Transcript Considerations regarding the benchmarking of IPR support services for SMEs Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant) MEETING OF EXPERT GROUP FOR DEFINING THE SCOPE AND.

Considerations regarding the benchmarking of
IPR support services for SMEs
Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant)
MEETING OF EXPERT GROUP FOR DEFINING THE SCOPE AND THE
METHODOLOGY FOR NATIONAL SURVEYS/STUDIES ON INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY AND SMES
Geneva - WIPO, Sep 17 2009
Some IPR-related projects (especially benchmarking)
1. „Benchmarking National and Regional Support Services in the
Field of Industrial and Intellectual Property“, commissioned by EC,
DG Enterprise and Industry (PRO Inno paper no. 4) (Radauer et al. 2007)
2. „Support Services in the Field of IPR for SMEs in Switzerland - A
Review“, commissioned by the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual
Property (Radauer & Streicher 2008)
3. „On the growing significance of IPR for German SMEs and the
diminishing importance of physical assets“, commissioned by the
German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (Blind, Cuntz, Köhler
& Radauer (2008))
4. „Supporting the improvement of existing and development of new
IPR support services for Swiss SMEs“, on behalf of Swiss Federal
Institute of Intellectual Property (Radauer 2009)
5. “Transatlantic IPR Collaboration – An explorative study into the
transatlantic dimension on the problem of counterfeiting and
piracy”, funded by the European Commission, DG RELEX
6. NEW: “IPR for South Eastern Europe: Development of five
innovative service actions”, funded through the SEE programme,
subcontractor of funding agency AWS in Austria
2
EU Study “SME-IIP” in a nutshell
•
•
Aim: The study aims to identify, analyse, classify and
benchmark support services in the area of IPR for SMEs
The project was carried out in three phases:
– Phase 1: Identification and analysis of existing support services
– Phase 2: Benchmarking of relevant support services; development of
a short list for a “Good-Practice” analysis
– Phase 3: In-depth analysis of selected services with “Good Practice”elements; examination of survey results; development of case studies
 Geographical coverage: Mostly EU-27 and some overseas
countries (USA, Japan, Australia, Canada)
• Additional separate study for Switzerland
 Support Services in the Field of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for
SMEs – A review (2008, on behalf of Swiss Federal Institute of IP)
3
Study design and methodology
279 services
(Europe: 224)
Core
Research
Team:
Field work (by
partner
network)
72 services
benchmarked
Study IPR Expert
Group
- Analysis
- Guidelines
Field work (by
partner
network)
- Selection
process
Results validation
Results dissemination
15 services
exhibiting
“good
practice”
characteristics
4
Challenges encountered
• Heterogeneity of service designs
• Heterogeneity of institutional set-ups
(„enabling environment“)
• Measurement of performance
• Trade-off between a comparative
benchmarking exercise and being specific
enough to give meaningful recommendations
• Training needs of interviewers, and project
management to allow for consistent output
5
Selection criteria for identifying relevant support services
•
Source of funding
•
•
SMEs as target group
•
•
•
Service targeted as a whole or in (analysable) parts at IPR
Degree of legal formality
•
•
•
Explicitly
Implicitly, if the service has significance for SMEs
Service design
•
•
Inclusion of only publicly funded services
Focus on registrable IPR (esp. patents)
Inclusion of other IPR with less legal formality, if a country does not have a
high enough number of services targeting registrable IPR
Geographical coverage: national and/or regional
 Another (informal) selection criterion in some (few) instances: willingness
of the service provider to collaborate and provide information
6
Benchmarking indicators (I)
•
Development and Design
• Type and scope of preparatory activities
• Time of preparation activities
• …..
•
Implementation
• Budgets and resources used
• Governance
•
•
Evidence of an effective administration
Existence of quality assurance mechanisms
• Marketing activities employed
• …
7
Benchmarking indicators (II)
• Performance
• Existence and values of any performance measures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
User up-take
User satisfaction
Number of filed patents with support from the service
Number of successful projects
....
