Faridah Djellal
email: faridah.djellal@ifresi.univ-lille1.fr

Gallouj Faïz
email: faiz.gallouj@ifresi.univ-lille1.fr

Ifrési Clersé

Services and the search for relevant innovation indicators: a review of national and international surveys

Having been ignored for a long time, innovation in services is now the object of institutional surveys at both the national and international level. The aim of the present article is to review these surveys, which divide up into groups reflecting a range of different theoretical approaches to innovation. It also attempts to examine (and to interpret in theoretical terms) the methodological limits of these studies, and in particular to highlight the difficulties of comparison that they entail.

 OECD, 1996; Amable and Palombarini, 1998). The second effect of these qualitative studies has been to highlight the specificities of innovation in services, which find expression in both its nature and its modes of organisation.

Innovation in services is itself a fairly new field of enquiry, and it is this relative recentness that accounts for the methodological choices that were initially favoured, namely surveys based on qualitative interviews. For some time, however, it has been clear that there is a need for quantification. In view of the importance of the service sector in our economies (it accounts for more than 70% of wealth and employment), an attempt to verify the statistical validity of the qualitative findings and their possible generalisation is undoubtedly a legitimate exercise. However, it is one

The various studies of innovation in services

The evolution of the use of survey-based quantitative methodologies as a means of understanding innovation in services reflects, to some extent, the evolution of our (economic) perception of services and the service economy. To oversimplify somewhat, this evolution can be divided into three phases: indifference (or ignorance), subordination and autonomy.

Services were in fact long excluded from economic analysis, on the grounds that they were considered "unproductive" by the founders of political economy. Over time, this indifference towards an object considered to lie outside the sphere of economics gave way to a recognition that services had a "second-class" existence as peripheral economic activities, subordinate to manufacturing industry, which was the main engine of economic growth. Finally, arguments began to be advanced that developed the notion that services in fact had an autonomous existence of their own, and could even be regarded as engines of growth (for a discussion of these various theories, cf. Delaunay and Gadrey, 1987;Gadrey, 1996). Studies of innovation have followed the same trajectory. The early ones wholly ignored innovation (indifference/ignorance). They focused exclusively on (technological) innovation in manufacturing industry (for an assessment of these studies, cf. [START_REF] Smith | Technological innovation indicators : experience and prospects[END_REF]Le Bas and Torre, 1993). Little by little, services were drawn into the purview of these studies of manufacturing industry (subordination). This subordination manifested itself in an exclusive concentration on technological innovation. Thus the questionnaires designed for use in manufacturing firms were also used in service firms. Attempts are now being made in several countries (and this is a very recent phenomenon) to design studies that are specific to services (autonomy), i.e. to adapt definitions, indicators and data-gathering and processing procedures to this area of economic activity. These attempts are prisoners of sometimes contradictory objectives. There is, for example, a conflict between, on the one hand, attempts to understand more clearly what innovation in services is and to measure it more precisely and, on the other, the establishment of a basis for comparison with innovation in manufacturing.

On the institutional level, subordination is reflected in the straightforward transposition to services of the OECD's Oslo Manual directives (1992), which were drawn up to provide definitions of technological innovation in the manufacturing sector. Autonomy manifests itself in the adaptation of these definitions, or even the formulation of new definitions. There are two schools of thought on this issue. One suggests that the definition of innovation should be adapted to cover both manufacturing and services, while the other takes the view that separate definitions and questionnaires are required. These two views are based on different theoretical approaches, which we have described as "integrative" and "service-oriented". Subordination, for its part, equates to approaches that might be described as "technologist" (C. and F. Gallouj, 1996;Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997).

The following review of surveys is based upon the previous distinction between autonomy and subordination. A particular emphasis is placed on the following aspects (cf. synoptic tables 1 and 2):

-characterisation of the survey on the basis of the institutions, actors and countries concerned; -the year of commencement, the periodicity of the survey (if applicable) and the period covered; -the size of the population and of the sample and the corresponding response rates; -the sectors of activity involved; -the definitions of innovation used; -the main themes tackled.

"Subordinate" surveys

The first type of surveys that we describe as "subordinate" (cf. Table 1) confine themselves essentially to applying to services definitions and questionnaires intended for manufacturing activities. They are concerned solely with technological innovation. As a result, they give preference to a restrictive concept of innovation. a) Several of them (particularly the two Dutch surveys) place R&D at the heart of their analysis (of innovation) and take their definitions from the OECD's Frascati Manual. According to the latest version of this handbook, "research and experimental development (R&D) comprise creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications".

The initial hypothesis underlying the compilation of this handbook is the notion that R&D is the main source and indicator of (technological) innovation and that it is actualised by clearly identifiable specialists working within clearly identifiable structures. Thus the indicators in the Frascati Manual have contributed to the underestimation of innovation in services, since innovation in this type of activity is not necessarily technological and can be, and often is, realised without any prior R&D. R&D (and consequently innovation) is also underestimated, since it is seldom carried out in a designated R&D department. Rather, it is usually diffuse, multilocational and linked to innovation projects implemented by flexible, temporary project groups (Gadrey et al. 1993). The definition of R&D laid down in the Frascati Manual also excludes a certain number of activities, in particular the involvement of certain consultants (and, more generally, of providers of high-level, knowledgeintensive services) in some innovation projects. R&D in social sciences seems to play an important role in innovation in service activities (Gadrey et al. 1993). Whereas the first two versions of the Frascati Manual took account only of the exact, natural and engineering sciences, R&D in the human and social sciences has been included since the third edition of the handbook (OECD, 1976). However, those surveys of innovation based on these versions of the manual have hardly availed themselves of the opportunity thus offered4 . b) However, the majority of surveys in this first group draw primarily on the Oslo Manual for their indicators of innovation (OECD, 1992) (cf. Box 1).

