• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2010.002 1018-02
 

2010.002 1018-02

on

  • 290 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
290
Views on SlideShare
227
Embed Views
63

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 63

http://www.swaip.me 61
http://swaip.me 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2010.002 1018-02 2010.002 1018-02 Document Transcript

    • The Dutch software sectorSurvey 2010Commissioned by:ICT~OfficeProject:2010.002Publication number:2010.002-1018Date:October 18, 2010Authors:Robbin te VeldeJaap VeldkampMarijn PlompVal Kidd (translation)
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 3ContentsSummary .................................................................................................... 51 Introduction.......................................................................................... 71.1 Reasons and aims of this study................................................................... 71.2 The software sector in the Netherlands ........................................................ 72 Economic indicators .............................................................................. 92.1 Scope of the software sector ...................................................................... 92.2 Sources of revenue ..................................................................................142.3 Division of labour .....................................................................................183 Types of products................................................................................ 213.1 Differences between product and tailor-made software .................................213.2 Number of software products.....................................................................223.3 Characteristics of software products and services.........................................223.4 Share of SaaS .........................................................................................253.5 Open source & hybrid software ..................................................................254 Innovation .......................................................................................... 294.1 WBSO scheme .........................................................................................294.2 New products ..........................................................................................315 International context .......................................................................... 335.1 Export ....................................................................................................335.2 Nearshoring & offshoring software developments .........................................346 The software sector from a wider perspective .................................... 376.1 Software outside SBI 62*..........................................................................377 Method................................................................................................ 397.1 Motivation...............................................................................................397.2 Population and sample..............................................................................397.3 Procedure for conducting the survey...........................................................417.4 Response ................................................................................................41Bijlage I | Online questionnaire EN........................................................... 43Bijlage II | Letter to respondents ............................................................. 47
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 5SummaryThe software sector - Facts and Figures The software sector1is a fully-fledged and significant economic sector in the Netherlands, with aturnover of 25 billion2euros and gross added value of 17.3 billion euros. The sector contributesto 2.8% of the Netherlands‟ economy (GNP). This added value is at least as high as most keyareas defined by the Innovation Platform as strategic sectors in which the Netherlands excels atinternational level both in knowledge and in commercial activities. The value of software sales is in fact even higher because a great deal of software is developedand sold by companies that formally do not come under the definition of software sector asapplied by CBS (Netherlands Statistics). If these activities are included in the calculation, theextent of added value could rise to 24.3 billion euros. That would account for a 3.9%contribution to the national economy (GNP). Companies in the Netherlands achieve a turnover of 10.2 billion euros from selling softwaredeveloped in-house. We are talking about product and tailor-made software (9.4 billion) as wellas embedded software (0.8 billion). Programming for third parties accounts for another 4.0billion euros. Implementation, testing, management, and maintenance contribute 3.8 billioneuros to the total sales. These are the main activities focused on by companies that generate revenue especially fromthe development and sales of software. Although software consultancy seems to be stronglylinked with the production of software, the production of software is not interwoven withconsultancy. The software sector has 192,000 full-time employees, of whom 68,000 are employed full-timein software development and 14,000 in research and development (R&D). The proportion ofR&D is highest among software producers, at 8 to 9 percent.Characteristics of software products It is often thought that the Netherlands develops mainly tailor-made software. The annualturnover in this sector is 5.5 billion euros. However, sales of product software in this countryalso amount to 3.9 billion euro. The larger the company, the higher its share of productsoftware. Based on the number of companies in the software sector producing software, it is estimatedthat in 2010 there are between 30,000 and 35,000 software products on the Dutch market. At least three-quarters of all software is developed or commissioned by the companiesthemselves. The remaining quarter is made up of components developed by third parties andembedded in their own software. Of the external components, 54% come from closed sourcelicences and 46% from open source licences.1This study refers to the software sector as businesses in the CBS (Netherlands Statistics) category„service activities in the field of information technology‟ (SBI category 62), with the exception of thosemanaging computer facilities (SBI 6203).2One billion is 109or 1,000,000,000.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie6 A quarter of the companies in the software sector has end products or services which arepartially or entirely open source. Many companies that provide open source products also offertailor-made services included. Currently the services supplied by SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) account for 15% of softwaresales.Innovation The software sector is R&D-intensive as illustrated by the percentage of labour capacity devotedto research and development (software producers = 9%) and by the percentage of applicationsfor innovation subsidies under the WBSO R&D Promotion Act (13.5% of the total). Companiesthat use a relatively large amount of open source software carry out more research anddevelopment than others. The innovativeness of the software sector is demonstrated by the fact that 23% of the turnoverof companies in this sector is generated by new or improved products. The general average inthe Netherlands is 10%. There is still much potential for growth in the software sector through innovation subsidies: infact smaller SMEs and open source businesses make relatively little use of the fiscal supportprovided by the WBSO scheme. Companies that derive a relatively large proportion of their revenue from new products usemuch of their capacity for R&D; they make profit mainly by selling software developed in-house;they supply software products and make relatively frequent use of SaaS constructions.International context The Dutch software sector is strongly focused on the domestic market. Alongside this, exportgenerates revenues of 1.93 billion euros from abroad. The largest share of this amount iscontributed by product software companies. Two-thirds of the total software sector exports go to Western Europe and more than 20% isexported to North America. Of all the software developed by companies in the Netherlands, 7.9% is produced abroad, halfof which (4%) in their own subsidiaries. Offshoring plays a rather insignificant role in theexpansion of Dutch software, accounting for only 2.6% of total software development.Software from a wider perspective The „virtualisation‟ of physical products (which contain increasingly more software) and selling ofstandardized services as software products are trends which will increase the proportion ofsoftware-intensive companies outside the sector. However these are not included in the officialstatistics on software production in the Netherlands. Throughout the economy we can see other organizations that create software products orservices for internal use. The importance of software in and for the Dutch economy is manytimes greater than the scale of the software sector itself. Further research is required to analyze the economic value of this software from a widerperspective. Such studies should aim to map the software intensity in other sectors than thesoftware sector in order to provide insight into the actual contribution software makes to theeconomy.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 71 Introduction1.1 Reasons and aims of this studyIn its 2008 report on the Dutch software product sector, the trade association ICT Officestated that it is difficult to ascertain the added value of the software sector in theNetherlands due to the lack of validated data.3CBS figures provide further insight into thescope of the Dutch ICT sector, with fewer details of its structure. The data required to assessthe specifically significant contribution of software development, sales and services to theDutch economy is not available. CBS has neither the capacity nor the means to conductmore in-depth research on this topic.For this reason ICT~Office contracted consultancy firm Dialogic to initiate a study of thescope and economic significance of the software sector for the Netherlands, also looking athow the various software activities are organized. This would also give additional depth tothe basic data collated by CBS.In Finland annual surveys have been carried out for some time to determine the impact ofthe development and sales of software and its services on the Finnish economy.4Thesesurveys also formed the basis for the questionnaires used in the Dutch study.1.2 The software sector in the NetherlandsIt is important to distinguish the various sectors within the ICT industry. They range fromcompanies providing hardware and office technology, software and services, to telecommu-nication. The scope of the hardware industry is relatively limited in the Netherlands, certainlyin comparison with countries such as Finland, South Korea and Japan. On the other hand,Finland‟s software sector is small compared to its hardware industry. Comparisons betweeninternational ICT sectors such as those carried out by OECD do not reveal the hugedifferences that exist between various countries. 5This is one of the reasons why weconcentrate specifically on the software sector in this report.Outside the ICT industry, software is produced by very many companies in a number ofsectors of industry. Some of these are controlled by the businesses themselves (for examplefinancial institutions and logistics companies) while for others, selling software or services isa side-line. Therefore it is important to indicate clearly which companies do and whichcompanies do not belong to the software sector.For the purposes of this study, our use of the term „software sector‟ is confined to: all theorganizations which are classified in the category defined by CBS as providing serviceactivities in the field of information technology, with the exception of managing computerfacilities. In terms of the standard CBS codes, this applies to all businesses in the categorySBI 62*, but excluding SBI 6203. Table 1 provides a detailed overview of all the categoriesincluded in this study. The figures in the graphs and tables presented in the following3ICT~Office (2008). See report highlighting great software opportunities „Software als product: grotekansen voor een klein land‟.4Helsinki University of Technology, National Software Survey 2009, http://www.sbl.tkk.fi/oskari.5See e.g. the OECD Key ICT Indicators (Share of ICT value added in the business sector 1995 & 2006).
