《全球创新指数（Global Innovation Index, GII）报告》是具有广泛影响力的国家创新测度报告，需要对其测度框架的生成与演化进行深入思考。本文通过梳理GII报告测度框架的完整演化过程，将其发展阶段分为萌芽期、发展期、稳定期和成熟期。在发展过程中，GII报告的测度框架展现出以下特点：一是对创新投入的测度相对完善，但是对创新产出的测度相对不足，特别是缺乏对创新产出质量的测度。二是尽管已经实现动态优化，但是仍然不能完全满足发展潮流的要求。三是在指标度量方面重视相对指标而未能兼顾绝对指标、较为依赖主观数据并遗漏了部分重要信息。四是经济体在不同年份的GII排名并不直接可比。有鉴于此，国家创新测度应当通过科学规范的步骤构建测度框架，兼顾测度维度与指标的全面性与代表性，研究设计有利于更加充分体现国家创新质量的测度方法。

Although the Global Innovation Index (GII) is a highly influential national innovation measurement report, there is still a lack of the in-depth study of its measurement framework. This article combs the complete evolution process of the measurement framework of the GII report from 2007 to 2021. The development history of the GII report is divided into four stages, namely the embryonic stage, the development stage, the stable stage, and the mature stage. In the embryonic stage, the innovation input sub-index has conducted the measurement from multi-dimensions and the innovation output sub-index has measured beyond the economic output of innovation. Sub-pillars have also been set up during this stage. In the development stage, the measurement framework has taken information and communication technologies, ecological sustainability as well as creative outputs into account. The Innovation Efficiency Index was set up in the development stage and then removed in the mature stage. The measurement framework of the GII report is found to have four characteristics. First, the measurement of innovation input is relatively complete, but the measurement of innovation output is relatively insufficient, especially the measurement of innovation output quality. Second, although dynamic optimization has been carried out, the measurement framework still cannot fully meet the requirements of the development trends such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Third, the indicator design still needs to be improved in three aspects. Because some indicators are scaled during computation to make them comparable across economies, it is difficult to fully reflect the real innovation capabilities of large economies. At the same time, the stability and reliability of the result still need further improvement due to the use of subjective data in the measurement framework. Moreover, some important information is also not covered in the GII report. Fourth, the GII rankings of economies in different years are not directly comparable. From the analysis of the GII report, three main implications can be drawn. The first implication of the analysis is that the national innovation measurement should establish a framework through three scientific and standardized steps. Firstly, the goals of the measurement framework should be clarified. Secondly, the existing research should be reviewed to obtain external experience. Thirdly, a comprehensive measurement framework should be established through theoretical analysis to realize the goals of “three combinations”, namely “the combination of the measurement of innovation input, process and output”, “the combination of the measurement of innovation at macro-level, meso-level and micro-level”, and “the combination of the measurement of innovation quantity, quality and efficiency”. In order to achieve the goals of “three combinations”, special attention should be paid while designing the indicators of the measurement framework. The design of the indicators should comply with the principles of “available data, rigorous logic, authoritative sources, simplified and systematic measurement, and comparability across periods and economies”. The second implication of the analysis is that the national innovation measurement should make effort to improve the comprehensiveness and representativeness of measurement dimensions and indicators. Last but not least, measurement methods that are conducive to a more comprehensive reflection of the quality of national innovation also need further exploration.