The Oslo Manual was compiled on the basis of the notion that R&D (Frascati Manual) is not an adequate indicator for taking account of innovation in firms. This manual is a collection of definitions, concepts and methods for collecting and interpreting data on innovation (its nature, costs and economic effects).

The shift from the Frascati Manual to the Oslo Manual reflects the substitution of an interactive concept of innovation for a linear, Taylorist conception, in which R&D is not only the phase that precedes all innovation processes but also a phase that is independent of the others (absence of interactions). In other words, it is the model developed by Kline and Rosenberg (1986) that provides the theoretical foundation for the Oslo Manual. Innovation is here conceived of as a collective process in which, at various points in time and by means of links of variable length and frequency, various chains (research, accumulated knowledge, innovation) are articulated.

The guidelines proposed by the Oslo Manual (in the 1992 edition) are reductive in various respects:

-They take account only of manufacturing activities. They explicitly exclude market and public services (in contrast to the Frascati Manual, which includes R&D in the public sector and services in general).

-They take account only of technological process and product innovation5 . The Oslo Manual excludes organisational innovations (except those linked to process innovations, or those that are combined with such innovations) (cf. Box 1). Various difficulties emerge when attempts are made to apply such a concept of innovation to services. Firstly, the distinction between product and process innovation may prove difficult to apply. Secondly, innovation in services can be realised without recourse to technology, particularly organisational innovation, which may have a direct impact on the nature of the service and seems to play a very important role in this type of activity.

The Oslo Manual makes a distinction between radical innovation and incremental innovation that is important in theoretical terms, although some have questioned whether it can be maintained in a questionnaire intended for service activities.

Despite these limitations, however, this conception of innovation is significantly more extensive than that contained in the Frascati Manual. In consequence, application of it to services will help to elucidate certain aspects of innovation in this area of activity.

Box 1 : some definitions of innovation according to the OECD Oslo Manual (1992) Technological innovations comprises new products and processes and significant technological changes of products and processes. An innovation has been implemented if it has been introduced on the market (product innovation) or used within a production process (process innovation). Innovations therefore involve a series of scientific, technological and organisational, financial and commercial activities.

Major product innovation is a product whose intended use, performance characteristics, attributes, design properties or use of materials and components differs significantly compared with previous manufactured products. Such innovations can involve radically new technologies, or can be based on combining existing technologies in new uses.

Incremental product innovation is an existing product whose performance has been significantly enhanced or upgraded. This again can take two forms. A simple product may be improved (in terms of better performance or lower cost) through use of higher-performance components or materials, or a complex product which consists of a number of integrated technical sub-systems may be improved by partial changes to one of the sub-systems.

Process innovation is the adoption of a new or significantly improved production methods. These methods may involve changes in equipment or production organisation or both. The methods may be intended to produce new or improved products, which cannot be produced using conventional plants or production methods, or essentially to increase the production efficiency of existing products.

The Dutch survey carried out in [START_REF]Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data, Oslo manual (OECD, Paris) OECD[END_REF]-1994(cf. Brouwer and Kleinknecht, 1995a) occupies a particular position in this first group (cf. table 1). It is based on a slightly modified version of the questionnaire used in the first EC innovation survey. Whereas the questionnaire designed for use in manufacturing industry defines innovation as "the development or the introduction of new or technologically improved products or services", the word technologically is missing from the questionnaire intended for service firms. Despite this semantic precaution, which reveals an awareness of the fact that innovation in services is not necessarily technological, we classify this survey in category A on different grounds: 1) This "extended" general definition is rapidly called into question by supplementary definitions that are narrower in scope (i.e. they omit the "semantic precaution"), such as the following: "innovation can be: the use of a new or improved technology (designed by you or by others) or an original application of an existing technology".

2) The examples of innovation listed in the questionnaire are, without exception, technological to varying degrees: remote-access information, tele-shopping, freephone numbers, magnetic cards, to cite the service innovations listed, and electronic data interchange (EDI), CAD/CAM, monitoring and location systems and voice mail systems, to cite the process innovations listed.

3) Organisational innovations are explicitly excluded.

c) The set of national surveys recently carried out as part of the second Community Innovation Survey (CIS-2) also belong to this "subordinate" group of service innovation surveys. These national surveys are based upon the 1997 revised version of the Oslo Manual. In the revised version, the concern with services is manifested in three main changes: the introduction of a paragraph stating that the "the term "product" is used to cover both goods and services", a warning about the difficulty of distinguishing, in some cases, between product and process innovations and the introduction of a box listing some examples of innovation in services. As we will see ( § 1.2), paradoxically, the pilot surveys carried out in order to revise the Oslo Manual and to prepare the CIS-2 rather belong to the "autonomous" surveys group. CIS2 (double-lined in table 1) has been conducted for market services in all of the European Union (excepting Spain) but all the results are not yet available in each country (see [START_REF] Muzart | Description of national innovation surveys carried out, or foreseen in 1997-99 in OECD non-CIS-2 participants and NESTI observer countries[END_REF].

The "autonomous" surveys

These various surveys all share a desire to take account, to some extent, of the specificities of innovation in services. They do not confine themselves to compiling inventories of technological innovation, but seek, in their various ways, to take other aspects of innovation into account.

This group of surveys can be divided into two subgroups:

1) The experiments carried out within the framework of Eurostat and the Voorburg group (an international group bringing together representatives of the various national statistical services) with a view to amending the Oslo Manual. They have a particular status, in the sense that they actually constitute experimental mini-surveys intended to test questionnaires and definitions. Nevertheless, their concern with methodological issues deserves particular attention.