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie8sections refer to the SBI codes shown in Table 1. Our definition is confined to coveringbusinesses which are active in software and services. This study does not take into accounthardware, office technology, and telecommunication or organizations that produce softwarebut are not registered as information technology companies.Table 1. Codes for the main ICT activities based on SBI 2008Description SBI codeService activities in the field of information technology 62*Develop, produce and market software 6201Develop, produce and market standard (product) software 620101Develop and produce tailor-made software 620102Information technology consultancy 6202Hardware consultancy 620201Software consultancy 620202Other service activities in information technology 6209Implementation of software 620901Other services in information technology 620909Before the start of this study, details of the scope and economic value of the software sectorin the Netherlands were only available at aggregate level. There was no information on thetype of activities and how these are organized. In order to obtain this information, Dialogicconducted a survey aimed directly at individual companies. The aggregated data enabled usto assess not only the scope and value of the software sector but also how it is structured.The method employed is described in detail in Chapter 7.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 92 Economic indicators2.1 Scope of the software sectorEvery organization which conducts commercial activities in the Netherlands has to be registered withthe Dutch Chamber of Commerce. The register uses the same classification as CBS. In principle it ispossible to identify directly the number of companies operating in the software sector (SBI code62*). Once the source files were cleaned and the list of ICT~Office members added, this resulted in atotal of 24,370 companies.6These companies are spread all over the Netherlands.7The figure below plots on the map of theNetherlands all the companies in the (representative) sample. The colour of the dots illustrates thenumber of companies established in each area - the darker the dot, the higher the concentration.The higher concentrations are especially found around (technical) universities. Another remarkableobservation is the high concentration running along the border between the provinces of Utrecht andGelderland. This is a legacy of the Baan empire.6The addresses extracted from the Chamber of Commerce data base were restricted to the head offices ofcompanies actively operating in the sector (thus no associations or foundations). An additional random survey(n=250) of the latter dimension was conducted in order to check if the company in question had an operationalwebsite or could be found in any way on-line (for example via LinkedIn-profiles). This proved to be the case for80% of the companies. That is why the results have been multiplied by the factor 0.8.7A closer look at the distribution of companies in each central economic activity reveals hardly any clustering.Thus companies who mainly sell software developed in-house (SBI 6201*) are located throughout the country.However it is remarkable that companies whose core activity is “selling the products they have developed withsubstantial embedded software” are mostly located in the North-East of the Netherlands. It should however beborne in mind that this group of companies is relatively small (n=20) and for the purposes of this study, wewere not able to verify how this represents the overall distribution of companies throughout the Netherlands.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie10Figure 1: Distribution of software companies in the Netherlands (SBI 62*, n=721)Based on the results of our study, the total turnover in the Dutch software sector can be estimatedat 26 billion euros. Compare this to CBS, who in 2008 came up with a total turnover of 23.1 billioneuros from 22,560 companies; and to Finland, where as previously stated the ICT industrycontributes significantly to the national economy, the total turnover for 2008 amounted to 3.1 billioneuros. In terms of GNP values, this boils down to 9.4 billion euros – still just 40% of the turnover inthe Netherlands.The total number of persons employed full-time in the software sector is 192,068. That number ishigher than the total figure provided by CBS – 162,300 fte. This is due to the fact that the number ofsmall and medium sized enterprises (5-50 persons) is over-represented in our sample.The overall distribution of employment in companies is highly skewed. Two-thirds of the companieshave only one full-time employee. Together they account for 7.9% of employment.8The companieswith 500 fte or more account for 29.3%. This skewed distribution can also be interpreted differently:considering the large number of very small companies, there is still a great deal of potential forgrowth.8The break-down according to size of company is based on CBS figures (2009). The CBS total (22,560) istherefore the equivalent of 1.19 fte per company. The average is higher than 1.0 fte because CBS does notinclude very small businesses (<0.5 fte) in their total figure.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 11The added value can be calculated based on turnover. The gross added value is turnover minuspurchasing costs (including sourcing external staff) and is a measure of how much a sector ofindustry contributes to the national economy. Because the other costs stated by CBS reflect arelatively higher percentage of turnover compared to that of the respondents in Dialogic‟s survey -and the net added value is almost equal – the gross added value according to CBS is lower thanDialogic. The total amounts are respectively 12.8 and 17.3 billion, or 2.2% versus 2.8% of grossnational product.11.4%10.5%44.1%58.4% 9.2%44.5%21.8%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%CBSDialogic Net added valueCosts of employeeSourcingexternal staffOtherFigure 2: Division of turnover and costs, SBI 6201, 6202 & 6209, Dialogic (2010) and CBS (2008)Table 2. Overview of the software sector’s contribution to the Dutch economyDialogic(2010)SBI 2008CBS(2008)SBI 1993Turnover (million euro) 25,024 23,137Number of companies 24,370 22,5609Jobs (fte) 192,068 162,300Turnover per employee (euro) 130,287 142,,54Gross added value 17,267 12.837Gross added value (% GNP) 2.8% 2.2%Net added value (% turnover) 10.5% 11.4%9The latest SBI classification of companies is available already as is the 2009 data. The total number ofcompanies in category SBI 62* (excluding SBI 6203) is 22,560. CBS does not count one-man companies withless than 1 fte (4.2% of the total jobs). If we do include these companies (and keep the average estimate at0.5 fte), this adds another 1,895 companies. The total number of companies then amounts to 24,445 (versusDialogic‟s 24,370).Further comparison of CBS and Dialogic dataThere are variations between the aggregate figures in this study and those provided by CBS.These can be largely explained by the slightly different structure of the sample whereby thecalculations lead to a different final result. Moreover the CBS figures are based on theprevious classification of companies in the SBI category 72* (SBI-1993). There was nocomparable CBS data available yet for the new category 62* (in the new SBI-2008classification) investigated by Dialogic.The distribution applied in the graphs and tables in the following chapters is based onturnover. Dialogic and CBS estimates for total turnover are almost parallel, which validatesthe results of this study. Dialogic‟s turnover figures are applied in the rest of the report.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie12Software is therefore not just significant because it is used in very many sectors of industry, but italso makes a considerable contribution to the Dutch economy as a sector of industry in its own right.Its significance becomes even more apparent if we weigh up the added value of software against theadded value of a number of key areas. These are strategic sectors in which the Netherlands excelsinternationally in knowledge and business activities according to the Innovation Platform.1010For innovation proposals, see Tilburg, R. van, and Bekkers, F. (2004). Voorstellen Sleutelgebieden-aanpak.Ambitie, excellentie en actie. Van dijkgraaf tot art director: voorstellen tot actie van het Innovatieplatform. TheHague : Innovatieplatform.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 13Table 3. Overview of the software sector’s contribution to the Dutch economy compared to other sectorsSector Year as % GNPSoftware sector (Dialogic) 2010 2.8%Key Area:11Chemical industry 2008 2.0-2.5%Creative industry 2008 >3.0%Food & Horticulture 2008 2.5-3.0%Hightech systems & materials 2008 >3.0%Pensions & insurance 2008 2.0-2.5%Water 2008 <1.5%The software sector can be further subdivided into a number of specific sectors. We can distinguishthree categories at the highest level: the core groups of companies that produce their own software(SBI 6201), companies that offer consultancy services (SBI 6202), and companies that implementsoftware and provide other ICT services (SIB 6209).Table 4. Turnover, gross added value, and fte per SBI group (million euros)Label SBIDialogic(2010)%TurnoverSoftware production 6201 € 17,025 68.0%Consultancy 6202 € 6,526 26.1%Other ICT services 6209 € 1,473 5.9%Added value (gross)Software production 6201 € 11,746 68.0%Consultancy 6202 € 4,630 26.8%Other ICT services 6209 € 891 5.2%FteSoftware production 6201 116,429 60.6%Consultancy 6202 62,210 32.4%Other ICTservices 6209 13,429 7.0%11See http://www.innovatieplatform.nl/projecten/Nederland%20in%20de%20Wereld/sleutelgebieden/foto.pdf.A broader perspectiveWhen looking at the figures for the software sector, we should bear in mind that themajority of companies are ICT companies but have not been classified in SBI category62*. They do in fact belong in this category – we will consider this point in more detailin chapter 6. If we include these companies in the original group, the total added valuewill prove to be much higher. This value is then estimated at 24.3 billion euros or 3.9%GNP.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie14Software producing companies (SBI 6201) are by far the largest group. In terms of turnover (17.0billion euros) and gross added value (11.7 billion euros), this group contributes two-thirds of thetotal. Compared to turnover and added value (both 68%), the relatively small proportion ofemployment is lower (61%). The remaining category of „other ICT services‟ is much smaller than thetwo other categories, but proportionally it makes a large contribution to employment.68.0%26.1%5.9%Verdelingomzet obv CBS620162026209Figure 3: Division of turnover68.0%26.8%5.2%Verdeling TW obv omzetverdelingCBS620162026209Figure 4: Division of added value(gross)1260.6%32.4%7.0%VerdelingFTE obv omzetverdelingCBS620162026209Figure 5: Division of fte1345,7%36,0%18,3%Omzet6201620262092.2 Sources of revenueCBS‟s SBI categories distinguish software production, consultancy and implementation. In practice,however, it is not so easy to define in which category an activity belongs. This means that companiesin various categories often conduct more activities simultaneously. Software producers can forexample derive revenue from consultancy and vice versa. Table 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the divisionof revenue from nine different sources.Table 5. Division of nine different sources of income SBI 62* (million euros)Dialogic(2010)%Sales of own software (product or tailor-made software)14€ 9,392 37.5%Sales of products developed in house with substantial embedded software € 803 3.2%Programming for third parties (sourced) € 3,986 15.9%Implementation and/or testing software € 1,533 6.1%Support and/or management and/or (corrective) maintenance of software applications € 2,231 8.9%Other consultancy related to software € 2,225 8.9%Sales of third parties‟ software (Software reseller) € 437 1.7%Other products or services related to the software sector € 1,780 7.1%Other activities not related to the software sector € 2,638 10.5%Total € 25,024 100%12The division of added value is based on the relationship between turnover and added value in the survey, andapplied to CBS added value data.13The division of fte is based on the relationship between turnover and fte in the survey, applied to CBS fte data.14The are various labels being used for the two categories of software. Product software (SBI 620101) is alsocalled „standard software‟ or „commercial software‟. Note that the latter excludes open source softwarewhereas it can be included in the other two definitions. Tailor-made software (SBI 620102) is also called„custom made software‟ or „bespoke software‟. See also Xu, L., & Brinkkemper, S. (2007). Concepts forproduct software. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(5), 531-541.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 1538.8%3.3%16.7%6.0%8.8%8.3%1.5%6.6%9.9%1,Verkoop van door uzelf gerealiseerdesoftware (product- ofmaatwerksoftware)2,Verkoop van door uzelf ontwikkeldeproducten die een substantiëlesoftwarecomponent bevatten(embedded software)3,Programmeerwerk voor derden(inhuur)4,Implementatie en/of testen vansoftware5,Support en/of beheer en/of(correctief) onderhoud vansoftwareapplicaties6,Overige consultancy met betrekkingtot software7,Verkoop van software van derden(software reseller)8,Overige, aan de software-industriegerelateerde producten of diensten9,Overige, niet aan de software-industrie gerelateerde activiteitenSales of software realised in-house (product or tailor-made software)Sales of products developed in-house which contain substantial software components (embedded software)Programming for third parties (hiring)Implementation and/or testing softwareSupport and/or management and/or (corrective) maintenance of software applicationsOther software-related consultancySales of third parties‟ software (software reseller)Other software sector related products or servicesOther activities not related to the software sectorFigure 6: Subdivision of nine various sources of revenue (SBI 62*)You can see from table 5 that the total software sales in the Netherlands amount to 10.2 billion eurosor 41% of the sector‟s total turnover (from the sale of products, tailor-made and embeddedsoftware). That is much lower than the software producing sector‟s share (SBI 6201) as shown infigure 5 (68%). It means that software production has a significant economic knock-on effect. Inother words, software production forms the basis on which other activities such as consultancy andimplementation are founded. Without this basis, such related activities would not exist and the scopeof the software sector would be much smaller.Revenues from production are of course much higher in the software production subsector (SBI6201) than in consultancy (SBI 6202). The opposite naturally applies to revenue from consultancyalthough this revenue is more diversified than for software production. There the emphasis on coreactivities such as the production of embedded software is relatively strong. However even thesoftware producers‟ share (SBI 6201) is no more than 51% and once again this underlines the widerimplications of software production.Table 6. Nine different sources of revenue divided into software production (SBI 6201) and consultancy (SBI 6202) (million euros)Revenue % Revenue %Software production(6201)Consultancy (6202)Sales of software realised in-house (product or tailor-made software) € 7,934 46.6% € 1,207 18.5%Sales of products developed in-house which contain substantial softwarecomponents (embedded software)€ 715 4,2% € 46 0.7%Programming for third parties (hiring) € 3,252 19.1% € 679 10.4%Implementation and/or testing software € 970 5.7% € 437 6.7%Support and/or management and/or (corrective) maintenance of softwareapplications€ 1,209 7.1% € 881 13.5%Other software-related consultancy € 596 3.5% € 1,364 20.9%Sales of third parties‟ software (software reseller) € 119 0.7% € 241 3.7%Other software sector related products or services € 970 5.7% € 594 9.1%Other activities not related to the software sector € 1,260 7.4% € 1,077 16.5%Total € 17,025 100% € 6,526 100%Programming: product or service?According to the regular SBI classification, programming for third parties is considered an activityand as such falls into the category SBI 6202 not SBI 6101. This activity does create a product inthe form of software and therefore should come under SBI 6101. In that case, the importance ofsoftware production as activity increases from 42% to 59%. This also applies to softwareproduction in the category SBI 6201. If we include programming for third parties in softwareproduction, its share rises from 51% to 70%.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie1646,6%4,2%19,1%5,7%7,1%3,5%0,7% 5,7%7,4%1,Verkoop van door uzelf gerealiseerdesoftware (product- ofmaatwerksoftware)2,Verkoop van door uzelf ontwikkeldeproducten die een substantiëlesoftwarecomponent bevatten(embedded software)3,Programmeerwerk voor derden(inhuur)4,Implementatie en/of testen vansoftware5,Support en/of beheer en/of(correctief) onderhoud vansoftwareapplicaties6,Overige consultancy met betrekkingtot software7,Verkoop van software van derden(software reseller)8,Overige, aan de software-industriegerelateerde producten of diensten9,Overige, niet aan de software-industrie gerelateerde activiteitenFigure 7: Subdivision into nine different sources of revenue| software production (SBI 6201)18.5%0.7%10.4%6.7%13.5%20.9%3.7%9.1%16.5%1,Verkoop van door uzesoftware (product- of m2,Verkoop van door uzeproducten die een subssoftwarecomponent besoftware)3,Programmeerwerk vo4,Implementatie en/of5,Support en/of beheeonderhoud van softwar6,Overige consultancysoftware7,Verkoop van software(software reseller)8,Overige, aan de softwgerelateerde producten9,Overige, niet aan degerelateerde activiteiteFigure 8: Subdivision into nine different sources of revenue| consultancy (SBI 6202)If we further subdivide the three main categories, this brings to light a number of differences thatwould otherwise go unnoticed. Alongside software sales, other significant sources of revenue forproducers of product software (SBI 620101) are implementation and testing (12%), and especiallysupport (16%). Revenue from sourcing programming for third parties is the main source ofsecondary income (20%) for producers of tailor-made software (SBI 620102). Certain consultancycompanies‟ activities are distorted because hardware consultancy companies are included in thegrand total of 6202. This has resulted in the importance of software production, support andmanagement in that subcategory being slightly undervalued and software consultancy along withother services related to software actually being slightly overvalued.The difference in company profile is highlighted even more in the following charts. Companies are notgrouped according to their SBI code, but on the basis of the activity that yields their highestrevenue. In general the main activity‟s share is extremely large. For example, in (1) Sales ofsoftware, this share is 88%, which means that companies whose main activity is „software sales‟derive 88% of their revenue from this activity. The shares of (6) Other consultancy (65%) andespecially (5) Support and management (54%) and (4) Implementation and/or testing (51%) arelower. This corresponds with the earlier observation that the distribution of consultancy activities isrelatively high. It is remarkable that in all three types of activities the revenue from software sales isalso relatively high (respectively 11%, 17% and 13%).15Thus consultancy appears to be stronglylinked with the production of software but this does not apply the other way round. Softwareproduction hardly ever goes hand in hand with consultancy (or for that matter with any other activityat all).15CBS ranks (4) “Software implementation and/or testing” in the category SBI 6209 (other services) becausethese are conducted activities not advice (SBI 6202). Conceptually this is a correct classification but in practiceit is not always so straightforward to distinguish between conducting activities and advising. The profiles (4) inTable 6 and Figure 9, however match SBI 6102 better than SBI 6209.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 171: Sales of self-realised software(product or tailor-made)2: Sales of products developed in-house with substantial embeddedsoftware3: Programming for third parties(sourcing)4: Implementation and/or testingsoftware5: Support and/or managementand/or (corrective) maintenance ofsoftware applications6: Other consultancy related tosoftware7: Sales of software to third parties(software reselling)8: Other products or services relatedto the software sector9: Other activities not related to thesoftware sectorFigure 9: Nine different sources of revenue, divided according to the activity which organizations say generates themost revenue(7) Software reselling is an interesting category as it accommodates the most hybrid group ofcompanies. Its core activity – selling third parties‟ software – accounts proportionately for less thanhalf of its total revenue (43%). Support and management (14%) are also the main sources ofrevenue in this category, and to a lesser extent other services related to software (11%).
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie182.3 Division of labourIn order to generate the revenues mentioned in the previous section, companies must obviously firstcarry out activities to provide products and/or services. This is the input or expenditure side and hasbeen determined for the survey by asking companies what proportion of their labour capacity isdevoted to the six activities listed in Table 7. Expenditure is expressed in number of fte not jobs. Themajor activity is software development, which provides a total of 67,888 fte in the Netherlands.Together with implementation (46,612 fte) and support (26,908 fte), the core activities account fornearly three-quarters (74%) of employment.16Table 7. Division of labour (fte) over six types of activities (SBI 62*)CBS(2008)Dialogic(2010)%Software development 57,367 67,888 35.%Implementation 39,388 46,612 24.3%Support 22,737 26,908 14.0%Sales and/or Marketing 15,901 18,818 9.8%R&D 12,063 14,276 7.4%Other 14,843 17,566 9.1%Total 162,300 192,069 100%35.3%24.3%14.0%9.8%7.4% 9.1%6201-02-09Software developmentImplementationSupportSales and/or marketingR&DOtherFigure 10: Subdivision of labour capacity in six types of activities (SBI 6201, 6202, 6209)The major activity of companies producing software (SBI 620101 and 620102) is of course softwaredevelopment. However the proportion is lower than one would initially expect. This is becauseimplementation and support (especially with standard software) are also important activitiesunderpinning software sales. Naturally implementation is the main input activity for companies in thecategory implementation (SBI 620901). The same also applies to consultancies. Once again otherICT services (SBI 620909) are the most hybrid category. Their support activity is relativelysignificant.16The number of employees involved in software development (68,000) is in sharp contrast with the number ofIT students joining the sector every year (ca. 5,000). This is 7% of the total – scarcely enough to meetreplacement demand.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 19Table 8. Labour capacity divided over six activities (expressed in percentages)Software production Consultancy Other servicesstandard tailor-made hardware software implementation other620101 620102 620201 620202 620901 620902Software development 44.8% 51.4% 26.6% 24.6% 23.9% 22.7%Implementation 14.1% 13.3% 37.5% 32.6% 32.2% 27.5%Support 15.3% 10.1% 13.9% 16.7% 11.7% 17.2%Sales and/or marketing 10.