Assessment of added value/additionality
Assessment of impacts
Strengths and weaknesses
…
8
Towards Good Practices: Selection criteria for the
benchmarking phase
1. Clearness of the objectives stated
2. Clearness of the service design and service offerings
3. Scope of the service offerings
4. Level of innovation of the instruments employed
5. Take-up by SMEs and/or other available performance
measures
6. Country context
7. Policy context
9
Response rates for user survey in EU study
Nr.
title of the service
address
(1)
pool
contacted
users
executed
interviews
response
rate
3000
460
52
11 %
132
132
35
27 %
85
81
50
62 %
200
94
50
53 %
1
INSTI SME Patent Action (GER)
2
Patent Information Centre Stuttgart (GER)
3
IK2 (SWE)
4
IOI (NLD)
5
IP Prédiagnosis (FRA)
82
82
30
37%
6
What’s the key? Campaign (UK)
15
14
13
93 %
7
IA Centre Scotland (UK)
256
136
46
34%
8
serv.ip (AUT)
542
95
56
59 %
9
Intellectual Property Assistance Scheme
(IRE)
53
53
41
77 %
10
VIVACE (HUN)
4000
450
50
11 %
11
SME Services of the Research Centre Henri
Tudor (LUX)
47
41
20
49 %
12
Foundation for Finish Inventions (FIN)
138
85
49
58 %
13
Promotion of Industrial Property (ESP)
154
90
53
59 %
14
SME services of the Danish patent office (DK)
79
79
35
44 %
15
Technology Network Service PTR (1er
brevet) (FRA)
385
253
50
20 %
TOTAL
630
(1) Number of available contacts
*) The case studies are presented in lose order – the numbering does not represent a ranking of any type
and is used only for easier referencing.
Source: Radauer et al., 2007
10
A frequently found institutional set-up for a IPR support
services offered by patent offices or PATLIBs
Patent attorney
Private Consultants
- support in anything
Single SME
Chamber of commerce
-Consultation & information
- training
National business/technology funding agency
Innovation/RTDI suppport - start-up support
- business growth support
Regional funding agency
- innovation support programmes
- Start up support
- business growth support
National R&D funding agency
-R&D grants
-Thematic programmes
-Innovation support programmes
Patent Office
-Associated with filing of patents
University
PIC
IPR support
11
Usage of different service providers
Usage frequency of different types of service providers, firms in %
100
%
90
80
31
70
60
25
50
35
40
30
38
60
46
20
34
10
0
37
10
0
12
0
8
0
Federal
Regional
EU services
development development
agency
agency
25
27
15
0
Business
associations
Attorneys at
law
frequently
Patent
attorneys
European
German
Patent
Patent Office Patent Office Information
(EPO)
(DPMA)
Centers
occasionally
Source: Blind, Cuntz, Köhler & Radauer, 2008 , n = 295
12
IPR as a means to increase competitiveness?
13
Behavioural additionality
Changes in/of attitude/behaviour
with regard to IP issues, due to
using a support service,
52
Patent knowledge in business environment
50
General awareness
48
Patent usage in IPR strategy
Accompanied Patent Search
service, Switzerland, SMEs in %
Knowledge management Know-How
30
Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise
22
Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy
-4
19
(Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy
17
Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy
13
IPR training
-2 13
Trademark usage in IPR strategy
11
Service activities affect a
range of IP-relevant aspects.
No Change
9
Copyright usage in IPR strategy
7
Out-licensing
-2 6
Design patterns in IPR strategy
6
In-licensing
Source: Radauer & Streicher 2008, n = 61
-42
%
-40
-20
0
20
increased
40
60
80
decreased
14
Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user
perceptions
77
Competence of Staf f
Source: Radauer et al. 2007
Aggregated answers for all services,
Services considered = 15
Ease of access & identif ication
67
Timely delivery
67
Costs
51
Individual contact
49
12
17
19
31
n = 630
Inf ormation on dif f erent IP strategies ("w hy/w hy not
to patent")
26
47
Scope of service
24
44
Administrative ef f orts
42
Technical inf ormation ("how to patent")
40
Ref eral to & availability of other services in-house
33
31
25
29
Ref eral to external services
35
26
Spatial distance
35
14
31
%
0
10
20
high relevance
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
medium relevance
15
Important criteria making up successful IPR services
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clear reasoning for existence for service packages (market
failure argument), and thus division line to private industry
offerings
Sound target system
Competence of staff
Integrated offerings (all IPR ‘out of one hand’)
Governance structures
Evaluations and quality control
Working cooperation structures with stakeholders from
the innovation system
Ease of identification/Visibility
Timely delivery
NOT NECESSARILY: IPR Service in every locality
16
Thank you
For further enquiries contact
[email protected]
The studies can be downloaded at
EU study
http://www.proinnoeurope.eu/admin/uploaded_documents/NBAX07004ENC_web
Swiss study:
http://www.ige.ch/e/institut/documents/i1050101e.pdf
Technopolis Group has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton,
Brussels, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna.
17