Skip to menu Skip to content

Results of the Survey on ICT Usage in Enterprises of the Czech Republic

Methodological introduction

Contents

This publication contains overall results of statistical survey ICT 5-01 on spread, mean and extend of selected various ICT usage and systems (computer, E-mail, mobile phone, Internet and other computer networks, web sites, e-commerce, EDI and other processes related to the data transferring via ICT) among enterprises of business sector and their employees in the Czech republic. The survey brings also information on realized purchases and sales via networks based on Internet protocol and other computer connected networks. Within the framework of survey the first information on safety of ICT was obtained.

The survey listed above was linked to ordinary survey on ICT usage and E-commerce in business sector in 2002 and was based on similar survey that proceeded in EU member countries (Community survey on ICT usage and e-commerce in enterprises 2004), with which was comparable from methodology and concept content point of view. Composition of the questionnaire was done with respect to request of European Commission, which coordinate project eEurope+ and questions of model questionnaire of OECD as well.

A reporting duty for ENTERPRISES SURVEY ON ICT USAGE AND E-COMMERCE IN 2003 was legitimatized in Promulgation of Czech statistical office at 31st October 2002, which was published in November 2002 in the Statistical surveys program Act. No.163/2002 Coll.

Statistical population included legal and natural persons incorporated and unregistered in Companies Register with 5 and more employees according to the Administrative register and Business register at December 31st 2003 from sections D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and O of CZ-NACE.

Sample of reporting units, which was drown from the statistical population according to the Business register combining census (enterprises with 250 and more employees) and stratified random sample, was selected to enable calculating grossed values of observed indicators for following selected groups of enterprises defined by the help of CZ-NACE:

15+16+17+18+19+20+21, 22, 23+24+25, 26+27+28, 29, 30+31+32+33, 34+35,36+37, 40+41, 45, 50, 51.4, 51.84, 51 rest, 52, 55.1+ 55.2, 63.3, 60+61+62+63 rest, 64, 65.12+65.22, 65, 66.01+66.03, 66, 67.12+67.13+67.2, 67, 70+71, 72, 73, 74, 92.1+92.2, 92 rest

Definition of the group of enterprises mentioned above uses following divisions or groups of CZ-NACE, which are defined in CZ-NACE classification this way:

15 - Manufacture of food products and beverages
16 - Manufacture of tobacco products
17 - Manufacture of textiles
18 - Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing and dyeing of fur
19 - Tanning and dressing of leather; manufacture of luggage, handbags, saddlery, harness and footwear
20 - Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials
21 - Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products
22 - Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media
23 - Manufacture of coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fluel
24 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products
25 - Manufacture of rubber and plastic products
26 - Manufacture of non-metallic mineral products
27 - Manufacture of basic metals
28 - Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment
29 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
30 – Machinery of office machinery and computers
31 - Manufacture of electrical machinery and apparatus n.e.c.
32 - Manufacture of radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus
33 - Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks
34 - Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers
35 - Manufacture of other transport equipment
36 - Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing n.e.c.
37 - Recycling
40 - Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply
41 - Collection, purification and distribution of water
45 - Construction
50 - Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel
51 - Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
51.4 - Wholesale of household goods
51.84- Wholesale of computers, computer peripheral equipment and software
52 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles; repair of personal and household goods
55.1 Hotels
55.2 Camping sites and other provision of short-stay accommodation
60 - Land transport; transport via pipelines
61 - Water transport
62 - Air transport
63 - Supporting and auxiliary transport activities; activities of travel agencies
63.3 - Activities of travel agencies and tour operators; tourist assistance activities n.e.c.
64 - Post and telecommunications
65 - Financial intermediation, except insurance and pension funding
65.12 - Other monetary intermediation
65.22 - Other credit granting
66 - Insurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security
66.01 - Life insurance
66.03 - Non-life insurance
67 - Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation
67.12 - Security broking and fund management
67.13 - Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation n.e.c.
67.2 - Activities auxiliary to insurance and pension funding
70 - Real estate activities
71 - Renting of machinery and equipment without operator and of personal and household goods
72 - Computer and related activities
73 - Research and development
74 - Other business activities
92 - Recreational, cultural and sporting activities