% 8.7% 14.3% 9.5% 13.9% 11.0%R & D 8.4% 9.4% 3.9% 6.3% 6.5% 5.5%Other 7.0% 7.1% 3.7% 10.2% 11.9% 16.0%Software development and R&D are quite close. R&D‟s share is indeed highest (8-9%) in softwareproduction (SBI 6201). This scarcely differs from the other categories. In any case it appears thatsoftware producers themselves are definitely able to differentiate clearly between softwaredevelopment and R&D. As anticipated beforehand, the highest percentage of R&D was found intailor-made software (SBI 620102) and here too there are only slight differences.17According to data provided by CBS, the percentage of in-house R&D staff compared to total staffnumbers (expressed in fte) is 3.3%.18This is much lower than the 7.3% for sector 62* in this studydue to the fact that the CBS figures differentiate between staff whereas Dialogic makes adifferentiation in time. Only a handful of companies employ fulltime (dedicated) researchers and thisis usually reserved for large firms. That does not mean that other companies are not carrying outresearch. It forms part of their regular invoiceable activities, some of which are reserved for non-R&D activities. Dialogic has included these hours whereas CBS has not.In chapter 4 we look in more detail at how the various sectors differ in their R&D and scope ofinnovation.17The Finnish study showed that R&D‟s share among software producers is much higher (27.0%) than in theother categories (software product contracting: 11.5% and consulting firms: 7.7%). What are noticeable arethe very high percentages. In this study R&D is expressed as percentage of turnover (not percentage of labourcapacity) but this only partially explains the difference.18CBS only has comparable figures based on the old SBI (1993) classification which applied to service activities ininformation technology, SBI 72*.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 213 Types of products3.1 Differences between product and tailor-made softwareIn 2005 the Dutch innovation platform (Innovatieplatform) stated in its report on the pivotal role ofICT in innovation 19that it is generally recognized that software is playing a more and moresignificant role in a large number of industries. A less well known fact is that the Netherlands‟software sector is also a significant and wide-scale industry in its own right, as was shown in theprevious chapter. In as much as software is developed in the Netherlands, people tend to think thatit is only tailor-made software.Software sales account for 9.4 billion of the 10.2 billion euros turnover in software. Contrary togeneral opinion, Table 9 shows that this turnover is not only achieved thanks to tailor-madesoftware. Of the 9.4 billion euros worth of software sold in the Netherlands, product softwareaccounts for 3.9 billion (42%).20It is undisputable that software producers (SBI 6201) have thelion‟s share: 3.2 billion euros (83% of all product software). Consultancy companies obviouslyachieve in absolute terms a much lower turnover in product software (0.59 billion euros), but it isremarkable that the division within SBI 6202 is almost exactly the same for product software andtailor-made software.Table 9. Distribution of product and tailor-made software in software production (SBI 6201), consultancy (SBI 6202) and otherservices (SBI 6209). Turnover in million euros.Product software Tailor-made softwareSBI Turnover % Turnover %62* € 3,921 100% € 5,471 100%6201 € 3,237 82.6% € 4,704 86.0%6202 € 594 15.1% € 615 11.2%6209 € 90 2.3% € 152 2.8%41.7%40.8%49.1%37.2%58.3%59.2%50.9%62.8%€ 0€ 1.000€ 2.000€ 3.000€ 4.000€ 5.000€ 6.000€ 7.000€ 8.000€ 9.000€ 10.00062* 6201* 6202* 6209*Tailor-made softwareProductsoftwareFigure 11: Share of product compared to tailor-made software in each SBI group19Innovatieplatform report (2005) on ICT‟s opportunities “ICT als innovatie-as: kansen pakken met ICT”.20The questionnaire asked to distinguish between product and tailor-made software but not each sector‟s share ofturnover. The sales figures in this paragraph were calculated by means of several interim steps.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie22The relationship between product software and tailor-made software is determined by variousfactors. The first influential factor is the size of the company: it seems that the larger the company,the greater the share of product software.210% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%1-10 fte10-100 fte100+ fteProductsoftwareTailor-made softwareFigure 12: Share of product and tailor-made software related to the size of companyBesides size, a company‟s economic activities also have an impact on the relationship between tailor-made and product software. The larger the proportion of sales of in-house developed software, thegreater the proportion of product software. We see the very opposite in revenue from programmingfor third parties as such activities involve a relatively lower amount of product software. This islogical because programming for third parties is more linked with tailor-made than product software.3.2 Number of software productsWe asked all the companies how many software products they are currently selling on the Dutchmarket. Product lines/families are treated as one product. Based on the number of companies, wecan estimate that the total number of software products currently on the Dutch market is between30,000 and 35,000.Of the companies in the software producers category (SBI 6201), 31% do not have any softwareproducts on the market. This means these companies purely concentrate on tailor-made software. Ofthe consultancies (SBI 6202), 63% have no software products on the market. Conversely, aremarkably high percentage (37%) does bring software products on the market and here we are stilltalking about more than 2,500 companies and about 6,000 software products.0200040006000800010000120001400016000None 1 2 or 3 4 or more0200040006000800010000120001400016000None 1 2 or 3 4 or more0200040006000800010000120001400016000None 1 2 or 3 4 or moreFigure 13: Distribution of number ofcompanies with # software products andlines (SBI 62*)Figure 14: Distribution of number ofcompanies with # software products andlines (SBI 6201)Figure 15: Distribution of number ofcompanies with # software products andlines (SBI 6202)3.3 Characteristics of software products and servicesThe companies were given a large number of statements describing their main type of products andservices. These included topics such as tailor-made, pricing policy, SaaS (software-as-a-service), andopen source. An overview of their responses is shown in Figure 16.21r= +0.11. The significance level of this relationship is indeed low (0.061). In all subsequent correlations it willbe ≤0.05.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 230% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Our end products/services areusedvia a (generic) webbrowserOur end products/service areopen sourceOur end products/services requirespecialist installation andintegrationThe price ofour end products/services is basedon actual useofthe productOur end products are based on SaaS (Software as a Service)constructionThere is an online user community related to our endproducts/servicesWe deliver tailor-madefor everyclientOur end products/services contain softwarethat wehavetoinstall at the client’s premises27%65%46%34%16%58%12%24%5%10%8%18%17%14%16%19%18%14%23%28%30%15%30%27%16%4%11%10%20%6%26%16%34%7%12%10%18%6%16%14%Not applicable Hardly applicable Partly applicable Broadly applicable Fully ApplicableFigure 16: Statements describing the characteristics of main products and services (SBI 62*)A number of categories is interlinked, that is to say the responses to the statements have asignificant correlation. This cannot be concluded directly from Figure 16 but as a result of furtheranalysis. The following consecutive interrelationships were found in response to the eightstatements:1.Products with software that has to be installed at the client‟s premises require both specialist(r=+0.52) as well as tailor-made (r=+0.20) installation. At the same time, products oftencannot be used via a web browser (r=-0.29) and are often not based on SaaS (r=-0.35).2.Tailor-made products mostly require specialist installation and integration (r=0.12), usually donot use a SaaS construction (r=-0.18), and their price is not based on actual product utiliza-tion (r=-0.12).3.With products used through a (generic) web browser (r=0.21) and open source (r=0.22),online user communities are used more often than average. Products that have to be installedat a client‟s premises score slightly under the average (r=-0.14).4.SaaS constructions require both tailor-made (r=0.19) as well as installation at the client(r=0.52). Regarding the latter, this requires a local client in order to be able to run the SaaSsoftware. SaaS is already so well developed that relatively little specialist installation andintegration are required (r=-0.24).5.Pricing a product or service based on actual usage is relatively commonly used with SaaSconstructions (r=0.29) – “software per minute” – and relatively little with tailor-made products(r=-0.12).6.SaaS products can be used via a specific client (see 4) or (generic) web browser (r=0.53). Atthe moment both options are equally popular. The specific clients are so generic that they donot require any specialist installation (r=-0.24) or tailor-made (r=-0.18).
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie247.End products which are open source are often used via a (generic) web browser (r=0.24), aregenerally based on a SaaS construction (r=0.11), are mostly tailor-made (r=0.18), and makerelatively little use of an online user community (r=0.28).8.Software products that are used through a (generic) web browser are relatively mostly SaaSproducts (r=0.53) and have relatively often an online user community (r=0.21). Both typeswere discussed above.Besides these, there are remarkably few differences between the responses from the softwareproducers (6201) and the consultancies (6202). The only exception is the open source category(which will be discussed in more detail in section 3.5). Software producers see their products andservices as more open source than consultancies do. It should be noted the main difference is foundin the category „hardly applicable‟ which does not have a significant effect on the weighted average(see Table 10).0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Our end products/services areusedvia a (generic) webbrowserOur end products/service areopen sourceOur end products/services requirespecialist installation andintegrationThe price ofour end products/services is basedon actual useofthe productOur end products are based on SaaS (Software as a Service)constructionThere is an online user community related to our endproducts/servicesWe deliver tailor-madefor everyclientOur end products/services contain softwarethat wehavetoinstall at the client’s premises27%65%46%34%16%58%12%24%5%10%8%18%17%14%16%19%18%14%23%28%30%15%30%27%16%4%11%10%20%6%26%16%34%7%12%10%18%6%16%14%Not applicable Hardly applicable Partly applicable Broadly applicable Fully Applicable0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Onze eindproducten/dienstenwordengebruikt via een(generieke)webbrowserOnze eindproducten/dienstenzijn opensourceOnze eindproducten/dienstenzijn gebaseerdop eenSoftware as a Service (SaaS)-constructieDe prijs van onze eindproducten/dienstenis gebaseerd ophet feitelijkegebruikvan hetproductOnze eindproducten/dienstenvereisen specialistischeinstallatieen integratieEr is een onlineusercommunity gerelateerd aan onzeeindproducten/dienstenVoor iedereklantleveren wijmaatwerkOnze eindproducten/dienstenbevatten software diedoorons geïnstalleerd moetwordenop locatievan de klant29%61%46%35%18%58%10%27%3%13%11%17%17%13%16%21%17%15%22%26%29%16%26%23%17%4%11%13%21%7%29%16%34%7%10%8%15%7%20%13%Niet van toepassing Nauwelijks van toepassing Deelsvan toepassingGrotendeelsvan toepassing Volledig van toepassing0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Onze eindproducten/dienstenwordengebruikt via een(generieke)webbrowserOnze eindproducten/dienstenzijn opensourceOnze eindproducten/dienstenzijn gebaseerdop eenSoftware as a Service (SaaS)-constructieDe prijs van onze eindproducten/dienstenis gebaseerd ophet feitelijkegebruikvan hetproductOnze eindproducten/dienstenvereisen specialistischeinstallatieen integratieEr is een onlineusercommunity gerelateerd aan onzeeindproducten/dienstenVoor iedereklantleveren wijmaatwerkOnze eindproducten/dienstenbevatten software diedoorons geïnstalleerd moetwordenop locatievan de klant24%73%44%32%11%59%18%23%5%5%3%19%15%16%15%12%18%13%23%29%31%13%33%33%18%3%15%6%20%5%22%18%36%6%16%14%23%6%12%14%Niet van toepassing Nauwelijks van toepassing Deelsvan toepassingGrotendeelsvan toepassing Volledig van toepassingFigure 17: Characteristics of mainproducts & services (software production)Figure 18: Characteristics of mainproducts and services (consultancy)To provide an overview, the responses to the statements have been calculated as a report figure intable 10 based on the weighted average, that is to say with a value on a scale of 0 (not applicable)to 10 (fully applicable). If we start with this figure, the differences also remain small. This meansthat the responses to the statements are consistent and therefore the differences between thestatements are more robust.Table 10. Weighted averages (on a scale of 0 to 10) of the statements - total (62*) and divided into software production (6101)and consultancy (6202)Statement 62* 6201 6202Our end products/services contain software that we have to install at theclient‟s premises 4.5 4.3 4.8We deliver tailor-made for every client 5.5 5.8 5.0There is an online user community related to our end products/services 2.3 2.3 2.0Our end products are based on SaaS (Software as a Service) construction 3.5 3.3 4.0The price of our end products/services is based on actual use of the product 3.8 3.5 3.8Our end products/services require specialist installation and integration 5.3 5.0 5.8Our end products/service are open source 2.0 2.0 1.5Our end products/services are used via a (generic) web browser 5.8 5.5 6.0
