INNOVATION ACTIVITIES
CHAPTER 5: INNOVATION ACTIVITIES
5.8 Government Support
74
NATIONAL SURVEY OF INNOVATION 2015
Table 5.14 Effects of Marketing and Organisational Innovation Based on Business Sectors
Effect of Marketing and Organisational Innovation Mean
Manufacturing Services Reduced time to respond to customer or supplier needs 2.32 2.22
Improved quality of goods or services 2.46 2.42
Reduced cost per unit of output or services 2.08 1.95
Improved employee satisfaction and / or reduced rates of
employee turnover 0.41 0.29
Total Average Mean 1.82 1.72
Note: Mean indicator: 0 = Not relevant, 1= Least important, 2= Moderately important, 3 = Highly important
On the perspective of the effect on marketing and organisational innovation both manufacturing and services sectors indicate almost similar trend of responses (Table 5.14 and Figure 5.22).
The most unfavorable effect is on employee satisfaction/reduced rates of employee turnover for both sectors with a mean of 0.41 and 0.29 for manufacturing and services respectively. Other effects considered favorable are reduced response time to customers and suppliers i.e. 2.32 and 2.22 for manufacturing and services respectively, improved quality of goods and services with a mean of 2.46 for manufacturing and 2.42 for services, and reduced cost per unit output with 2.08 for manufacturing and 1.95 for services.
Total average mean of the four aspects of effects of Marketing and Organisational Innovation is 1.82 for manufacturing and 1.72 for services with overall mean of 1.77. This data indicates the important influences that marketing and organisational innovations have on both business sectors.
Figure 5.22 Effects of Marketing and Organisational Innovation Based on Business Sectors
Note: Mean indicator: 0 = Not relevant, 1= Least important, 2= Moderately important, 3 = Highly important
75
On comparison of the effects by marketing and organisational innovation on large, medium and small business enterprises for both sectors, the data did not reflect much difference with a mean average of between 1.88 to highest of 2.57 for first three effects. The exception was employee satisfaction with an average mean of between 0.25 and 0.48 (refer to Figure 5.23).
Figure 5.23 Comparison on Effects of Marketing and Organisational Innovation
Note: Mean indicator: 0 = Not relevant, 1= Least important, 2= Moderately important, 3 = Highly important
76
NATIONAL SURVEY OF INNOVATION 2015
Table 5.15 Government Support on Innovation Activities: Manufacturing Sector Types of
Government Support
Yes No
N % a % b % c % d % Total
“No” (%) Technical
consultancy
services 128 27.29 188 40.09 46 9.81 41 8.74 66 14.07 72.71 Technical support
services 144 30.70 182 38.81 42 8.96 35 7.46 66 14.07 69.30 Duty free to
import machinery
or equipment 48 10.23 211 44.99 51 10.87 59 12.58 100 21.32 89.77 Commercialisation
of R&D fund 53 11.30 211 44.99 55 11.73 48 10.23 102 21.75 88.70 Tax incentive 135 28.78 167 35.61 27 5.76 40 8.53 100 21.32 71.22 R&D grant 124 26.44 181 38.59 19 4.05 36 7.68 109 23.24 73.56 Innovation grant 49 10.45 210 44.78 34 7.25 57 12.15 119 25.37 89.55
Notes:
N = Frequency (number of companies)
a. Company is not aware of the incentive available
b. The process of getting the assistance is too complicated and takes a long time c. The incentives offered does not cover company activities
d. Other reason
Table 5.16 Government Support on Innovation Activities: Services Sector Types of
Government Support
Yes No
N % a % b % c % d % Total
“No” (%) Technical
consultancy
services 154 20.70 313 42.07 26 3.49 124 16.67 127 17.07 79.30 Technical support
services 72 9.68 358 48.12 25 3.36 159 21.37 130 17.47 90.32 Duty free to
import machinery
or equipment 28 3.76 326 43.82 34 4.57 211 28.36 145 19.49 96.24 Commercialisation
of R&D fund 23 3.09 360 48.39 25 3.36 187 25.13 149 20.03 96.91 Tax incentive 42 5.65 369 49.60 23 3.09 172 23.12 138 18.55 94.35 R&D grant 75 10.08 328 44.09 75 10.08 128 17.20 138 18.55 89.92 Innovation grant 25 3.36 367 49.33 36 4.84 175 23.52 141 18.95 96.64
Notes:
N = Frequency (number of companies)
a. Company is not aware of the incentive available
b. The process of getting the assistance is too complicated and takes a long time c. The incentives offered does not cover company activities
d. Other reason
77
Figure 5.24 Government Support on Innovation Activities Based on Business Sectors
Figure 5.25 Reasons for Not Getting Government Support
Figure 5.26 shows the comparison for government support received by companies. The findings indicated that large companies (28.07%) and small companies (26.94%) received the largest government support for innovation grant. Tax incentive is counted as second largest government support for large (21.05%) and medium companies (22.42%) followed by duty free importation of machine/equipment for all companies. Medium companies received the highest support for the duty free importation of machine/equipment followed by large and small companies (20.61%, 18.42% and 17.48% respectively).
CHAPTER 5: INNOVATION ACTIVITIES
77
Figure 5.24 Government Support on Innovation Activities Based on Business Sectors
Figure 5.25 Reasons for Not Getting Government Support
Figure 5.26 shows the comparison for government support received by companies. The findings indicated that large companies (28.07%) and small companies (26.94%) received the largest government support for innovation grant. Tax incentive is counted as second largest government support for large (21.05%) and medium companies (22.42%) followed by duty free importation of machine/equipment for all companies. Medium companies received the highest support for the duty free importation of machine/equipment followed by large and small companies (20.61%, 18.42% and 17.48% respectively).
CHAPTER 5: INNOVATION ACTIVITIES
78
NATIONAL SURVEY OF INNOVATION 2015
Figure 5.26 Comparison of Government Support Received Based on Company Size
79
Box 8: Product and Process Innovations - Metahub Industries Sdn. Bhd.
Metahub Industries Sdn. Bhd. is among the largest recycler and full time waste management companies in the state of Johor, Malaysia. The company is licensed to treat and recycle industrial waste through its fully integrated and proprietary recycling technology that effectively turn diverse industrial waste stream into environmentally friendly alternative solution.
The company started this business when it realised that production rejects and electronic wastes are considered scheduled waste which could not simply be dumped, but has to be treated �irst. The company saw this scheduled waste treatment as a business opportunity in early 1990s in Melaka. The Johor plant is the second site for the company.
Previously, the working method is heating and direct labour manhandling of the printed circuit boards (PCBs) to extract products, but the company had just carried out a process innovation using a new crystalliser method. This method crystalises and simpli�ies the metal extraction process, which reduces labour, time and process steps. The amount of extraction also increases with this new method.
The extracted products especially the metals are normally sold as metal ingots. However, as the �ibre products are too cheap to sell as they are, the company had sought a programme to �ind potential use for this �ibre waste. Presently the company had managed to process the �ibre waste into powdered �ibre, which could then be used as raw material for plastic products using the injection molding technology. Subsequently, the company had innovated prototypes of a few products that it intends to produce in due time. It has also invested about RM500,000.00 in production facilities and machineries to produce the products.
Based on the company’s innovativeness, it has been awarded and recognised implementing innovation and marketing process. Besides being an certi�ied ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 14000:2004 company, it also received InnoCERT and Malaysian Brand Certi�ication Scheme in 2012 and 2013 respectively.
CHAPTER 5: INNOVATION ACTIVITIES
80
NATIONAL SURVEY OF INNOVATION 2015