92.1 - Motion picture and video activities

92.2 - Radio and television activities

Within selected groups of enterprises was possible to calculate grossed values of indicators for following size of enterprises:

Extra small with 5 – 9 persons employed,
Small with 10 – 49 persons employed,
Medium with 50 – 249 persons employed,
Large with 250 and more persons employed.
Data evaluation with respect to number of persons employed reflects the task of Eurostat. Number of enterprises and any other indicators was acquired by grossing up.

Questionnaire ICT 5-01 was divided into several parts according to character of tracked indicators:

a, basic information on ICT,
b, safety of ICT,
c, e-commerce,
d, employees using ICT.
There were two versions of the questionnaire. Short version for extra small enterprises with 5 – 9 employees was created with limited number of most important questions.

Data collection was done with the help of mailed out questionnaires, which reporting units mailed after filling back to Czech statistical office. The reporting units could obtain electronic form of the questionnaire via Internet and sent back the filled in questionnaire via E-mail as well.

In terms of the survey 11 259 reporting units were addressed to fulfil the questionnaire ICT 5-01, from which 8 806 were active and mailed back correctly filled in questionnaires. Discrepancies recognized during processing of questionnaires were corrected with the help of mailed or phone inquiries. Due to the difference between frame and target population as well as refinement of data in the Business Register during data collection, several enterprises fall out from target population and the number of questionnaires usable for grossing went down to 8 160.

Weighs of enterprises in sample were obtained with the help of Swedish subroutine CLAN that used GREG (general linear regression method was used). The weights were set so that number of enterprises and employees in statistical population and grossed numbers were equal. Because of the fact the questionnaire didn’t include questions that were a part of other surveys, some basic data had to be estimated.

The fact that questionnaire for enterprises with 5 – 9 employees didn’t include all questions of questionnaire for 10 and more employees made number of response used for grossing for some indicators lower. In this case, absolute values for selected enterprises were grossed up according to the sample with the assistance of weighted mean. In this case the indicators for selected finest group of enterprises were grossed at the first using weight and subsequently share indicators for selected groups of enterprises according to sample. Sequentially the aggregated values and shares of indicators were calculated. In this case the information from common part of the questionnaire was used. Any such an indicator was processed individually and for enterprises with 5-9 employees was not evaluated (n. a.)

Values of indicators published in text, tables and graphs are values grossed for statistical population with the help of weights. If there is no base to which the share indicators in tables of graphs are calculated, then the shares are calculated on adequate total number or total value.

Because of the assumption that share indicators are more interesting and give information, which is easily understood, the share indicators are published in tables. Implicit values of indicators are possible to calculate easily with the help of share indicators and values published in tables containing the numbers of enterprises, employees and so on. The results of the surveys, which were not available at the time of realising this publication, can be used for estimation of indicators value as well.

Values of indicators of state quantity relating to number of enterprises, employees and women employed, number of web sites and so on refer to end of selected year. Values of indicators of flow variables such as sales, purchases, costs and so on refer to values for the whole selected year.

The analysis of confidence interval of indicator’s values would exceed the scope of this publication. Commonly it is necessary to notice, that reliability of share indicator gets lowers because of lower number of response used for grossing and its share on statistical population. For small statistical population and low number of response it is not possible to use the formulas commonly used for large samples. From this point of view it is necessary to prefer the aggregated values.

Comparison of results of this survey and previous survey indicates that difference in stratification (persons employed instead of employees) is not unduly important.

The fact that survey can be influenced by extent of respondent’s understanding of technical aspects of questions was found as very important. The systematic mistake being made this way is more significant than the mistake expected in connection with random sample. There were reported three cases when the respondent’s previous positive answer was followed by the negative answer on the same laid question. These cases are more deeply discussed in a comment.