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 253.4 Share of SaaSBased on Figure 16, the total turnover from SaaS (or ASP) services can be estimated at 13%. Inorder to verify this, companies were approached directly to find out what percentage of their revenuecomes from SaaS services. This gave a much higher percentage, namely 38%. The most likelyreason for the variation is that the respondents interpreted the question as the percentage ofsoftware turnover (not the total turnover) coming from SaaS. If we change this to percentage ofsoftware, the total figure is 15%. This is indeed closer to the 13% that we previously calculated. Inabsolute terms, this is equivalent to a turnover value of 1.26 (13%) to 1.45 (15%) billion euros. Incomparison: it was 17% in the Finnish study (figures from 2008).22As the market in SaaS isdeveloping rapidly at the moment, we emphasize that we are talking about a snapshot here. SaaS‟smarket share is expected to continue to rise considerably in the coming years.23Table 11. Share of revenue from SaaS, per subsector62* 6201 6202 6209Share of revenue from SaaS 15.0% 19.1% 6.4% 5.2%SaaS is used above all by companies that offer product software (r=0.22). It is notable that thosecompanies whose business model is SaaS, make less use of open source components than othercompanies (r=-0.16). Finally the size of a company (in fte) bears no relation to the use of SaaS –there is no or hardly any difference between small (<10 fte), medium (10-100 fte) and large (>100fte) companies.3.5 Open source & hybrid softwareTo what extent a certain software product is considered open source, is determined on the basis ofwhich software licence is chosen for that product. Businesses, governments and online communitiesare all familiar with the open source software licences approved and issued by the Open SourceInitiative.24The open source nature of software products is seen from a mostly technical licensingperspective. It is also possible for a software product to use many open source components orcomponents which people have released as part of an open source licence while the (end) producthas not been given an open source licence. Moreover, a software product can be supplied undervarious licences and in this way, the same software product can be both open source as well asclosed source. From a technical licensing point of view, this approach provides only limited insightinto the use of open source in software products.22Apart from this, the study defined another intermediate form, namely „web based solutions‟. This is a verylarge category: 53% of the total. The category „little or no SaaS‟ is therefore much lower (30%) than in theNetherlands.23Compare the results of two recent Gartner surveys on http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id= 1062512(2009) and http://www.mis-asia.com/news/articles/gartner-saas-adoption-on-the-rise (2010).24See http://www.opensource.org.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie26Another notion of open source software in software products is the input/output approach. This looksat both the input (using open source as „commodity‟) as well as the output (revenue from opensource products and services). These two dimensions are indeed greatly interdependent.25With anumber of frequently used forms of licensing such as GPL, the use of an open source component of aproduct (input) will for example result in the product having to be also offered (output) whencompanies decide to distribute the software.Composite software products – and that is the bulk of the software – are a group unlike the abovementioned in that certain product components can be open source while others are not. This makesit difficult to determine to what extent a product is entirely open source software. Nevertheless,companies were approached directly with the statements in Figure 16 to say to what extent „our endproducts/services are open source‟ applies to their products/services - 65% of the companies saidthis statement does not apply to their products at all; 11% said it was broadly or fully applicable.Consultancies‟ percentage is a little lower (9%) than the average.It is easier to measure the proportion of open source on the input side. Firstly we asked whatproportion of software is developed internally; then of the remainder („external‟), what percentage ispurchased under (proprietary) licences, and which part is obtained as open source. These questionsrevealed percentages comparable to the input side: 11.5% for the total and software producers, and10.3% for the consultancies.0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%62* 6201* 6202*75.2% 79.7%70.0%13.4% 8.7%19.7%11.4% 11.6% 10.3%External: open sourceExternal: licencesInternalFigure 19: Comparison of input in software development, software production (SBI 6201) and consultancy (SBI 6202).The percentage in the Finnish study was considerably higher (19%). On the other hand, the Finnishdefinition was less precise (“product contains a lot of open source software”). The figures do notreveal how much of the software developed internally can actually be defined as open source butsome of it can probably be classed as such. The estimate of an 11% share in the Netherlands istherefore possibly rather low.25r=0.55.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 27In theory the dichotomy between closed source and open source is very much the same as thatbetween products and services. That is to say that companies who offer their products completelyopen source will not generate revenue from selling their software. Current practice shows thatcompanies who acquire a significant part of their software as open source, combine it with their own(proprietary) software and consequently bring their software product on the market as a closedsource software product. Thus there are more business models that utilize open source software andto which the theoretical dichotomy between open and closed source does not apply.For example there seems to be a positive correlation between open source and tailor-made software.This refers to a group of companies who offer tailor-made services over and above an open sourceproduct. Due to these hybrid forms, it is hard to consider companies as entirely open or closedsource, as we will attempt to explain in the box below.Apart from the appearance of hybrid forms, it is a remarkable fact that companies who use arelatively large amount of open source, seem to carry out more than average research anddevelopment (R&D).26Note that this is only a weak relationship, possibly influenced by the hazyboundary between software development and R&D. It is a fact that companies who use open sourcerelatively often, are the ones who do a relatively large amount of software development. This is notan illogical relationship but its consequences are unknown. It is possible that the use of open sourceleads to more R&D. It is also possible that companies who do a relatively large amount of R&D makemore than average use of open source. The latter relationship is not illogical either, considering thepopularity of open source in the academic community.26This is a significant but weak relationship: r=0.12.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie28Explaining „open source‟ and „closed source‟ companies – an exerciseThe available data enables us to define whether companies are open source, closed source or evenhybrid. This exercise can be done based on either an input (how much open source is employed todevelop software) or output approach (the amount of end products/services that are open source).You do come across mixed forms but there is not yet a large amount of these. Although the twoapproaches show patterns that are strongly linked, there are still considerable differences inproportions between the various forms.The input approach showed that 0.6% of all companies are mixed form. These are the 145companies who not only generate a significant amount of their revenue from software sales butalso state that the title „open source‟ in any case partially applies to their products – on the bottomleft of Table 3.5A*** 1.2% of all software companies (290) can be considered „true‟ open sourcecompanies (much open source, little revenue from software sales) – on the top right of the table,31.4% of the companies (7,650) use the closed source model (high revenue from software sales).Table 3.5A. Percentage of open source compared to revenue from sales of self-realised software (input approach)Revenue from software salesLow Average High% OpenSourceLow 38.2% 18.0% 31.4%Average 6.2% 1.9% 2.2%High 1.2% 0.3% 0.6%The output approach shows a shift in favour of open source. The percentage of hybrid companiesincreases from 0.6% to 3.6% (875) and the percentage of „true‟ open source companies from1.2% to 5.5% (1,340). Closed model companies‟ share drops to 26.1% (6,360).Table 3.5B Comparison of statement “our products are open source software” to % revenue from self-realised software(output approach)Revenue from software salesLow Average HighStatement“OpenSource”Low 34.0% 15.5% 26.1%Average 7.0% 3.0% 4.0%High 5.5% 1.2% 3.6%________*** A few companies even indicated to generating all their revenue from software sales and at thesame time state that their products are 100% open source. From a legal point of view, this is notpossible. One possible explanation is that subscriptions received from open source users are alsoconsidered as software sales.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 294 InnovationThe intensity of companies‟ R&D activities has already been discussed in section 2.3. The percentageof labour capacity devoted to R&D lies between 9% (software producers) and 6% (consultancy andother ICT service providers).4.1 WBSO schemeAnother method of determining the software sector‟s R&D intensity is by examining the extent towhich the sector makes use of innovation subsidies under WBSO (R&D Promotion Act). Through thisscheme, companies can receive subsidies for the salaries of employees working on R&D projects. TheAct was extended on 1 January 2009 and under certain conditions allows the development ofsoftware to be also considered as R&D.27Since this extension, the proportion of ICT and telecom companies has risen spectacularly. Theproportion of R&D working years has raised the total from 10.4% in 2008 to 13.5% in 2009.28As faras number of applications is concerned, the sector can now compare with – or is even ahead of –other R&D intensive sectors such as the machinery and equipment, electro-technical, and chemicalindustries.Figure 20: Absolute number of WBSO applications in 2009 x growth in R&D hours 2008-2009. Source: Agentschap NL (2010)27SenterNovem (2009). For the impact of extending the WBSO Act, see „Diensteninnovatie en de WBSO: Effectvan de verruiming in 2009‟. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs.28Focus on R&D and use of the WBSO scheme „FOCUS op speur- en ontwikkelingswerk. Het gebruik van de WBSOin 2009‟. Agentschap NL (2009, 2010).
