Robust measurement of innovation performances in Europe with a hierarchy of interacting composite indicators

References

• Adam, F. 2014. Measuring National Innovation Performance: the Innovation Union Scoreboard Revisited. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Angilella, S., P. Catalfo, S. Corrente, G. Giarlotta, S. Greco, and M. Rizzo. 2018. “Robust Sustainable Development Assessment with Composite Indices Aggregating Interacting Dimensions: the Hierarchical-SMAA-Choquet Integral Approach.” Knowledge-Based Systems 158: 136–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angilella, S., S. Corrente, S. Greco, and R. Słowiński. 2016. “Robust Ordinal Regression and Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis in Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process for the Choquet Integral Preference Model.” Omega 63: 154–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carayannis, E. G., Y. Goletsis, and E. Grigoroudis. 2018. “Composite Innovation Metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix Framework.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 44(2) 131: 4–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherchye, L., W. Moesen, N. Rogge, T. Van Puyenbroeck, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, R. Liska, and S. Tarantola. 2008. “Creating Composite Indicators with DEA and Robustness Analysis: the Case of the Technology Achievement Index.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (2): 239–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choquet, G.. 1953. “Theory of Capacities.” Annales De L'institut Fourier 5: 131–295.
   Google Scholar
• Corrente, S., S. Greco, M. Nicotra, M. Romano, and C. E. Schillaci. 2019. “Evaluating and Comparing Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Using SMAA and SMAA-S.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 44: 485–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrente, S., S. Greco, and R. Słowiński. 2012. “Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process in Robust Ordinal Regression.” Decision Support Systems 53 (3): 660–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corrente, S., S. Greco, and R. Słowiński. 2019. “Robust Ranking of Universities Evaluated by Hierarchical and Interacting Criteria.” In Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Aiding. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, edited by S. Huber, M. Geiger, and A. de Almeida, chapter 5, 145–192. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dutta, S., B. Lanvin, and S. Wunsch-Vincent. 2019. The Global Innovation Index 2018: Energizing the World with Innovation. 11th ed. Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C., and J. M. Zabala. 2015. The Innovation Union Scoreboard Is Flawed: The Case of Sweden–Not Being the Innovation Leader of the EU. Lund: CIRCLE.
   Google Scholar
• El Gibari, S., T. Gómez, and F. Ruiz. 2019. “Building Composite Indicators Using Multicriteria Methods: A Review.” Journal of Business Economics 89 (1): 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–industry–government Relations.” Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furman, J. L., M. E. Porter, and S. Stern. 2002. “The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity.” Research Policy 31 (6): 899–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Bernabeu, A., J. M. Cabello, and F. Ruiz. 2020. “A Multi-Criteria Reference Point Based Approach for Assessing Regional Innovation Performance in Spain.” Mathematics 8 (5): 797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabisch, M. 1996. “The Application of Fuzzy Integrals in Multicriteria Decision Making.” European Journal of Operational Research 89 (3): 445–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabisch, M. 1997. “k-order Additive Discrete Fuzzy Measures and Their Representation.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92 (2): 167–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco, S., M. Ehrgott, and J. R. Figueira. 2016. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Greco, S., A. Ishizaka, B. Matarazzo, and G. Torrisi. 2018. “Stochastic Multi-attribute Acceptability Analysis (SMAA): An Application to the Ranking of Italian Regions.” Regional Studies 52 (4): 585–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco, S., A. Ishizaka, M. Tasiou, and G. Torrisi. 2019a. “On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness.” Social Indicators Research 141: 61–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco, S., A. Ishizaka, M. Tasiou, and G. Torrisi. 2019b. “Sigma-Mu Efficiency Analysis: A Methodology for Evaluating Units Through Composite Indicators.” European Journal of Operational Research 278 (3): 942–960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco, S., A. Ishizaka, M. Tasiou, and G. Torrisi. 2021. “The Ordinal Input for Cardinal Output Approach of Non-compensatory Composite Indicators: The PROMETHEE Scoring Method.” European Journal of Operational Research 288 (1): 225–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1984. R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grupp, H., and M. E. Mogee. 