Ranking Score
Global Innovation index 128 0-100 36 41,76 28 49,19
Bloomberg Index 50 0-100 32 62,6 27 66,81
Altran Index 25 0-1 20 0,24 15 0,38
Table 1 - Innovation indexes comparison between Lithuania and Spain. Made by the author. Source: official pages of GII, Bloomberg Index and Altran Index
44
2.5 Perception of citizens
With the intention of determining if the user's perception is equal to the
conclusions drawn by the indexes, a questionnaire has been made to Lithuanians and
Spaniards to compare their perspective of innovation in Lithuania and Spain as well as to
evaluate the car-sharing services that exist in their respective countries. In this way, an
attempt is made to determine if there is a lack of information in the indexes or is very
different from reality.
Two surveys have been carried out, one for Lithuanians and one for Spanish
people with almost identical questions adapting to the circumstances of each country. In
order to make a realistic comparison, it has been sought that the sample were people who
had been in the two countries. In both surveys the sample is 30 responses. Next, the results
are analysed, making in each field a comparison between the answers of the two
questionnaires.
Car-sharing services evaluation
Tables 2 and 3 show the percentage responses of Lithuanians and Spaniards to the
car-sharing services provided in their respective countries. In both countries, it is possible
to observe how there are companies that still have difficulty getting customers surely
because they are still in their infancy. This is the case of Taxify, Citybee, Cabify or
Blablacar. The evaluation in Lithuania and Spain of those few who have used them is
very similar.
The situation is different in the case of Uber. In Lithuania, more than half of
respondents have used it, and they have scored excellent its service. On the other hand,
Uber's Spanish premature prohibition, makes the Spaniards hardly to enjoy their
comforts, and those who have done so do not evaluate it so positively surely influenced
by the such prohibition.
There are also differences in the taxi. As is normal, in both countries it is widely
used. But the valuation of Lithuanian taxis (eTaksi) is considerably higher than the
Spanish. It seems that the fact that Lithuanian taxi drivers have created a mobile
application is valued by users
45
Table 2 - Evaluation of Lithuanian car-sharing services. Made by the author from questionnaire data
Table 3 - Evaluation of Spanish car-sharing services. Made by the author from questionnaire data
Valuation of Uber ban in Spain
The Spaniards were asked whether they agreed with Uber's ban on their country.
As you can see in figure 17, almost all the sample knows the prohibition and of these a
great majority are against it.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
eTaksi Uber Taxify Citybee
Evaluation of Lithuanian car-sharing services
I've never used it Poor service Regular service Good service Excellent service
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Taxi Uber Cabify BlaBlaCar
Evaluation of Spanish car-sharing services
I've never used it Poor service Regular service Good service Excellent service
46
Fig.17- Valuation of Uber ban in Spain. Made by the author from questionnaire data
Innovation level comparison
Also it has been questioned in both questionnaires which country believe that have
higher level of innovation according to their perception as users (the results can be seen
in Table 4).
Both Lithuanians and Spaniards, when asked to compare the innovation of their
country with another, respond mostly in favour of their country. When the answers are
analysed as a whole, it can be observed that the Lithuanians do not prefer their innovation
as much as the Spaniards, from which it can be deduced that Spanish innovation is
perceived a little better than Lithuanian. Even so, the results do not allow them to be sure.
Table 4 - Innovation level comparison. Made by the author from questionnaire data
87%
9%4%
DO YOU AGREE WITH UBER BAN?
Agree Disagree Didn't know it
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lituania Equal Spain
Which country has better innovation?
Lithuanian people ansers Spanish people answers
47
If you ask the same thing but in the future, the answers (table 5) are similar but
with small changes in favour of Lithuania, which may indicate that people are optimistic
about the positive trend of the Baltic country.
Table 5- Innovation level comparison for the future. Made by the author from questionnaire data
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Lituania Equal Spain
Which country will have better innovation in the future?
Lithuanian people ansers Spanish people answers
48
III. RESULTS PART
COMPARISION BETWEEN LITHUANIA AND SPAIN
Macroeconomic comparision: Spain is well ahead of Lithuania
Innovation indexes comparision: Spain is slightly
ahead of Lithuania
Car-sharing services: Lithuania seems to be more advanced in
this sector
LITHUANIA SPAIN
Unemployment ratePIB
PIB Per Capita
Patent activityHigh-tech density
Manufacturing
Uber
Taxi innovationsUber ban
49
COMPARISION BETWEEN LITHUANIA AND SPAIN
Macroeconomic comparision: Spain is well ahead of Lithuania
Innovation indexes comparision: Spain is slightly ahead of Lithuania
Car-sharing services: Lithuania seems to be more advanced in this sector
Why is the differences related
to indexes smaller than
macroeconomic difference?