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie30In our survey a total of 14% of the companies say they make use of the WBSO scheme.29Softwareproducers make twice as much use of the scheme (20%) as consultancies (10%). Among thesoftware developers, the scheme is again more popular with product software companies (SBI620101) than with tailor-made software companies (SBI 620102). Companies with many opensource components (input approach) make relatively little use of the scheme. This is remarkablebecause these companies are in fact the most relatively R&D intensive (see previous chapter). Itwould seem that this group of companies has not yet been able to find its way to the WBSO.The geographical spread of software producers (the blue dots in the figure below) shows a largeoverlap with the geographical distribution of WBSO applications for software projects (the red areas).Figure 21: Geographical distribution of software producers SBI 6201 (blue dots) and WBSO applications for software projects (redareas)Qualitatively speaking, there is a significant difference. In general it is especially SMEs (fewer than250 employees) that make use of the scheme. In 2008 two-thirds (68%) of the WBSO subsidieswent to SMEs.30The Agentschap NL figures show that the rise in number of applications in 2009 isthanks to small companies (<10 employers) in the Netherlands. Our sample showed that especiallylarger companies make use of the WBSO scheme.31Thus there still seems to be great potential forgrowth in the software sector.Table 12. Which companies use the WBSO scheme<10 fte 10-100 fte 100+ fteWBSOYes 9.75% 55.81% 87.50%No 90.25% 44.19% 12.50%29If we exclude companies with only one employee, this percentage rises to 30%.30SenterNovem (2009). For focus on R&D see, “Focus op speur- en ontwikkelwerk: Het gebruik van de WBSO in2008”. Zwolle: SenterNovem.31Companies that make use of the WBSO scheme have an average fte of 110.3 compared to 4.9 fte in companiesthat do not use the scheme.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 314.2 New productsAlongside the percentage of labour capacity for R&D and utilization of the WBSO scheme, the thirdand final way to measure the level of innovation in the Dutch software sector is by making use ofstandard European CIS (Community Innovation Survey) items.32The CIS survey has two differentitems relating to the number of products (in terms of turnover share) new to the market and thenumber of products new to the company. The former type of innovation is more radical than thelatter, which is why the former usually scores lower than the latter.33In our study the scores forthese two items were almost the same, but at respectively 23% and 24%, are higher than in theEuropean survey. Further analysis of the underlying figures does reveal obvious differences. Whilethe scores for „products new to the market‟ are hardly or not related to certain company characteris-tics, this does apply to the scores for „products new to the company‟. Companies that derive arelatively large part of their turnover from products that are new for them, have the followingcharacteristics: A relatively large part of their work capacity is devoted to R&D (r=0.23); They derive their turnover mainly from sales of software developed in-house (r=0.25) orfrom products developed in-house with substantial embedded software (r=0.19); They supply mainly product software instead of tailor-made software (r=0,.7); They make relatively frequent use of SaaS constructions (r=0.23).In the literature it is often assumed that innovative companies are small. However, we found nosignificant correlation between the size of a company and the share of new products in its turnover.32See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/science_technology_innovation/data/database.33The European CIS survey showed that the average for all Dutch companies is respectively 10% (new to themarket) and 14% (new to the company). It also showed the same averages for the ICT industry in theNetherlands (computer and related activities, thus a wider definition of the software sector) to be above thenational average, respectively 15% and 19%.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 335 International context5.1 ExportThe software sector in the Netherlands is strongly focused on the domestic market while 7.7% of thissector‟s revenue (still 1.93 billion euros) comes from abroad. More than two-thirds of that 7.7%comes in turn from neighbouring West European countries. Outside Europe, the USA is the majorexport market.92.3%4.9%0.3%1.4% 0.2%0.2%0.2%0.2%0.1%0.2%7.7%NL W-EU E-EU USA Canada SM America Middle East Asia Austria AfricaFigure 22: Share of markets in total turnover at home and abroad, per destination, for the entire software sector (62*)The 7.7 average percentage disguises large differences between subsectors and between companies.Export is greatly concentrated in a few large product software companies. Export accounts for morethan half of their profit. These high percentages, however, disappear in the total figure. It is true thatthe export percentage in the subsector product software (620101) is nearly twice as high as theaverage, which means product software companies claim the clear majority of the total export.34Inaddition, the export portfolio is also more varied: almost half (49%) of the exports are beyondWestern Europe. The percentage for the entire software sector (62*) is much lower, namely 33%.34We see a similar picture in the Finnish study: ‘Software product firms’ export one and a half to twice as muchas the other subsectors.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie3486.6%6,9%0.5%3.2%0.5%0.5%0.3%0.8%0.7%0.1%13.4%NL W-EU E-EU USA Canada SM America Middle East Asia Austria AfricaFigure 23: Share of markets in total turnover(%) home and abroad, to destination, product software (620101)Exporting companies certainly do not do better or worse than companies that only focus on thedomestic market. Their turnover for example hardly differs from the average. We can, however, saythat companies who only target the Dutch market are less innovative.355.2 Nearshoring & offshoring software developmentsThe doomsday scenario that jobs in ICT are moving (far) abroad, has been a hotly debated topic foryears, especially in the United States. Although it is not a wide-scale problem in practice,36it is stillimportant to consider the situation in the Netherlands.The Netherlands develops 92.1 % of its software, figures that reflect the same picture in the USA. Ofthe remaining 7.9%, slightly more than half (4.0%) is produced in Dutch subsidiaries abroad. Only3.9% is outsourced to foreign companies abroad.87.7%4.3%2.9% 1.3%0.5% 0.6%0.6%2.0%NetherlandsNetherlands - outsourcingWestern Europe - subsidiaryWestern Europe - outsourcingEastern Europe - subsidiaryEastern Europe - outsourcingFar East - subsidiaryFar East - outsourcingFigure 24: Software production locations showing proportions of outsourcing (SBI 62*)35r=-0.21.36See for example Head, K., Mayer, T. & Ries, J. (2009). "How remote is the offshoring threat?", EuropeanEconomic Review, Elsevier, 53(4), 429-444.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 35Offshoring, or outsourcing work to remote low-wage countries (especially India) plays an insignificantrole, just as in the USA. It accounts for 2.6% of the total software development and three-quartersof this takes place via outsourcing. The percentage of work in remote low-wage countries is onlyhigher (5.0%) in the subsector implementation of software (SBI 620901). And that percentage isentirely outsourced to foreign companies.The extent of nearshoring, outsourcing work to near-shore low-wage countries (especially EasternEurope), is even lower with a total of 1.1%. In a third of the cases, subsidiaries of the company areused in those countries. The subsector product software (SBI 620101) has more an average amountof software developed in near-shore low-wage countries (1.9%) and thereby usually utilizes its ownsubsidiaries abroad (1.4%).Contrary to popular belief, the majority of the work that is outsourced abroad takes place in nearbywealthy countries. That share (4.2%) is larger than offshoring and nearshoring put together. There isa great difference between the subsectors. The percentages for most service provider subsectors(SBI 620201: 12.5%; 620901: 19.5%; 620909: 13.3%) are much higher than in other sectors.These are mostly companies‟ own subsidiaries abroad. The logical explanation is that the provision ofservices is more localized than production.The following table provides another overview of these percentages. We can clearly see that theproportion of outsourcing increases the further the location is from the Netherlands. In other words,distance matters when setting up (and managing) subsidiaries abroad.Table 13. Overview of each part of the world’s share in software development%Of whichoutsourcedIn the Netherlands 92.1% 4.3% (5%)In Western Europe 4.2% 1.3% (32%)In Eastern Europe 1.1% 0.6% (51%)In the Far East 2.6% 2.0% (76%)Large companies do not outsource significantly more work abroad than smaller companies. If this iscorrected for small companies (to exclude all companies with one employee), the percentageincreases slightly (to 9.7%) but there is really no significant difference. Where we can see an entirelydifferent amount is in outsourcing to Eastern Europe: 3.1% compared to 0.8% in total. A relativelylarge amount of the work is now done in companies‟ subsidiaries: 52% (compared to the 27% total).