2) National surveys of varying scope: large-scale surveys such as those conducted by the ZEW and the DIW in Germany and the small, exploratory surveys, such as those carried out by DTI in Denmark and IFRESI-University of Lille I in France.

a)

As far as the first group is concerned, we will limit ourselves to two examples of varying scope in order to illustrate the relatively extensive definitions of innovations used: the 1995 Germany survey (Licht et al., 1995;Hipp et al., 1996) and the 1997 French survey (Djellal and Gallouj, 1998).

The German survey identifies three types of innovation: product innovations, process innovations and organisational innovations. In the first two categories, account is also taken of technological intensity and degree of novelty.

The 1997 French survey, for its part, identifies four types of innovation (as does the Danish survey, incidentally): -product-service innovation, defined broadly enough to encompass tangible and "intangible" products (e.g., a new training method, a new area of consultancy, etc.); -process innovation, again defined in such a way as to include technical systems and more intangible processes (such as consultants' methods); -(internal) organisational innovation, which differs from the previous type in that it constitutes the structure within which activities and processes take place. The introduction of a matrix structure, for example, belongs in this category; -external relational innovation, defined as the establishment of particular relationships with a firm's partners, whether they be customers, suppliers, public authorities or competitors (e.g. strategic alliances, new types of interface, appointment of a mediator or ombudsman, etc.) Like the German survey, the French survey focuses on the technological content of each of these innovations by introducing a distinction between 1) "innovations in which technology plays no role at all", 2) "innovations that are not technological but that cannot be realised without the use of technologies" and 3) "technological changes, in the sense that the innovation is a technology embodied in tangible equipment". Furthermore, in order to be able to encompass certain innovations that fall outside the preceding typology, the French survey makes attempt to deal with specific modes of innovation such as : ad hoc innovation, custom-made innovation, architectural innovation, formalisation innovation (for a theoretical appraisal of these modes of innovation see Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997).

b)

The Voorburg group has engaged in some interesting thinking on ways of amending the Oslo Manual in such a way as to take better account of innovation in services. As part of its deliberations, the Australian and Canadian statistical services (Gault and Pattinson, 1994[START_REF] Pattinson | Innovation in selected australian industries[END_REF][START_REF] Pattinson | Innovation in selected australian industries[END_REF] 6 have suggested, contrary to the Oslo Manual (OECD, 1992), using a broad definition of innovation that eliminates all references to technology and introduces types of innovation not taken into account by the Oslo Manual. Thus innovation is regarded as "the introduction of new or significantly changed services or ways of delivering services" or [to the extent that innovation in services may involve the introduction of new goods] "as the introduction of new or significantly changed goods". In addition to product and process innovation, three other forms of innovation are also referred to in the Australian and Canadian questionnaires: the implementation of advanced management techniques, significant changes in organisational structure and the implementation of new or significantly altered company strategies.

This debate on the nature of innovation in services is being conducted against the background of a general desire, jointly affirmed by the OECD and the European Union, to revise the Oslo Manual, particularly by taking innovation in services into account. Eurostat has entrusted several European countries with the task of testing a questionnaire specially designed for services with a view to incorporating these activities into the EU innovation survey.

The various pilot surveys on innovation in services launched by Eurostat (and with which the Netherlands, Germany and Italy have been entrusted) are based on the following definitions of innovation in general and product process innovation in particular (Gault and [START_REF] Pattinson | Innovation in selected australian industries[END_REF]Eurostat, 1995):

-Innovations in the service sector comprises new services and new ways of producing or delivering services as well as significant changes in services or their production or delivering. An innovation has been implemented if it has been introduced to the market (product innovation) or used in producing services (process innovation).

-Product innovations are services whose intended use or performance characteristics differ significantly from those already produced. Innovations should be results of the use of new or new combinations of technologies or of other substantive investments in new knowledge 7 .

-Process innovations are new or significantly improved ways of producing or delivering 8 services.

These definitions of innovation give rise to the following observations:

-They do not view innovation solely from the point of view of its technological characteristics. Only the definition of product innovation contains an explicit reference to the technological aspect. Further, the introduction of the notion of knowledge considerably extends this definition of innovation.

-They maintain the distinction between product and process innovation and introduce a new, subtle distinction, namely innovation in "delivery" 9 .

-Unlike the proposals put forward by Gault and Pattinson (1994) and Pattinson, Ovington and Finaly (1995), they do not take organisational innovation into account. 6 These proposals were drawn up by the Voorburg group at the request of the UN Statistical Commission, which wanted to add an innovation module to its standard surveys on services activities in order to facilitate international comparisons. 7 Our italics. 8 Our italics. 9 Delivery innovation is according to [START_REF] Miles | Services : Invisible Innovators ? Conference on Service Sector Productivity and the Productivity Paradox[END_REF] a major form of innovation in services.

-They do not reject the distinction between radical and incremental innovation that exists in the Oslo Manual.

Characterisation of the survey : institutions actors, countries concerned

Year of commencem ent or periodicity

Period or year covered

Size of the population :

(PS) Size of the sample (SS), Response rate (RR)

Sectors involved Definition of innovation Main themes tackled

Australian Bureau of Statistics [START_REF] Pattinson | Innovation in selected australian industries[END_REF]Gault andPattinson, 1994, 1995) 1994

1

The methodological limits and their theoretical interpretations

As has already been stressed, it is the (specific) nature of service activities that makes it difficult to design and conduct surveys. These limits have, therefore, to be considered in the light of the specificity of services and of innovation therein.

The specificities generally attributed to services can be summarised by means of a number of statements that will be examined below with a view to identifying the consequences they may have for innovations.

The product is a "nebulous" process

It is difficult to locate the boundaries of a service in the same way as those of a good can be fixed.

They have to be considered within a three-dimensional space:

-The time horizon of the service provided, which is made up of the delivery of the service in the short term, what Gadrey (1996) calls the "service in actuality", and its long-term effect.

