Management, Organization and Innovation Survey 2009
Enterprise Survey [en/oth]
The Management, Organization and Innovation (MOI) survey is a joint initiative of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the World Bank Group, building on the work of and in close cooperation with Nicholas Bloom and John Van Reenen. The MOI survey was undertaken for the first time in 2008-2009, covering 1,777 manufacturing enterprises in 12 countries: Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Germany as a developed country benchmark and India as a developing country benchmark.
The objective of the survey is to measure and compare management practices across countries, to assess the constraints to private sector growth and enterprise performance resulting from management practices and to stimulate policy dialogue on the management practices and innovation and to help shape the agenda for reform.
The Survey uses a standardized survey instrument and a uniform sampling methodology to minimize measurement error and to yield data that are comparable across the economies. The MOI survey questionnaire partly overlaps with the EBRD and World Bank Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS) questionnaire, which makes it possible to use BEEPS variables in the analysis (for example, by matching the establishments on characteristics such as industry, number of employees and region). None of the establishments participated in both BEEPS and MOI survey.
The study was conducted in Lithuania between October 2008 and January 2009 as part of the first round of The Management, Organization and Innovation Survey. Data from 100 manufacturing companies with 50 to 5,000 full-time employees was analyzed.
The survey topics include detailed information about a company and its management practices - production performance indicators, production target, ways employees are promoted/dealt with when underperforming. The study also focuses on organizational matters, innovation, spending on research and development, production outsourcing to other countries, competition, and workforce composition.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Unit of Analysis
The primary sampling unit of the study is the establishment. An establishment is a physical location where business is carried out and where industrial operations take place or services are provided. A firm may be composed of one or more establishments. For example, a brewery may have several bottling plants and several establishments for distribution. For the purposes of this survey an establishment is defined as a separate production unit, regardless of whether or not it has its own financial statements separate from those of the firm, and whether it has it own management and control over payroll. So the bottling plant of a brewery would be counted as an establishment.
The survey universe was defined as manufacturing establishments with at least fifty, but less than 5,000, full-time employees.
Producers and sponsors
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Assistance in survey implementation
Random sampling was used in the study. For all MOI countries, except Russia, there was a requirement that all regions must be covered and that the percentage of the sample in each region was required to be equal to at least one half of the percentage of the sample frame population in each region.
In most countries the sample frame used was an extract from the Orbis database of Bureau van Dijk, which was provided to the Consultant by the EBRD. The sample frame contained details of company names, location, company size (number of employees), company performance measures and contact details. The sample frame downloaded from Orbis was cleaned by the EBRD through the addition of regional variables, updating addresses and phone numbers of companies.
Examination of the Orbis sample frames showed their geographic distributions to be wide with many locations, a large number of which had only a small number of records. Each establishment was selected with two substitutes that can be used if it proves impossible to conduct an interview at the first establishment. In practice selection was confined to locations with the most records in the sample frame, so the sample frame was filtered to just the cities with the most establishments.
The quality of the frame was assessed at the onset of the project. The frame proved to be useful though it showed positive rates of non-eligibility, repetition, non-existent units, etc. These problems are typical of establishment surveys. For Lithuania, the percentage of confirmed non-eligible units as a proportion of the total number of contacts to complete the survey was 10.7% (49 out of 460 establishments).
Item non-response was addressed by two strategies:
For sensitive questions that may generate negative reactions from the respondent, such as ownership information, enumerators were instructed to collect the refusal to respond as (-8).
Establishments with incomplete information were re-contacted in order to complete this information, whenever necessary. However, there were clear cases of low response.
Survey non-response was addressed by maximising efforts to contact establishments that were initially selected for interviews. Up to 15 attempts (but at least 4 attempts) were made to contact an establishment for interview at different times/days of the week before a replacement establishment (with similar characteristics) was suggested for interview. Survey non-response did occur, but substitutions were made in order to potentially achieve the goals.
Additional information about sampling, response rates and survey implementation can be found in "MOI Survey Report on Methodology and Observations 2009" in "Technical Documents" folder.
Two different versions of the questionnaire were used. Questionnaire A was used when interviewing establishments that are part of multiestablishment firms, while Questionnaire B was used when interviewing single-establishment firms. Questionnaire A incorporates all questions from Questionnaire B, the only difference is in the reference point, which is the so-called national firm in the first part of Questionnaire A and firm in Questionnaire B. Second part of the questionnaire refers to the interviewed establishment only in both Questionnaire A and Questionnaire B. Each variation of the questionnaire is identified by the index variable, a0.
Dates of Data Collection
Additional information about methodology and survey implementation, including supervision, can be found in "MOI Survey Report on Methodology and Observations 2009" in "Technical Documents" folder.
Data Collection Notes
The surveys were implemented following a two-stage procedure. In the first stage, a screener questionnaire was applied over the phone to determine eligibility and to make appointments; in the second stage, a face-to-face interview took place with the factory/production/operations manager of each establishment.
Is signing of a confidentiality declaration required?
Confidentiality declaration text
Confidentiality of the survey respondents and the sensitive information they provide is necessary to ensure the greatest degree of survey participation, integrity and confidence in the quality of the data. Surveys are usually carried out in cooperation with business organizations and government agencies promoting job creation and economic growth, but confidentiality is never compromised.
Firm-level data is available to the public free-of-charge. In order to access the firm-level data, users must agree to abide by a strict confidentiality agreement available through Enterprise Analysis Unit website by clicking on "External users register here" at https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/Portal
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.