Does the end user perception
resemble the indexes?
SURVEY GOAL
Is there mentality difference? Uber’s prohibition in Spain
50
In this two maps, we review the points in which this thesis goes deeper. In the first
one, it can be seen a summary of the strong and weak points of Lithuania and Spain in
the subjects treated. In ordering the ideas found so far, several key questions are raised
(second map). Answering them will serve to make a detailed analysis of the situation as
well as help expand the answers to the initial questions posed by this thesis. It will be
seen, in addition, that these three questions suggested by the map are related and the
answers of some help to extend the others.
The literature part has dealt with the issue of innovation. In addition to reviewing
its types, it has been emphasized that innovation is not only having an idea, but also
implementing it successfully, taking some risks. Is to cultivate a social culture so as not
to be afraid of change, a philosophy of life that in some societies succeed more than
others. To put it into practice, it has been also presented three methodologies that have
proven effective.
It has also been described how innovation is evaluated, a key factor, of course, if
a comparison is to be made. Indicators are required, the characteristics of which can vary
greatly depending on the final objective. These indicators are used by indexes to create a
ranking and give innovation scores to companies or countries.
As we have seen, the indexes of the most important countries in the world reveal
that Spain has a better score in terms of innovation than Lithuania. Even so, the difference
between the two countries is minimal. This contrasts with the macroeconomic difference
of the two countries: Spain is a much bigger country, with more experience and with
almost all economic indicators clearly better than the Lithuanians. The following question
then arises: Why is the differences related to indexes smaller than macroeconomic
difference?
Answering this question is not easy as the reasons for explaining the situation can
be many. What seems clear is that Lithuania gets better use of its resources for innovation.
Such effectiveness, as will be broadened in the following questions, may be due to the
cultural difference of the two countries (it’s important to remember that one is in the south
of Europe and the other can be considered North-European).
51
Another topic that is interesting to deepen is whether the innovation indexes are
reliable and coincide with the perception that end user has. Hence the second question:
Does the end user perception resemble the indexes? With this purpose, and as already
mentioned, a questionnaire has been carried out in Spain and Lithuania to carry out a
comparison through the citizen.
The truth is that the results of the direct question of which country has the best
innovation are inconclusive. The data seem to indicate that citizens coincide with the
indexes and Spain has better innovation, but can not be assured.
Where the results of the questionnaire are most interesting is when they are asked
to evaluate the car-sharing of their respective countries. A first conclusion is some
services of the two countries like Taxify, BlaBlacar or Cabify are still too young to be
evaluated.
Taxi and Uber services can be evaluated and used to make a comparison between
Lithuania and Spain. Lithuanian users indicate that they are very satisfied with their Taxi
service as well as Uber. Not so in Spain, where Uber is prohibited. The reasons for these
differences are very interesting and will deepen when answering the third question.
To finish answering the second question, then, you can not say that the innovation
indexes are not reliable. While it is true that in some sectors such as car-sharing, Lithuania
seems to be more advanced than Spain, innovation encompasses many sectors and factors
that are difficult to arrive with only one questionnaire. Therefore, until the contrary is
proved, the innovation indexes remain the best tool to explain reality.
As already advanced, one of the reasons that help to explain the differences
between Lithuanian and Spanish car-sharing is the prohibition to implement Uber in
Spain since 2014. This brings to the third question: is there mentality difference
between Lithuania and Spain?
If you compare the reactions of Lithuanian and Spanish taxi drivers in their
country you can draw interesting conclusions. On the one hand, Lithuanian taxi drivers
thought positive to compete with Uber and then decided to innovate creating eTaksi. On
the other hand, instead of innovating, the Spaniards only thought of protesting to the
authorities obtaining thus the prohibition of Uber in their country. As a result, now
52
Lithuanian citizens can enjoy Uber and a more competent Taxi service (as reflected in the
questionnaire), and the Spanish citizens have run out of Uber and a taxi service outdated.
Therefore, in this case a significant difference of mentality between the two
countries is verified. This helps to complement the answer to the first question: how close
Lithuania is to Spain in the innovation indexes rankings despite its lower economic
potential can be precisely due to a mentality and a way of facing the challenges in a
different way: not being afraid of change.
53
CONCLUSIONS
Based on all the analysis of theoretical and empirical aspects about situation of
technological innovation that has been made, the following assumptions could be
identified:
As presented before, the first part of this thesis summarizes the published
literature on the subject at hand. It has been verified that there is ample and
extensive information on innovation, which has made easier to explain in an
accredited way the basic points of the topic. By contrast, and as is normal, it
has been more difficult to find detailed information about innovation in the two
countries involved, especially in the case of Lithuania, as a smaller country.