-The reference universe or "world", in the sense of the term developed by Boltanski and Thevenot (1991), i.e. the "value system" used to evaluate the "product" in all its various dimensions 10 .

-The degree of materiality or tangibility in the service (which is often linked to its technological content).

In other words, unlike a good, a service does not have an autonomous existence defined by its technical specifications. It is a social construction (reference universe) that maintains various forms of relationship with time (time horizon) and matter (degree of materiality). This concept of service has a certain number of consequences for the definition of innovation and the development of innovation indicators. It is to these consequences that we now turn.

-Since a service is a process, a sequence of operations, a formula, a protocol, a mode of organisation, the traditional distinctions between product, process and organisational innovation are clearly going to be problematic. For the same reasons, it is difficult to enumerate innovations. These difficulties are further compounded by the fact that a service is generally intangible.

-The relationships between technological innovation and goods are not the same as those between such and services. In the case of goods, the technology is intrinsic, since it provides the use (or final or service) characteristics. On the other hand, the technology is not consubstantial with services, except to some extent in the case of certain "quasi-goods" that are defined ultimately as the collective or temporary provision of "capacities" (ATMs, rentals of all kinds). It is an external factor in the production of service (or use) characteristics. If absolutely necessary, the service could be provided without it. The service may be embodied not in technologies but in competences called on directly or in an organisation. Thus organisational innovation cannot be excluded from any investigation of innovation in services. Further, it should be noted that the fact that services are not necessarily embodied in technological systems that can be readily appropriated gives them a certain degree of volatility that means they can be more easily imitated by competitors.

-The nebulosity of the output (as reflected in the difficulty, frequently experienced, in characterising services as independent products) also causes considerable difficulties when it comes to evaluating, 10 Boltanski and Thevenot's approach emphasises the diversity of "worlds" i.e. of value systems and of criteria of legitimacy. According to the nature of the dominant value system it distinguishes six "worlds": the industrial world, the market world, the domestic world, the civic world, the creative or inspirational world, the opinion world (based upon reputation and self-esteem values).

as the Oslo Manual (1992) suggests, the economic effects of innovation (e.g. in terms of employment or effect on sales).

-The nebulosity of the output has other consequences as well. In the absence of stable reference points, it can be difficult to convince customers that the service is sufficiently new to justify them paying the price of the innovation, or to establish the difference between mere diversification or differentiation, on the one hand, and genuine innovation, on the other.

Informational asymmetries, which are generally considerable in service transactions, especially because of the "nebulous" nature of the product, are undoubtedly further compounded when the proposed service is a new one. This makes it even more difficult to persuade customers to pay the price of the innovation and to measure its economic impacts.

Services are interactive

Services are consumed as they are being produced and involve some degree of customer participation. On the theoretical level, this particular characteristic of services would seem to prohibit a linear conception of innovation. On the other hand, it is particularly consistent with an interactive model, like that advanced by Kline and Rosenberg (1986). This characteristic has certain consequences for the definitions and indicators of innovation.

-It leaves considerable space for the various forms of custom-made or ad hoc innovation that are not taken into account in the traditional questionnaires and which are less easily accommodated, it is true, within the categories of a questionnaire. To the best of our knowledge, only the 1997 French survey (Djellal, Gallouj, 1998) has attempted to take account of this type of innovation.

-It highlights the possibility of client participation in the production of the innovation (collaboration). Thus the customer can be one of the actors in innovation, with the success of the innovation process depending on the quality of the interaction.

-It reveals certain methodological difficulties when it comes to estimating the cost of innovation. In cases of custom-made or ad hoc innovation, the innovation process merges with the production process. The cost of the innovation equals the cost of delivering the service plus that of formalising or "registering" the results (cf. C. and F. Gallouj, 1996).

-It raises the problem of appropriation regimes. To whom does the innovation belong if it has been co-produced? This is not simply a technical problem (concerning the legal means of protection) but also raises the equally difficult question of the distribution of the fruits of a jointly produced innovation.

The service sector is one of extreme diversity

Differences in respect of innovation sometimes seem greater within the service sector than between some service industries and some manufacturing industries. For example, the innovation behaviour of computer services and telecommunications companies is relatively close to that of manufacturing firms and may, to some extent, be captured by the same survey arrangements. On the other hand, the types of "products" vary widely from one service activity to another. Thus the content of product innovation is not necessarily the same for a hotel service, a consultancy service or a financial service. The difficulty of applying the traditional definitions seems to increase in the case of services which target is information, knowledge or individuals. Custom-made or ad hoc innovation occupies an important place in consultancy services, for example.

Particular attention should be focused on this type of activity and, more generally, on knowledgeintensive business services. They pose particular methodological problems, in that the providers of such services, while producing innovations in their own right, are also participants in the innovations produced by their clients, thereby contributing to what we have elsewhere termed the interactional or co-produced innovation model (Gallouj, 1998). Since the appropriation regime for co-produced innovations may not be firmly established, care needs to be taken here to avoid any double accounting of innovation.

Some difficulties of comparison and some paradoxes

Some of the methodological difficulties outlined above can be examined in a more concrete way. Consideration will now be given to actual survey results rather than to methodological principles. In general terms, it can be said that, in the surveys examined here, there is a certain degree of consensus in the following areas: the sources of information, the objectives of innovation and the constraints on innovation. Most of the surveys suggest that, in services, the main sources of information are clients, sales and other staff in contact with customers, suppliers (of equipment and advice) and competitors. It is also fairly common to come across the somewhat paradoxical finding that universities and other teaching and research institutions are rather unimportant sources of information and ideas on innovation.

