Rated Ranking: The 2015 Global Innovation 1000

The 2015 Global Innovation 1000

Summary
For the 11th year Strategy&, the strategy consulting business of PWC, published their „Global Innovation 1000“
study. This year‘s edition especially emphasizes the global distribution of R&D spending, in quantitative numbers. For the first time ever the most corporate R&D is now conducted in Asia, followed by Northern America and Europe. When it comes to countries, the USA remain the biggest R&D spender in volume. With regards to companies the biggest R&D spenders are Volkswagen, Samsung and Intel. The study also includes a list of Most Innovative Companies, as perceived by respondents of an additional stakeholder survey. According to this study, Apple is the most innovative company, followed by Google and Tesla.

The methodology consists of both quantitative and qualitative elements. Strategy& identified the 1,000 public companies around the world that spent the most on R&D during the fiscal year 2015. The biggest R&D spenders are then coded into one of nine industry sectors and one of five regions. This allows comparisons of R&D spending by industry and location. The qualitative part of the methodology is a survey of 369 innovation leaders from companies worldwide. The questions of this survey are not published. In last year‘s edition of the study the number of people surveyed was higher (505 innovation leaders). While the methodology to identify the biggest R&D spenders is explained in detail, the exact methodology for the Most Innovative Companies perception list remains unclear. It is only said that the most innovative companies are chosen by the participants of the survey.

In summary, the ranking is a partially useful tool to analyze the quantitative distribution of R&D spending by regions and industries. The high credibility of Strategy& and the media outlet (among others Fortune) give it awareness and relevance. On the other hand there are methodological weaknesses and intransparencies. For example, it is not totally clear how the most innovative companies list is established and only the top 10 ranks are published. A bigger list would be more convincing. Moreover, the survey is not described in detail. Therefore, one must come to the conclusion that the predominant intention of this ranking is to raise awareness for Strategy& and their consultancy services.

The full results can be accessed here.

Relevance / Impact
– 11 points –

Added Value / Insights
– 9 points –

Trustworthiness / Intention
– 11 points –

Methodology
– 9 points –

Aggregated points
– 40 (out of 60) –

51–60
points

Highly valuable ranking

41–50
points

Useful ranking with some flaws

30–40
points

Partially useful ranking with considerable flaws

< 30
points

Useless ranking

Reach of publication:

Global, e.g. North America, Europe and Asia (5 points)
Regional, e.g. Europe or North America (3 points)
Large national market: e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil (2 points)
Mid-sized or small market, e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Singapore (1 point)

Ranking will be recognized by key stakeholders:

Opinion Leaders (Politicians, Professors; NGO’s) (2 points)
Business Advisory Board, C-Level Executives (CEO, CCO, CFO, CMO) (2 points)
High Potentials & Top Talents (employer market, students) (2 points)
Financial Market (2 points)
General Public (2 points)

Aggregated points: 11 (of max. 15)

Is the owner providing the ranking a credible and trustworthy organization?

Ranking owner has limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
Ranking owner has fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
Ranking owner has excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

What is the ranking owner’s intention to produce and disseminate the ranking?

Ranking is predominantly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (1 point)
Ranking is partly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (3 points)
Ranking is predominantly a tool to surface and share important insights on the subject surveyed. (5 points)

Is/Are the media outlet(s) where the ranking is published of high credibility and reputation?

Media outlet(s) has/have limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
Media outlet(s) has/have fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
Media outlet(s) has/have excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

Comment: Among others Fortune which has excellent credibility and reputation published an article on the ranking.

Aggregated points: 11 (of max. 15)

Do the ranking results provide overall orientation where companies stand?

limited orientation only (1 point)
fair orientation provided (3 points)
very good orientation (5 points)

Comment: Comparisons by industry and geographic region possible for the mere quantitative R&D spendings, but no comparisons are possible when it comes to the perception part, i.e. innovation reputation, as these figures are not revealed (only the top 10).

Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?

ranking is published for the first time (1 point)
ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)
ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)

Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?

limited added value only (1 point)
fair amount of added value (3 points)
high amount of added value (5 points)

Aggregated points: 9 (of max. 15)

Is the ranking based on a representative survey among key stakeholders or on a jury only?

Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)
Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)
Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)

Comment: Ranking is based on quantitative numbers and a survey of 369 innovation leaders worldwide.

Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?

Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)
Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)
Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)

Comment: While the methodology for the top R&D spenders is good to understand and reasonable it remains rather unclear how the Most Innovative Companies are identified.

Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?

Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)
Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)
Methodology very easy to find and of high transparency. (5 points)

Comment: Methodology for top R&D spenders is explained in detail. Methodology for the Most Innovative Companies is not explained. No details on survey questions.

Aggregated points: 9 (of max. 15)

Ranking category