Precisely one of the basic tools worked on this thesis, the innovation indexes
at the state level, help to have a vision of the innovation in the developed
countries. Even so, these indexes are not very abundant and, above all, often
give little information of the indicators used for their final conclusions. The
results of these indices in the case in hand are clear and very homogeneous:
Spain is slightly better than Lithuania in what innovation refers.
Another great objective of this thesis is to check the validity of the innovation
indexes or at least to derive if it fits the perception of the consumer. Knowing
in advance the difficulty of this objective, it can be said that this objective has
been half fulfilled. With limited tools (questionnaires) it is difficult to refute or
not to companies with many more resources. Nevertheless, the conclusions of
this thesis suggest that in the case of Lithuania and Spain, and unlike the initial
assumptions, the citizen's perception coincides with the indexes: Spain enjoys
better innovation in the service companies than Lithuania.
Another aspect that is treated is the car-sharing, making a comparison between
Lithuania and Spain. It is concluded that the Baltic country has some better
characteristics in this sector, basically because the prohibition in Spain of Uber.
It is possible that this situation can change in the next years taking into account
the foreseeable legal evolution of the prohibitions in diverse European
countries of Uber or similar companies.
54
Precisely Uber's prohibition and its consequences serve to demonstrate the
differences of mentality between the two countries. Lithuania has a more open
mind to face situations as opportunities to improve than Spain. This helps to
explain the minimal difference between levels of innovation of the two
countries (as explained before) despite the difference in economic potential.
55
References
1. Schumpeter, Joseph: Business cycles. L’Harmattan, 1939.
2. Schumpeter, Joseph: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. L’Harmattan, 1942.
3. Drucker, Peter: Managing in Turbulent Times. New York: Harper and Row, 1980.
4. Drucker, Peter: Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row,
1985.
5. Clayton M. Christensen: The innovator’s solution. Business Essentials, 2003.
6. OCDE: Oslo Manual. Tragsa, 2005.
7. Kawasaki, Gay: The art of start. 2004
8. Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan: The open Book of social innovation. The
Young Foundation, 2008.
9. Mulgan et al.: Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can be
accelerated, 2007
10. Howaldt and Schwarz: Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and
International Trends, 2010.
11. Saper, Craig: Artificial Mythologies: A Guide to Cultural Invention. Minnesota
Archive Editions, 1997.
12. Trias de Bes, Fernando and Koetler, Philip: Innovate to win. Empresa Activa,
2011.
13. Booz et. al.: Beyond the Dashboard, Unleashing the Business Intelligence. PwC,
2004.
14. Cooper, Roberts: Winning at new products. Basic Books, 1986.
15. Mckee, Steve: When Growth Stalls, 2009.
16. Adams, Bessant, Phelps and Macpheron: Innovation management: A review,
2006.
56
17. Branzey and Vertinsky: Strategic Pathways to Product Innovation Capabilities in
SMEs, 2006.
18. Shenhar, Dvir, Levy and Maltz: Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic,
2001.
19. Information about S-curve: http://futureofwork.nobl.io/future-of-work/always-
be-innovating-lessons-from-apple-and-the-s-curve. Consulted in March 2017.
20. Stanford Business information about social innovation:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/centers-initiatives/csi/defining-
social-innovation. Consulted in March 2017
21. PwC’s conclusions about global innovation at year 2016:
http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/innovation1000#GlobalKeyFindingsTabs3.
Consulted in April 2017.
22. Altran index’s details: http://www.altran.es/innovacion/indice-altran/indice-
de-innovacion.html#.WNFvhWh97IU. Consulted in April 2017.
23. United Development Programme:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii. Consulted in April
2017.
24. Research techniques’s UPM (Spain): http://ocw.upm.es/estadistica-e-
investigacion-operativa/tecnicas-de-investigacion-operativa-en-
ingenieria/Contenido/Materiales/t8.1toma-de-decisiones. Consulted in April
2017.
25. Taxi statistics in Spain:
http://www.motoronline.org/post/126987448076/cuantos-taxis-hay-en-espana.
Consulted in April 2017.
26. 2016 Global innovation index:
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2016.pdf. Consulted in
April 2017.
27. 2015 Bloomberg innovation index:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-innovative-countries/. Consulted in
April 2017.
57
28. Bloomberg innovations index’s details:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/these-are-the-world-
s-most-innovative-economies. Consulted in April 2017.