The most frequently cited objectives of innovation are satisfaction of customer requirements, extension of the range of services, the opening up of new markets and the reduction of costs. The principal constraints listed are a lack of financial resources, official regulations and bureaucracy.

In view of this relative consensus, it does not seem prejudicial (to our understanding of the phenomena of innovation in services) to eliminate this type of questioning in order to reduce the size of the questionnaires (and thereby increase response rates) and to put the emphasis on the more problematic issues.

On the other hand, most of the questions relating to the nature of innovation produce such widely divergent responses that the validity of any comparative analysis (from whatever perspective: international, intertemporal, intersectoral…) seems to be seriously compromised. The list of problematic areas of comparison could be considerably extended, but we will restrict ourselves here to examining the following three areas: R&D, the relative frequency of the various types of innovation and comparisons between manufacturing and services.

R&D

The question of R&D has been the subject of specific surveys and investigations (cf. [START_REF] Young | Measuring R-D in the services, STI Working paper[END_REF] that have not been included in this assessment of surveys on innovation. However, this subject is very frequently alluded to in most of the surveys included in the present assessment, since R&D is considered to be one of the elements, and sometimes even the main element, in the innovation process. All we are seeking to do here is to highlight the difficulty of interpreting the results and developments observed. a) Thus the estimates produced by the OECD (according to Gault, 1995) show that, in the USA in 1992, service activities accounted for almost 25% of all R&D carried out in firms, compared with only a little more than 4% ten years earlier, in 1982.

Should it be concluded from this that investment in R&D carried out in firms increased sixfold over ten years? Our response to this question is as follows. 1) While R&D activities in service firms have indeed increased, it is perhaps not solely because of the increased investment in R&D and 2) it is likely that this increase is actually considerably greater than the figures given above.

In fact, there has not necessarily been any increase in R&D activity, but rather an improvement in our perception of it, i.e. in the sharpness of our analytical apparatus: changes in the definition of R&D, institutional changes affecting the statistical classifications and nomenclatures for manufacturing and service activities and changes in the categories to which given activities are allocated (e.g., the R&D department in a large manufacturing firm, now regarded as a service provider).

However, it may also be the case that even this degree of acuity is inadequate. The definition of R&D used in most of the surveys seldom takes into account R&D in the social sciences (even though, as we have noted, it has been included in the Frascati Manual since its third edition). Whereas this narrow definition of R&D might to some extent be acceptable in the case of manufacturing, the same cannot be said of services, where research in the human and social sciences seems to play a relatively important role (Gadrey et al., 1993). Further, as we have already noted, this definition of R&D fails to take account of the role of consultants upstream, downstream or in the course of some of their clients' innovation processes. And, despite a certain amount of progress, it still fails to take sufficient account of certain aspects of software development, which is a widespread practice in the service sector. Finally, it should be noted that R&D in services is frequently "diffuse", in that it seldom takes place in R&D departments but is often devolved to flexible project groups.

b) There can be contradictions even among surveys conducted in the same country. Thus according to the 1993-94 Dutch survey, 25.1% of manufacturing firms engaged in some R&D activity in 1992 (in-house or subcontracted), compared with 8.1% of service firms. On the basis of the 1989 survey, however, Kleinknecht and Reijnen (1991) show that the number of firms engaged in R&D activities is virtually the same in manufacturing and in services. These authors also note that there are many more firms with fewer than 20 employees engaged in R&D in the service sector than in manufacturing. More generally, it would seem that R&D is underestimated in small firms. According to the 1993-94 innovation survey, the share of small firms engaged in R&D activities is significantly greater than the R&D surveys carried out by the Dutch statistical service would suggest. According to Kleinknecht and Reijnen (1991), this difference is attributable to the simplicity of the R&D indicator used in the innovation survey, namely the number of people per year engaged in R&D. More generally it seems that official data underestimate R-D because almost all R-D surveys are based on samples of believed R-D performers and miss out small firms and other unknown R-D performers who get picked up by representative samples and censuses11 .

Intersectoral comparisons

One conclusion emerges, implicitly or explicitly, from many of the surveys, particularly from those of the "subordinate" type (category A), namely that manufacturing industry is said to be more innovative than services. This conclusion is an ambiguous one, since it applies only to technological innovation. Within the service sector itself, moreover, the most innovative firms (in the technological sense of the term) are those most closely linked to information and telecommunications technologies (computer services firms, telecommunications companies, etc.). The survey conducted in France by SESSI as part of the second EU survey clearly shows that the frequency of innovation in this area of activity is greater than in manufacturing industry as a whole.

On the other hand, if a broader definition of innovation is used, as in the "autonomous" surveys (Table 2), then the conclusions may be significantly different.

Comparison between different types of innovation

The question raised here is that of the commonest form of innovation. Examination of the findings produced by different surveys shows that, depending on the case in question, the frequency of a given type of innovation may be greater than that of another (cf. table 3). At present, this observation does not seem to have any real economic significance. Indeed, the variety of definitions used by those conducting the surveys, and the diverse ways in which these definitions are interpreted by the survey "subjects", combine to make any comparison a tricky matter. For example, the 1997 French survey, which covers the period from 1992 to 1996, identifies four types of innovation: product innovation, process innovation, organisational innovation and innovation in external relations. It finds that these various types of innovation are declining in frequency. In reality, the problems of defining the boundaries between the various categories reduces the import of such a finding. Using the same questionnaire, the Danish survey produces not only significantly different frequencies but also a completely different classification, since the most frequent forms of innovation in Denmark are organisational and external relational innovations, while product innovation is the least frequent.

