Skip to main content
Summary

National Survey of Innovation 2012

The classification of innovative and non-innovative respondents based on business sector is shown in the figure above. Based on the number of respondents from the manufacturing and services sectors, majority of the innovative respondents came from the services sector with 62%, while the remaining were from the manufacturing sector with 38%. On the other hand, the highest non-innovative companies were from manufacturing sector with 58% as compared to service sector with 42%.

Summary

The classification of innovative and non-innovative respondents based on business sector is shown in the figure above. Based on the number of respondents from the manufacturing and services sectors, majority of the innovative respondents came from the services sector with 62%, while the remaining were from the manufacturing sector with 38%. On the other hand, the highest non-innovative companies were from manufacturing sector with 58% as compared to service sector with 42%.

Summary

Source: National Survey of Innovation 2012

The figure shows the highest innovative companies according to types of ownership are Private Limited (Sdn. Bhd.) companies in both sectors with 70.56% and 59.35% for public limited businesses respectively. On the other hand, the lowest forms of innovative companies were Partnership business with 5.17% for manufacturing and 6.13% for services as presented

Summary

The figure shows the highest innovative companies according to types of ownership are Private Limited (Sdn. Bhd.) companies in both sectors with 70.56% and 59.35% for public limited businesses respectively. On the other hand, the lowest forms of innovative companies were Partnership business with 5.17% for manufacturing and 6.13% for services as presented

Summary

Source: National Survey of Innovation 2012

Note: Mean Indicators: 0 = not relevant 3 = highly important

Based on the above diagram, the three important objectives in the manufacturing sector are to improve the quality product (mean=2.37), followed by the need to open up new markets or increase market share (mean=2.29), and to extend the product range (mean=2.22). For the service sector, the most important objective was to improve product quality, with a mean value of 1.69. This is followed by the need to open up new market or increase market share (mean=1.62), and to fulfil regulation and standard (mean=1.57).

Summary

Source: National Survey of Innovation 2012

Note: Mean Indicators: 0 = not relevant 3 = highly important

The figure shows the effects of product and/or process innovation introduced during 2009-2011. On the whole, the companies felt that to improve quality of goods and services was the most important effect in this aspect. Specifically among the manufacturing companies, improved quality of goods and services with mean=2.21, increased range of products with mean=2.10, to increase value added with mean=2.07 were the three most important effects of innovation and were generally rated as highly important. Consequently in the service sector, improved quality of goods and services with mean=1.73, improved the flexibility of production or service provision with mean=1.55 and, increased capacity for production or service provision with mean=1.52 were rated the most important impacts of innovation.

Summary

Source: National Survey of Innovation 2012

Note: Mean Indicators: 0 = not relevant 3 = highly important

The figures shows that the most important of marketing and organisational innovation in manufacturing sector are to improve quality of goods/services (mean=2.12), followed by reduced time to respond to customer or supplier needs (mean=1.92); reduced costs per unit of output or services (mean=1.90) and improved employee satisfaction and/or reduced rates of employee turnover (mean=1.76). Similarly, in the services sector, improved quality of goods or services was rated as the most significant effect with mean 1.78. This is followed by reduced time to respond to customer or supplier needs with mean 1.71, improved employee's satisfaction and/or reduced rates of employee turnover (mean =1.66) and reduced costs per unit of output or service (mean = 1.42).