Abstract: 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. Owing to the insufficient understanding of the measurement framework of the GII report, the ranking results in the GII report have been widely misused. 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. Starting from the embryonic stage, the Innovation Output 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. From 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, it 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. 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 have been drawn. The first implication of the analysis is that the national innovation measurement should build 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 constructed through theoretical analysis to realize the goals of three “three combinations”, namely “the combination of the measurement of innovation input, process and output”, “the combination of the measurement of innovation on macro-level, meso-level and micro-level”, and “the combination of measurement of innovation quantity, quality and efficiency”. In order to achieve the goals of three “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.