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 376 The software sector from a widerperspective6.1 Software outside SBI 62*The previous chapters focused solely on the software sector in the Netherlands (SBI 62*). In chapter2 this sector‟s total turnover was estimated at 25 billion euros and the gross added value - itscontribution to the Dutch economy – at 2.8%.The ICT industry in the Netherlands is much broader than this software sector. It encompasses theproduction of computers and types of hardware (SBI 26* and 46*), as well as telecom equipmentand services (SBI 61*). Some companies in these subsectors derive a significant proportion of theirrevenue from sales of software products and services. It is difficult to determine the exact number ofsuch companies. Our survey was conducted among companies in the three previously mentionedsectors, however the response rate was too low to enable further calculations. This is because thedivision is very skew. Most of the companies do not derive much of their turnover from sales ofsoftware products and services. But a number of companies does get at least as much revenue fromsoftware as the average company in the core sector SBI 62*. All things considered, these companiesshould be reckoned as part of the software sector. On the other hand, there are currently severalcompanies that come under category SBI 62* but on the basis of their profile, do not belong (anymore) in that category. These are the companies that derive the greater part of their revenue (80%or more) from the last activity mentioned in Table 5 - “other activities not related to the softwaresector”. This is 6% of all the companies.The extent of the first group, companies that could be classed as SBI 62*, is more difficult to define.We can make a rough estimate based on the combination of the ICT~Office‟s list of members and theresponses to the survey. All the ICT~Office members were approached to take part in the survey;40% of those who responded are from outside SBI 62*. On the basis of self selection we cantherefore assume that these are very software-intensive companies and that this is the group we arelooking for. This means that the software sector – in the broadest sense of the word – is one and ahalf times bigger than the core category 62*. If we take off the 6% of companies that do not belongto SBI 62*, this results in an increased percentage of 41%. 37Thus the total turnover of theNetherlands‟ software sector is now estimated at 35.2 billion euros (instead of 25.0 billion), bringingits contribution to the Dutch economy up to 3.9% (instead of 2.8%).37The calculation is as follows: 60%/40% = 1.5. (100% - 6.1%) x 1.5 = 140.9%.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie38Examples of software-intensive companies outside SBI 62*One of the larger companies in the sample (575 fte, 200 million euros turnover) produces medicalelectronics. All things considered, this is the production of hardware not software. The proportion ofsoftware components embedded in products is increasing especially in advanced electronics such asthe medical devices produced by this company. At least 76% of their revenue comes from embeddedsoftware. Besides this a small part (2%) comes directly from sales of tailor-made software developedin-house.A similar case is a small automation company (25 fte, 2 million euros turnover) operating in thetransport sector. It is classified as SBI code 4651 (wholesale trade in computers, peripheralequipment and software) but achieves its entire turnover from software related activities: 20%comes from sales of tailor-made software developed in-house, 30% from implementing thatsoftware, and 20% from support and management. Another 10% of the turnover comes from salesof third parties‟ software and the remaining 20% is generated by activities related to the softwaresector.A third, medium sized company (120 fte, 11 million euros turnover) also belongs to sector 4651 butprovides business services. Its main focus is developing software to improve business processes.More than half of its revenue (55%) comes from sales of tailor-made software developed in-house,42% from the implementation of this software, and the rest (3%) from related software consultancy.In the first and third example we see opposite shifts which in both cases have led to greaterintensification of software components. In the first case it is all about the „virtualisation‟ of a physicalproduct (that is increasingly becoming more of a software product – think of the continuouslygrowing role of software in controlling cars). In the third case, service „productivisation‟ – providesservices which are being more and more coded and standardized in software.38We see this reflectedin our sample where we encountered for example organisation consultancy firms and stockbrokers.These companies have literally converted part of their services into software products.Both product virtualisations as well as service productivisation are continuing trends which still havea long way to go. This means that the share of software-intensive companies outside the SBI 62*core group can only increase. Companies that were originally outside SBI 62* are graduallybecoming more a part of the core group.Note that we are still talking about companies that derive a significant part of their revenue directlyfrom software or activities related to software. Right across the entire economy there are companiesdelivering software products for internal use or services. Think of financial institutions, largeretailers, energy and transport companies. The significance of software in and for the Dutch economy– ICT as innovation axis – is much, much greater than the scope of the software sector in theNetherlands. In itself it already represents an economic force of considerable magnitude. Theestimate of 35.2 billion and 3.9% of GNP is probably conservative to say the least.38See also P den Hertog (UvA) „Managing Service Innovation‟, to be published in October 2010.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 397 Method7.1 MotivationBefore the start of this study, only general aggregate level figures existed on the scope andeconomic value of the Netherlands‟ software sector. Data on the type of activities conducted byDutch companies was not available. In order to obtain this information, Dialogic has collated datadirectly at micro level (individual companies) by carrying out an online survey and subsequentlyaggregating this data. You could say we that we chose to put a thermometer in the sector itselfrather than assemble something based on general statistics such as CBS data.As this is the first time such a study has been carried out in the Netherlands, the emphasis is oncomparisons between SBI codes, types of company activities etc. Only once a consistent study hasbeen carried out over a certain period of time can meaningful statements be made on the progress ofdevelopments. This current study can pave the way.7.2 Population and sampleWhat was important for this study was to map out the sector distinctly beforehand. In this way itwould be clear which companies had to be approached and about which group of companiesstatements could be made. We made use of CBS standard SBI39categories as all Dutch companiesare divided into one or more SBI codes according to their core economic activity.In collaboration with ICT~Office it was determined which activities come under software activities.The table below shows companies‟ main activities:Table 14. Codes for main economic activities based on SBI 2008Description SBIDevelop, produce, and deliver standard software 620101Develop and produce tailor-made software 620102Hardware consultancy 620201Software consultancy 620202Implementaion of software 620901Other service activities in IT 620909In other words: this study focuses on all the organisations in the category provide service activitiesin information technology (SBI 62*), with the exception of management of computer facilities (SBI6203).39SBI is based on the EU classification Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la CommunautéEuropéenne (NACE) and on the United Nations International Standard Industrial Classification of All EconomicActivity (ISIC).
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie40Contact details of companies in one of these categories were then requested from the Chamber ofCommerce (KvK). In order to determine the sample, all companies were included with a minimum of100 fte workers, and based on a reliability level of 95% and a reliability interval of 1.0, the scope ofthe sample was determined for companies with fewer than 100 fte. The address database wasfurther cleaned up by including only head offices of economically active firms (thus no associations orfoundations registered with the Chamber of Commerce).Table 15. Scope of the sample of companies registered with the Chamber of Commerce (KvK)SBITotalsample >100 fte <101 fte DescriptionTotal atKvK620101 739 10**733*Develop/produce/publish standard software 2,275620102 5,292 21**5,283*Develop/produce tailor-made software 14,125620201 667 3**664*Hardware consultancy 1,369620202 5,363 29**5,344*Software consultancy 10,582620901 668 3**665**Implementation of software 668620909 1,442 6**1,436**Other services related to IT 1,442***SampleIncluding all organisationsAlongside these, more than 1,000 companies were approached who do not come under the mainactivities described in Table 15 and who possibly carry out activities related to software. Thesecompanies are not included in the main analysis but have been used to gain qualitative insight intowork related to software alongside the SBI 62* group. These additional categories are:Table 16. Codes for additional firms’ main economic activities based on SBI (2008)Description SBIProduction of computers and peripheral equipment 2620Production of alarm systems 263001Production of communication equipment (not alarm systems) 263002Production of consumer electronics 2640Production of measuring, navigation and control equipment 2651Production of timepieces 2652Wholesale trade in computers, peripheral equipment and software 4651Other telecommunication 6190In addition, all the companies who are members of ICT~Office were approached. It was checkedwhether these members were already included in the sample obtained through the Chamber ofCommerce. If this was the case, the ICT~Office contact details were used to approach them. Anymembers who did not appear in the sample were added to it. There were 363 members ofICT~Office who were not in the Chamber of Commerce‟s sample. A total of 14,560 companies wereapproached with the request to fill in the survey.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 417.3 Procedure for conducting the surveyDialogic set up the survey after a dialogue with ICT~Office. The “National Software Industry Survey2009”40carried out by Helsinki University of Technology was used as starting point and refined. Thusit was possible to use some of the data in this survey to compare the results in the Netherlands withFinland.Companies were informed about the study by letter. This explained the reasons for the study andgave a brief description of which topics would be covered. The letter was signed by Henk Broeders,chairman of ICT~Office, Sylvia Roelofs, director of ICT~Office, Bernhard van Oranje (chairman ofRaad van Advies Software~VOC (software advisory board), and Sjaak Brinkkemper (professor atUtrecht University) to emphasize the importance of the study.The letter provided unique login codes to enable online access to the questionnaire. At the request ofcompanies that were not included in the sample but did want to fill in the questionnaire, an „open‟questionnaire was also issued. In this way companies could fill in the questionnaire even withoutlogin codes. These companies had heard about the study for example through other mediaannouncements. Afterwards we looked at: (i) whether these companies also appear on the list ofcompanies that received the letter, and (ii) under which main economic activity these companies areclassified. This is because a few companies that come under the categories as shown in Table 15 areincluded in this study. The questionnaire was issued in a Dutch version as well as in English. You canread the letter and the questionnaires in the appendices.7.4 ResponseThe questionnaire was available from 27 April till 7 June. On 9 May ICT~Office sent a reminder to allits members who had not yet completed the questionnaire. A fortnight later it was checked if theresponse was representative of the population. It appeared that especially companies with more than100 fte were under-represented. Consequently ICT~Office began approaching companies directly inorder to bridge this gap. A total of 803 companies completed the survey.41The majority, 721respondents, belong to the SBI 62* group. The proportion of companies larger than 100 fte is 1.4%,compared to 0.6% in the CBS data. Large companies are therefore more likely to be over-represented than under-represented.Based on the number of letters sent, this gave a response rate of 5.14%. However, the dataobtained through the Chamber of Commerce appeared to be more inaccurate than assumed. Thefirst sign of this was the fact that more than 100 letters were returned. As we can assume that only asmall number of letters was returned due to incorrect contact details, the amount of undeliverablemail is therefore (much) higher. Another reason why we can assume that the Chamber ofCommerce‟s data is inaccurate, came to light during the analysis. The profile of the Chamber ofCommerce‟s population appeared to differ greatly from the survey data and ICT~Office data (list ofmembers). There is a correlation of nearly 1 between the number of fte for the companies includedin the survey and ICT~Office‟s list of members. The correlation between these data and the Chamberof Commerce‟s is however much lower.40For more information see: http://www.sbl.tkk.fi/oskari/.41When designing the survey, a deliberate decision was made not to insist on answering all the questions, toensure fewer people would close down the questionnaire before completing it. This means that we do not have803 responses to every question.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie42Table 17. Correlation between the number of fte in companies in the KvK (Chamber of Commerce), ICT~Office and survey datasetsCorrelation SignificanceKvK x ICT~Office 0.321 0.04KvK x Survey 0.186 0.00Survey x ICT~Office 0.989 0.00This was the reason why we also tried to find out the exact size of the population. We did this bysearching on the internet for hundreds of companies in the SBI 62* group, thereby assuming thatsoftware related companies have their own website or can be found online in some other way (forexample via LinkedIn profiles). This sample showed that 80% of the companies were active online.Thus the actual population referred to in this study is 4/5 of the Chamber of Commerce population.This resulted in an actual response rate of 6.35%. The reliability interval is 3.35 (at a reliability levelof 95%). The reliability interval of just the SBI 6209 group is however too high to enable validstatements. Therefore this group was not included separately in the study (apart from a fewexceptions).Table 18. Response rate and reliability interval of the sampleSBI code NumberResponserateReliabilityinterval62* 721 6.35% 3.356201 317 6.57% 5.326202 317 6.57% 5.326209 87 5.15% 10.24
