8158.0 - Innovation in Australian Business, 2012-13 Quality Declaration 
Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 21/08/2014   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All RSS Feed RSS Bookmark and Share Search this Product

INNOVATION-ACTIVE BUSINESSES AND COLLABORATION


Measuring collaboration provides insight into the linkages between businesses, particularly innovation-active businesses and other organisations. Linkages are important in understanding the business dynamics of initiating pooled undertakings of innovation. Collaboration is defined as the arrangement where businesses work together for mutual benefit, including some sharing of technical and commercial risk. Each participant in the collaboration did not need to benefit commercially. The BCS collected from all businesses the type of collaborative arrangement businesses were involved in; and for innovation-active businesses, whether that collaboration was for innovation purposes, and if so, the type of organisation they had collaborated with and the location of that organisation.

TYPE OF COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENT

All businesses were asked what type of collaborative arrangements they had been involved in during the year ended 30 June 2013. More than one type of collaborative arrangement could be selected, including both other collaborative arrangements and no collaborative arrangements. The focus in this release is on innovation-active businesses and their collaborative arrangements, while the complete data for all businesses will be released as part of Selected Characteristics of Australian Business, 2012-13 (cat. no. 8167.0).

INNOVATION-ACTIVE BUSINESSES: Type of collaborative arrangement(a)(b), by employment size, 2012-13

0-4 persons
5-19 persons
20-199 persons
200 or more persons
Total
%
%
%
%
%

Joint research and development
4.8
3.5
6.0
16.1
4.6
Joint buying
2.3
2.9
3.9
9.3
2.8
Joint production of goods or services
4.5
4.9
4.6
14.4
4.8
Integrated supply chain
0.9
2.0
3.1
10.5
1.7
Joint marketing or distribution
5.7
7.5
6.2
14.2
6.5
Other collaborative arrangements
0.4
1.8
1.9
2.9
1.1
Any collaborative arrangements
12.6
14.7
16.1
38.4
14.0
No collaborative arrangements
87.4
85.3
83.9
61.6
86.0

(a) Proportions are of innovation-active businesses in each output category.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one type of collaboration and they were not required to indicate if the type of collaboration was for innovation or general business purposes.


Of all innovation-active businesses, 14% had at least one type of collaborative arrangement during the year ended 30 June 2013. Joint marketing or distribution was the most common of the collaborative arrangements listed, at 6%.

The likelihood of a business having any collaborative arrangements increased with each successive employment size range, from 13% of businesses with 0-4 persons employed to 38% of businesses with 200 or more persons employed. Although businesses with 0-4 persons employed were most commonly involved in joint marketing or distribution (6%), the largest employment size range had twice the proportion of businesses involved in this type of collaborative arrangement (14%).

By industry, the proportion of businesses involved in at least one type of collaborative arrangement ranged from 7% of businesses in the Construction industry to 28% of businesses in the Mining industry. Businesses in the Transport, postal and warehousing industry were the most likely to be involved in an integrated supply chain (6%).


COLLABORATION PARTNERS

Businesses with any innovative activity during 2012-13 were asked to indicate the type and location of the business(es) they collaborated with for the purpose of innovation. Businesses could select more than one type of organisation and were asked to indicate if that organisation was located within Australia or overseas. Overall, clients, customers or buyers were the most common collaboration partners for innovation-active businesses in any location, at 44%.

INNOVATION-ACTIVE BUSINESSES: Collaboration for innovation(a)(b), by location of organisation, by type of organisation collaborated with, 2012-13

Within Australia
Overseas
Any location
%
%
%

Another business owned by the same company
18.5
4.0
22.4
Clients, customers or buyers
42.1
5.9
43.8
Suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software
36.3
9.6
42.1
Competitors and other businesses from the same industry
21.3
1.9
22.4
Consultants
27.1
2.3
28.4
Universities or other higher education institutions
9.7
-
9.7
Other research institutions:
Private non-profit
1.9
-
1.9
Government/public
5.0
np
5.0
Commercial
5.5
0.5
5.5
Government agencies (excluding government research institutions)
6.4
np
6.4
Other organisations
5.1
0.8
5.9

- nil or rounded to zero (including null cells)
np not available for publication but included in totals where applicable, unless otherwise indicated
(a) Proportions are of innovation-active businesses that reported collaboration for innovative purposes.
(b) Businesses could identify more than one location and/or type of organisation.


For the purposes of innovation, businesses were more likely to have collaborated with any of the listed organisations within Australia, rather than from overseas. Within Australia, the most common collaboration partners were clients, customers or buyers (42%), while the most common overseas were suppliers of equipment, materials, components or software (10%).

The likelihood of collaboration with consultants within Australia increased with each successive employment size range, from 23% of businesses with 0-4 persons employed to 56% of businesses with 200 or more persons employed.

Within Australia, more than nine in ten innovation-active businesses in the Transport, postal and warehousing industry had collaborated with clients, customers or buyers (96%). Over one in five businesses in the Construction industry collaborated with universities or other higher education institutions, while 16% of businesses in the Health care and social assistance industry collaborated with government agencies. The proportion of businesses that had either of these two collaboration partners during the year ended 30 June 2013 was relatively low across the remainder of the industry groups.