2004. “Indicators for National Science and Technology Policy: How Robust are Composite Indicators?” Research Policy 33 (9): 1373–1384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grupp, H., and T. Schubert. 2010. “Review and New Evidence on Composite Innovation Indicators for Evaluating National Performance.” Research Policy 39 (1): 67–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser, C., M. Siller, T. Schatzer, J. Walde, and G. Tappeiner. 2018. “Measuring Regional Innovation: A Critical Inspection of the Ability of Single Indicators to Shape Technological Change.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 129: 43–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holgersson, T., and O. Kekezi. 2018. “Towards a Multivariate Innovation Index.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 27 (3): 254–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollanders, H., and N. Es-Sadki. 2017. European Innovation Scoreboard 2017: Methodology Report. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hollanders, H., and N. Es-Sadki. 2019. Regional Innovation Scoreboard: Methodology Report. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hollanders, H., N. Es-Sadki, and M. Kanerva. 2016. European Innovation Scoreboard 2016. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Hollenstein, H. 1996. “A Composite Indicator of a Firm's Innovativeness: An Empirical Analysis Based on Survey Data for Swiss Manufacturing.” Research Policy 25 (4): 633–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadziński, M., and M. Michalski. 2016. “Scoring Procedures for Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding with Robust and Stochastic Ordinal Regression.” Computers & Operations Research 71: 54–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney, R. L., and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York (NY): Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kozłowski, J. 2015. “Innovation Indices: The Need for Positioning them Where they Properly Belong.” Scientometrics 104 (3): 609–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahdelma, R., J. Hokkanen, and P. Salminen. 1998. “SMAA-stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research 106 (1): 137–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L., and H. Etzkowitz. 1998. “The Triple Helix As a Model for Innovation Studies.” Science and Public Policy 25 (3): 195–203.
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, B.-Å. 2010. National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Vol. 2. London: Anthem Press.
   Google Scholar
• Makkonen, T., and R. P. van der Have. 2013. “Benchmarking Regional Innovative Performance: Composite Measures and Direct Innovation Counts.” Scientometrics 94 (1): 247–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayag, B., M. Grabisch, and C. Labreuche. 2011. “A Representation of Preferences by the Choquet Integral with Respect to a 2-Additive Capacity.” Theory and Decision 71 (3): 297–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, J. F. 1993. “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition.” Harvard Business Review 71 (3): 75–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mousseau, V., J. R. Figueira, L. Dias, C. Gomes da Silva, and J. Climaco. 2003. “Resolving Inconsistencies Among Constraints on the Parameters of An MCDA Model.” European Journal of Operational Research147 (1): 72–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murofushi, T., and S. Soneda. 1993. Techniques for Reading Fuzzy Measures (iii): Interaction Index. In 9th Fuzzy System Symposium, 693–696.
   Google Scholar
• OECD/Eurostat. Oslo Manual. 2018. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing. Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg..
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M. E., and S. Stern. 2001. National Innovative Capacity. The Global Competitiveness Report, 2002:102–118.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. 2009. Multidimensional Item Response Theory. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rota, G. 1964. “On the Foundations of Combinatorial Theory I. Theory of Möbius Functions.” Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 2 (4): 340–368.
   Google Scholar
• Schibany, A., and G. Streicher. 2008. “The European Innovation Scoreboard: Drowning by Numbers?” Science and Public Policy 35 (10): 717–732.
   Google Scholar
• Schmookler, J. 1950. “The Interpretation of Patent Statistics.” Journal of the Patent Office Society 32 (2): 123–146.
   Google Scholar
• Shapley, L. S. 1953. “A Value for n-person Games.” In Contributions to the Theory of Games. Vol. II, edited by H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, 307–317. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tervonen, T., and R. Lahdelma. 2007. “Implementing Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research 178 (2): 500–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar