Notes

^1.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Eurostat (2005), Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 2^nd Edition. Paris; OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/oslomanual.

^2.

Definitions of Standard Statistical Units. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca /english/concepts/stat-unit-def.htm.

^3.

Details on the Survey of Innovation 2005 are available on the Statistics Canada web site at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/4218.htm.

^4.

As the sample drawn for the Survey of Innovation 2005 was only one of many possible samples that could have been drawn using probability sampling methods, a sampling error can be attributed to each estimate. Standard errors combined with imputation rates have been used to provide a guide as to the reliability of percent estimates. The System for Estimating Variance due to Non-response and Imputation program (SEVANI) was used to complete these calculations. For the Survey of Innovation 2005, a 95% confidence interval was used in the probability sample scheme.

^5.

Respondents could indicate a "yes", "no" or "do not know" response. The results presented reflect the percentage of plants that indicated "yes".

^6.

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance as either high, medium or low or if the source was not relevant. The descriptive text portion of this document and the accompanying charts will make a distinction between those items deemed of high importance and those that were deemed "important" (high, medium or low importance).

^7.

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance as either high, medium or low importance or indicate if an impact was not relevant. The descriptive text portion of this document and the accompanying charts will make a distinction between those impacts deemed of high importance and those that were deemed "important" (either high, medium or low importance).

^8.

Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of revenue in 2004 that came from other plants in their firm. If the plant was not part of a larger firm, the value was set to zero.

^9.

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of the obstacle as either high, medium or low importance or that the obstacle was not relevant. The descriptive text portion of this document and the accompanying charts will make a distinction between those obstacles deemed of high importance and those that were deemed "important" (either high, medium or low importance)

^10.

Licenses for software under $1000 are excluded.

^11.

Respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of their plant's total expenditure on each of the three items that were supplied from seven geographic locations including: the plant's province or territory; the rest of Canada; United States; Mexico; Europe; Asia Pacific; and all other countries. Suppliers were identified when percentages were greater than 0%. For suppliers of raw materials and components, and suppliers of new machinery or equipment, respondents were directed to include suppliers that were part of their larger firm. For contracted out R&D services respondents were asked to not include R&D carried out on their behalf by other plants and R&D units in their larger firm.

^12.

Respondents were able to select multiple markets from where they had expenditures, the total of the percentages may add to more than one hundred. This also applies to the purchasing of machinery and equipment and contracting out of R&D services.