Surveys

Two relatively large-scale surveys conducted in the same country -Germany -produce contradictory results. In the ZEW survey, the hierarchy of frequency is as follows: process innovations (53%), product innovations (34%) and organisational innovations (13%). In that conducted by the DIW, which focuses on Berlin, the hierarchy is completely reversed: organisational innovations (40%), product innovations (38%) and process innovations (22%). If we reject the unlikely hypothesis of a peculiarly Berlin specificity 12 , then the explanation for these differences may lie in a certain degree of confusion between process and organisational innovation or, more generally, in the inability of these three categories adequately to apprehend innovation in services.

As far as the "subordinate" group surveys are concerned (i.e. those based on a restrictive definition of innovation), comparisons are no more satisfactory. The 1993-94 Dutch survey, for example, shows that product innovations are more common than process innovations (22.3% of service firms are said to have introduced product innovations, compared with 13% that had introduced process innovations). On the other hand, the Italian survey (which, it is true, covers a different period) indicates that most of the innovations implemented are process innovations, introduced either in isolation (30.7%) or in conjunction with new services (17.1%). Firms that have introduced product innovation in isolation are rarer (18,1%).

Conclusion: should surveys be abandoned?

As far as national and international surveys on innovation are concerned, thinking on methodology, and the corresponding experiments, have followed the same cycle as theoretical deliberations. As already noted, strictly technological concerns (conveyed by the innovation indicators adopted by national and international organisations) have been followed, though not replaced, by questioning about the specificities of innovation in services (service-oriented concerns) and a desire to take account of these various types of concerns without sacrificing either the technological dimension or the question of the specificities of innovation in services.

The debates that took place in the course of the project to revise the Oslo Manual (the main points of which have been summarised above) opened up a number of new and very fruitful paths, some service-oriented, others more integrative in scope, as witness the large number of memoranda written on that occasion 13 . However, these new paths have not been taken into account in the most recent edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD, 1997). The revised manual clearly reflects a concern to integrate services into innovation surveys, but retains the restrictive and technologist definitions of innovation (see §1.1.c above). Various types of argument might be advanced to justify this institutional choice: -It endorses the (conscious or subconscious) argument that, ultimately, only technological innovation is of any importance.

-The undeniable rise to prominence of information technologies in services (including in some that have traditionally been concerned largely with material operations) is indicative of a trend towards a reduction in the importance of the non-technological dimension. If this were the case, it would not be necessary to investigate an element of innovation that might be regarded as being "in the process of disappearing".

12 Even if Berlin is a capital, a site of HQs, media, consultancies, etc. 13 Some of these memoranda are referenced in the bibliography (Akerhlom and Jutte, 1995;De Lanoy Meijer, 1995;Eurostat, 1995;Gault, 1995;Gault andPattinson, 1994, 1995;[START_REF] Pattinson | Innovation in selected australian industries[END_REF][START_REF] Rosengren | The Swedish Pilot Survey of Innovations in the service Industries[END_REF] -The choice is indicative of a certain pragmatism. It is intended to keep open certain opportunities for international comparisons. In a way, a form of integration has taken place, a minimalist form in which account is taken of technological innovation in both the manufacturing and the service sectors.

For our part, we would argue in favour of a more extensive (maximalist) form of integration that would take account of both technological innovation and non-technological forms of innovation (not only in services but in manufacturing industry as well). Certain areas of activity that are now of considerable importance in our economies (hotels and catering, tourism, etc.) have their origins in very simple ideas wholly devoid of technological content. In other words, technology is important, but organisation and other forms of innovation that are not necessarily technological are equally important. The rise to prominence of information technologies should not be considered within the framework of a zero-sum game. On the contrary, there is a wealth of examples (in distribution, financial services etc.) that illustrate the existence of a dialectical relationship between the allpervasive use of information technologies and the increase in service levels.

True, there are serious methodological problems to be resolved, but reasonably wide-ranging surveys have already been conducted in some countries and have produced relatively satisfactory results. If it is necessary at all, pragmatism should be used not in restricting the object of analysis but in changing survey practices. It is likely, for example, that tailor-made processing and questionnaires are currently preferable to more general questionnaires covering all service activities. In other words, in attempting to come to terms with the extreme heterogeneity of the service sector, it would seem useful to construct questionnaires tailored to relatively homogeneous "sub-groups". Thus the following sub-groups, which differ from each other particularly in the degree of service standardisation, could be envisioned: intellectual services (e.g. consultancy), operational and manual services (cleaning, transport, catering, caretaking…), informational and relational services (banking, insurance…) and combinations of goods and services (such as distribution and hotel services).