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 43Bijlage I | Online questionnaire ENIntroductionThe purpose of this questionnaire is to get a better overview of the Dutch ICT sector. The results willbe published in statistics and tables that will not reveal individual companies. By responding to thisquestionnaire, you are helping us to collect valuable information about the current state of softwarebusiness in The Netherlands.The questionnaire is conducted by Dialogic (www.dialogic.nl). Our contact person is researchmanager Robbin te Velde, telephone 030 215 05 80, email tevelde@dialogic.nl.SurveyWhich of the following products and/or services best describes your firm‟s main source of revenue inThe Netherlands?The actual delivery of the product and/or service (e.g., whether a SaaS−construction is being usedor not) is not relevant to this question.( ) Sales of in−house realised software (product or tailor-made software)( ) Sales of in−house developed products with a major software component (embedded software)( ) Programming activities for third parties (contract or freelance)( ) Implementation and/or testing of software( ) Support and/or administration and/or maintenance of software applications( ) Other consultancy activities related to software( ) Sales of third−party software (reselling)( ) Other software−related products or services( ) Other activities that are not related to the software industryCould you please indicate how the revenues of your firm in The Netherlands are distributed betweenthe following products and/or services (should add up to 100%)?The actual delivery of the product and/or service (e.g., whether a SaaS−construction is being usedor not) is not relevant to this question.Sales of in−house realised software (product or tailor-made software) ____________ %Sales of in−house developed products with a major software component(embedded software)____________ %Programming activities for third parties (contract or freelance) ____________ %Implementation and/or testing of software ____________ %Support and/or administration and/or maintenance of software applications ____________ %Other consultancy activities related to software ____________ %Sales of third−party software (reselling) ____________ %Other software−related products or services ____________ %Other activities that are not related to the software industry ____________ %Sum 100 %Which percentage of the software that is in−house realised by your firm is being sold as productsoftware/software package? I.e., sold on the basis of the price of the product itself, not on the basisof the efforts (manhours, lines of code) that have been made developing the product. _________ %What is the size of your firm in The Netherlands in fte (Full Time Equivalent)? Please estimate whennecessary. __________ fte
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie44How is the revenue of your firm in The Netherlands distributed between the following geographicareas? (in total 100%)The Netherlands _____ %Western Europe (excluding The Netherlands) _____ %Eastern Europe (including Russia) _____ %United States _____ %Canada _____ %South and Central America _____ %Middle East _____ %Asia _____ %Australia and New Zealand _____ %Africa _____ %Sum 100 %How many different software products or software product families does your firm sell on the Dutchmarket? Note: a software product family/line should be regarded as one product.( ) None( ) 1( ) 2-3( ) 4 or moreHow well do the following statements describe your final products and/or services?NotapplicableHardlyapplicablePartlyapplicableBroadlyapplicableFullyapplicableOur final products/services are used through a (generic) web browser ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Our final products/services are open source ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Our final products/services are sold as Software as a Service (SaaS) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )The pricing of our final products/services is based on actual usage ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Our final products/services require special(ist) installation and integration ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )There is an online user community related to our final products/services ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Our final products/services are tailor−made for each of our clients ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Our final products/services have software that needs to be installed by usat the premises of the client( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )What part of the revenues of your firm in The Netherlands is derived from the sales of SaaS− orASP−services? ________ %Software can be completely developed within your own firm, but can also (partly) be based oncomponents developed by third parties. Please indicate the general composition of your product(s).(total is 100%)Internal: own software development _____ %External: licensing (bought or otherwise) _____ %External: open source _____ %
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 45Possibly, not all your software development activities take place in your own firm in The Netherlands.Perhaps your firm owns subsidiaries abroad and/or outsources work abroad.Where does the software development of your firm take place and on what base?Note that the total does not necessarily have to be 100% since there are other modes to developsoftware (next to the two ones mentioned), such as joint software development.Part of ownfirmBased oncontracts(outsourcing)In The Netherlands __________ __________ %In the Western world (other than The Netherlands) __________ __________ %In nearshore countries (e.g. Eastern European states and Russia) __________ __________ %In offshore countries (e.g. India or China) __________ __________ %What percentage of the total labour capacity of your firm in The Netherlands is aimed at the followingactivities? (total should add up to 100%)Software development and/or programming and/or testing _____ %Implementation and/or consulting and/or training services _____ %Support and/or maintenance services _____ %Sales and/or marketing _____ %Research and/or development (R&D) _____ %Other (e.g. procurement, administration) _____ %Which part of your firms turnover is based on new or significantly improved goods or services that inthe last three years were ...... introduced onto your market before your competitors did (it may have already been available inother markets)? __________ %... new to your firm, but that were already available from competitors in your market? _________ %Does your firm make use of the WBSO−act?WBSO provides a fiscal facility for companies, knowledge centers and self−employed persons whoperform R&D work. In this context, R&D means technical/scientific research, the development oftechnically new physical products or physical production processes (or parts thereof) and thedevelopment of technologically new software (or parts thereof). Under the Act, a contribution is paidtowards the wage costs of employees directly involved in R&D.( ) Yes( ) No( ) Do not knowWhat is the total turnover of your firm (in The Netherlands) in 2009?If possible, please answer this question only for the Dutch turnover. If youare not able to provide the turnover for The Netherlands alone, please givethe overall (consolidated) figures.____________ euroWhich share of your firm‟s turnover in 2009 is spent on ...0%<5%5%<10%10%<20%20%<30%30%<40%40%<50%50%<60%60%<70%70%<80%80%<90%90%-100%staff? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )hiring external staff? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )other costs (equipment, rent, energy, etcetera)?( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie46Do your answers on the previous two questions on turnover and costs also refer to subsidiariesoutside The Netherlands?( ) Yes( ) NoWhich part of your firm‟s turnover in 2009 originates from The Netherlands?( ) 0% < 5%( ) 5% < 10%( ) 10% < 20%( ) 20% < 30%( ) 30% < 40%( ) 40% < 50%( ) 50% < 60%( ) 60% < 70%( ) 70% < 80%( ) 80% < 90%( ) 90% - 100%On which of the following levels do you serve in your company? Choose the best option.( ) Board of directors( ) Management team( ) Other upper management( ) Middle management( ) OtherIf you are interested in receiving a summary of the results of this study, please provide an e−mailaddress. The entered e−mail address will only be used for this study.E-mail address: ________________________________________________________________
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 47Bijlage II | Letter to respondents<handelsnaam><contactpersoon><adres><postcode en plaats>Gebruikersnaam: <gebruikersnaam>Wachtwoord: <wachtwoord>Woerden, 23 april 2010Zeventien vragen over software in Nederland<aanhef>,Software vormt het centrale zenuwstelsel van de moderne samenleving. Het zorgt voor hoogwaardi-ge en duurzame werkgelegenheid. De ontwikkeling van softwareproducten en de dienstverleningrond software maken ons land kennisintensiever en economisch sterker. Het succesvol doorontwikke-len van onze software-industrie is medebepalend voor de kansen van Nederland als kenniseconomieen motor voor nieuwe producten, diensten en werkgelegenheid, ook in andere economische sectoren.U bent als bedrijf of ZZP‟er zelf natuurlijk allang doordrongen van het belang van de software-industrie voor de Nederlandse economie. Elders wordt dat belang echter vaak sterk onderschat.ICT~Office, de brancheorganisatie voor ICT-bedrijven in Nederland, heeft daarom het onderzoeksbu-reau Dialogic gevraagd om de economische bijdrage van de software-industrie in Nederland temeten. Het ministerie van Economische Zaken onderschrijft het belang van dit onderzoek. Deresultaten worden ook gebruikt om de gegevens van het CBS aan te vullen en te verbeteren.We willen graag uw medewerking als deskundige bij de uitvoering van dit belangrijke onderzoek.Onderaan deze brief vindt u een overzicht van de onderwerpen van de vragenlijst. Gemiddeld zal hetminder dan 10 minuten kosten om de lijst in te vullen. In de rechterbovenhoek van deze brief staaneen gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord waarmee u toegang krijgt tot de online vragenlijst. Deze vindt uop www.dialogic.nl/softwareonderzoek en kunt u invullen tot en met 14 mei 2010. Bij hetverwerken van de data hanteren we de strenge privacynormen van het CBS. Al uw gegevens wordenonder strikte geheimhouding verwerkt en geanalyseerd tot algemene economische statistieken. Uitde informatie die wij uiteindelijk publiceren, zijn nooit herkenbare gegevens over een afzonderlijkbedrijf af te leiden.Dialogic is een strikt onafhankelijk onderzoeksbureau. De kwaliteit van het onderzoek wordt verdergeborgd door een begeleidingscommissie. Hierin zitten vertegenwoordigers van zowel „open source‟als „closed source‟ bedrijven, evenals de Universiteit Utrecht.The questionnaire on the Dutch software industry is also available in English atwww.dialogic.nl/softwareonderzoek.
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie48Alle deelnemers aan het onderzoek krijgen een samenvatting van de uitkomsten. Daarnaast wordenonder de respondenten vrijkaarten verloot voor het prestigieuze World Congress on IT (WCIT) dat op25, 26 en 27 mei 2010 in Amsterdam wordt gehouden.Wij wijzen u er nogmaals op dat uw medewerking helpt om de softwaresector in Nederland beter opde kaart te zetten. We rekenen op u!Bij voorbaat dank,Henk Broeders Bernhard van Oranjevoorzitter ICT~Office voorzitter Raad van Advies Software~VOCSylvia Roelofs Sjaak Brinkkemperalgemeen directeur ICT~Office hoogleraar Universiteit UtrechtOnderwerpen van de vragenlijstIn de vragenlijst komen de volgende onderwerpen aan bod:1. Uw voornaamste product/dienst2. De activiteiten van uw bedrijf3. Kenmerken van uw producten/diensten4. De rol van open source5. De export van uw producten/diensten6. Outsourcing, off- en nearshoring7. InnovatieU krijgt toegang tot de vragenlijst via:www.dialogic.nl/softwareonderzoekGebruikersnaam: <gebruikersnaam>Wachtwoord: <wachtwoord>Survey topicsIn the questionnaire the following topics are covered:1. Your main product/service2. The activities of your firm3. Characteristics of your products/services4. The role of open source5. The export of your products/services6. Outsourcing, off- and nearshoring7. InnovationYou can access the questionnaire at:www.dialogic.nl/softwareonderzoekUsername: <gebruikersnaam>Password: <wachtwoord>
    • Dialogic innovatie ● interactie 49Contact:Robbin te Veldetevelde@dialogic.nlDialogicHooghiemstraplein 33-363514 AX UtrechtTel. +31 (0)30 215 05 80Fax +31 (0)30 215 05 95www.dialogic.nl