M

  . Akerhlom, J. Jutte(1995), Innovation statistics, Tenth Meeting of the Voorburg Group on Service Statistics, Eurostat, 11-15 september, Voorburg. B Amable, S Palombarini (1998), Technical Change and incorporated R-D in the service sector,ResearchPolicy, 27, p. 655-675. L Boltanski, L Thévenot (1991), De la justification : les économies de la grandeur, (Gallimard, Paris). E Brouwer et AKleinknecht (1995a), Innovatie in de Nederlandse Industrie en Dienstverlening : Een enquete-onderzoek(1992), Ministry of Economic affairs. E Brouwer, A Kleinknecht (1995b), Enquête sur l'innovation dans les services : bilan de l'utilisation du questionnaire ECI aux Pays-Bas, STI-Revue, n°16, p. 157-165. E Brouwer, A Kleinknech (1997), Measuring the unmeasurable: a country's non R-D expenditure on product and service innovation, Research Policy, 25, p. 1235-1242. C Cases (1998), Computerization and changes in firm organization : a survey on accounting service industries, 13th meeting of Voorburg group, Roma. N De Lanoy Meijer (1995), Innovation in the service sector, Statistics Netherlands, 8 june, Voorburg, The Netherlands. J-C Delaunay, J Gadrey (1987), Services in economic thought: three centuries of debate, (Kluwer, Dordrecht). F Djellal, F Gallouj (1998), Innovation in services : the results of a postal survey, SI4S project, TSER programme, European Commission, University of Lille-IFRESI, july. DTI (1997), Service development : internationalization, Innovation : main results from the survey, SI4S project, TSER programme, European Commission, September, Copenhagen. G Ebling, C Hipp, N Janz, G Licht, A Jungmittag, H Niggemann (1997), Innovationsaktivitäten im Dienstleistungssektor Erhebung 1997, Zentrums für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, Manheim. A Eickelpasch, I Pfeiffer (1997), Zukunftssicherung durch innovation : profil, potential und strategien des unternehmen in Berlin, DIW, Berlin. R Etter (1995), Innovationstätigkeit im Bau-und Dienstleistungssector-Vorbereitung, Durchführung und Resultate einer Pilotumfrage, Studienreihe Strukturberichter-stattung, hrsg vom Bundesamt für Konjunkturfragen, Bern. EUROSTAT (1995), Report for the Eurostat pilot project to investigate the possibilities to measure innovation in the service sectors, Luxembourg. R Evangelista, G Sirilli (1995), Measuring innovation in services, Research Evaluation, Vol. 5, n°3, december, p. 207-215. J Gadrey (1996), L'économie des services, (La Découverte 2nd edition). J Gadrey, F Gallouj, S Lhuillery, T Ribault, O Weinstein (1993), La R-D et l'innovation dans les services, Report for the ministry of research and technology, october. C Gallouj, F Gallouj (1996), L'innovation dans les services, (Economica, Paris). F Gallouj (1994), Economie de l'innovation dans les services, (L'Harmattan, Logiques économiques, Paris). F Gallouj (1998), L'innovation interactionnelle : un modèle néoschumpeterien, Seminar of the service group, CLERSE-IFRESI, University of Lille I, june.F Gallouj, O Weinstein (1997), Innovation in Services, Research Policy, 26, p. 537-556. F D Gault (1995), R-D in a service economy : canadian statistics, Voorburg group meeting, 11-15 september, Voorburg, The Netherlands. FD Gault, WPattinson (1994), Model surveys of service industries : the need to measure innovation, Voorburg Group Meeting, 17-21 october, Sydney, Australia. FD Gault, W[START_REF] Pattinson | Innovation in selected australian industries[END_REF], Innovation in service industries : the measurement issues, Voorburg Group Meeting, 11-15 september, Voorburg, The Netherlands. C Hipp, M Kukuk, G Licht, G Muent (1996), Innovation in services : results of an innovation survey in the german service industry, Conference the new indicators of S-T for a knowledge based economy, OECD. A Kleinknecht, J Reijnen, J O N Verweij (1990), Innovatie in de Nederlandse industrie en dienstverlening : Een enquete-onderzoek, Beleidsstudies Technologie Economie, n°6, SEO, Amsterdam. A Kleinknecht, J O N Reijnen (1991), More evidence on the undercounting of small firm R-D, Research Policy, vol. 20, p. 579-587. A Kleinknecht, J O N Reijnen (1992), Les nouvelles données sur l'innovation : l'expérience des Pays-Bas, STI-Revue, n°11, p. 69-86. A Kleinknecht, J O N Reijnen (1992), Why do firms cooperate on R-D ? an empirical study, Research Policy, vol. 21, p. 347-360. S Kline, N Rosenberg (1986), An overview of innovation in Landau R., Rosenberg N. (eds), The positive sum strategy : harnessing technology for economic growth, (National Academy Press, Washington DC). C Le Bas, A Torre (1993), Survey sur les surveys d'innovation : une première évaluation des enquêtes d'innovation européennes, Revue d'Economie Industrielle, n°65, 3 rd trimester, p. 80-95. G Licht, C Hipp, M Kukuk, G Münt, N Jantz (1995), Innovationen im Dienstleistungssektor, Zentrums für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, Manheim. G Marklund (1998), Needs for new measures of innovation in services, Topical report from the SI4Sproject, European Commission, june.

Characterisation of the survey : institutions actors, counties concerned Year of commencem ent or periodicity Period or year covered Size of the population : (PS) Size of the sample (SS), Response rate (RR) Sectors involved Definition of innovation Main themes tackled

				Real Estate, Renting
				and Business activities
	Ireland (CIS-2)	1994-96 or	SS: 967	CIS-2 sectors		Oslo manual (1997)	CIS-2 themes
		1996	RR: 29%
	Italy (CIS-2)	November	SS : 6005	Market	services	:	Revised Oslo Manual (1997).
	(Sirilli,	1996	RR:29%	Wholesale and retail	Actually there are some differences	CIS-2 themes (few differences)
	Evangelista,	February		trade,		Transport,	as far as the final version of the
	1998)	1997		storage		and	revised manual wasn't available
				communication,		when the survey was launched
		1993-1995		Financial
				intermediation,
				Real Estate, Renting
	Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (Kleinknecht, (CIS-2) Luxembourg	1989 1988 1996 1994-96 or	PS : (half belonging to 7500 RR : 81% SS: 238	Manufacturing service sectors as a and whole and Business activities CIS-2 sectors	R-D in Frascati manual's sense is the basis of the questionnaire Oslo manual (1997)	-Patents -R-D employees (men-year) distributed -National and international R-D cooperation CIS-2 themes
	Reijnen, Verweij, Netherlands (CIS-	Id.	the SS: 3590 service	CIS-2 sectors + others	Distinction is made between product Oslo manual (1997)	according to innovation types (product/process) CIS-2 themes
	1990 ; 2)		sector) RR: 74%					and process innovation	-Acquisition of sophisticated technical systems
	Kleinknecht, Norway (CIS-2)	1995-97 or	SS : 4352 SS: 1102	CIS-2 sectors + others	Oslo manual (1997)	for office or production automation CIS-2 themes
	Reijnen, 1992)	1997	RR : 58,1% RR: 90%					The same questionnaire is used for	-software internal development or external
	Portugal (CIS-2)	Id.	(equally SS: 2469	CIS-2 sectors		manufacturing Oslo manual (1997) industries	and	acquisition CIS-2 themes
			distributed RR: 72%					services	-Innovation impediments
	Sweden (CIS-2)	1994-96 or	between the SS: 1108	CIS-2 sectors + others	Oslo manual (1997)	-Personnel training strategies CIS-2 themes
		1996	two sectors) RR: 72%						-Use of innovation support public institutions
	United Kingdom (CIS-2) Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Extension to services of the Community innovation survey (CIS) : Dutch pilot survey, (Brouwer, Kleinknecht, Innovation Research Center (IKU), Hungary 1995a and b) National research council (Evangelista and Sirilli, 1995) Consejo Nacional Mexico (CONACYT), Tecnologia de Ciencia y	Id. 1993-1994 1990-1992 30 march 1999 15 June 1999 1998 March-July 1995 mid June 1997 mid august 1997	SS: 2114 RR:36% SS: 1000 RR: 25% 9 interviews SS: 205 RR: 87%	CIS-2 sectors + others Public utilities, building, retailing and wholesale, hotels, restaurants, transport, communication, bank, insurance, other Financial intermediation Wholesale and retail trade (excluding motor vehicle repair) Communications Computer and related activities commercial services, Research and other non commercial Development services Engineering and other Banking and financial services, insurance, waste disposal, power supply, telecommunications, market research technical activities (excluding architectural activities) Telecommunications activities Computer and related Financial intermediation	Oslo manual (1997) Use of a slightly modified variant of the CIS questionnaire (in order to allow comparisons between manufacturing and services) Oslo manual (1997) Eurostat questionnaire experimentation (cf. table 3) but a more restrictive definition of innovation (i.e. more focused on technology) is used. Oslo manual (1997)	-Current or foreseeable importance of basic CIS-2 themes technologies such as information technologies, biotechnology, new materials. CIS-2 themes Focus on R-D, innovation costs, innovation effects. In order to reach a satisfactory enough response rate, exclusion of the following questions: protection modes, impediments, sources, objectives Conceptual and methodological problems analysis: -innovation definition CIS-2 themes + : -product and process distinction -innovation examples -economic impacts -innovation costs evaluation Description of the main innovation of the firm
	Austria (CIS-2)	1994-96 or 1994-96 or	SS: 1003	CIS-2 sectors :		Oslo manual (1997): Innovation =	CIS-2 themes :
		1996 1996	RR : 39%	-Wholesale trade and	introduction of technologically new	-general information about the enterprise
	Federal Office for Economic Development and employment + Konjunkturforshu ngsstelle (Switzerland) Belgium (CIS-2) Id. 1994-96 or 1996 State Instate of May1998-Statistics (Turkey) August 1998	SS: 2200 RR: 32% SS : 1394 SS: 1224 RR:40% RR : 65%	commission trade -Transport telecommunications Private services -Financial intermediation -Computer and related and activites-Engineering services CIS-2 sectors Telecommunications Financial intermediation Computer and related	or significantly improved services or implementation of technologically new methods for service delivery. Oslo manual (1997) Oslo manual (1997) Oslo manual (1997)	-scope and impact of technological innovation CIS-2 themes + : and innovation activity of the enterprise Market conditions, Qualitative information, -factors influencing innovation activity Effectiveness of various appropriation instruments,… CIS-2 themes + : CIS-2 themes Use of Internet, Factors which have changed the establishment, Work being done by
	Denmark (CIS-2) Id. 1995-97 or	SS : 1073	CIS-2 sectors activities		Oslo manual (1997)	CIS-2 themes engineers in the establishment
		1997	RR : 28%
	Finland (CIS-2) INSEE (French	Id. 1997	SS: 964 PS : 1616	CIS-2 sectors Accountancy firms		Oslo manual (1997) This survey is not directly devoted to	CIS-2 themes Types of hardware and software available.
	statistic Office),	Comparison	RR : 71% RR : 76%					innovation	but	rather	to	Types of use. Constraints and obstacles.
	France (SESSI, France (Cases,	1997 1997 -	PS : 500	-	Banking	and	Oslo manual (1997) computerisation.	CIS-2 themes Consequences on work organisation. Training.
	INSEE) (CIS-2) 1998)	1994	RR : 54%	insurance
		id.
			PS : 3000	-		Transport,
			RR : 85%	Telecommunication,
				engineering and IT
				services
	Germany (CIS-2) Id.	SS: 5951	CIS-2 sectors		Oslo manual (1997)	CIS-2 themes
			RR: 22%
	Greece (CIS-2)	1995-97 or	SS : 1000	-				Oslo manual (1997)	CIS-2 themes
		1997
	Iceland (CIS-2)	Id.	SS: 300	Transport		and	Oslo manual (1997)	CIS-2 themes
			RR: 60%	telecommunications

Table 1 :

 1 The "subordinate" surveys

Table 2 :

 2 The "autonomous" surveys

Table 3 :

 3 Comparison of the main types of innovations introduced

For a similar attempt see Marklund (1998).

Very few countries have taken the opportunity. In the case of France, the statistical reports compiled by the Department of Research and Technology clearly indicate that "R&D work in the social and human sciences is not taken into account because of the small role they play in industrial research and the difficulties specific to this area".

The very title of the Oslo Manual is very explicit, alluding as it does to "guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data".

This comment was suggested to us by one of the anonymous referees of the review.

the SI4S web site http://www.step.no/Projectarea/si4s/. A CD version is