Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Benchmarking National and Regional Support Services in the Field of Industrial and Intellectual Property for SMEsProperty for SMEs
Alfred Radauer (Senior Consultant)
Presentation at the WIPO-PPO-KIPO Eastern European Regional Forum
Warsaw, April 2 2009
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
2
– 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)
Study design and methodology
279 services (Europe: 224)
72 services
Field work (by partner network)
Core Research Team:
- Analysis
3
72 services benchmarked
15 services exhibiting “good practice” characteristics
Field work (by partner network)
Results validation
Results dissemination
- Guide-lines
- Selection processStudy IPR Expert
Group
Response rates for user survey in EU study
Nr. title of the service address pool (1)
contacted users
executed interviews
response rate
1 INSTI SME Patent Action (GER) 3000 460 52 11 %
2 Patent Information Centre Stuttgart (GER) 132 132 35 27 %
3 IK2 (SWE) 85 81 50 62 %
4 IOI (NLD) 200 94 50 53 %
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 %
4
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
TOWARDS GOODPRACTICES
Identification process
5
Selection criteria for identifying relevant support services
• Source of funding• Inclusion of only publicly funded services
• SMEs as target group• Explicitly• Implicitly, if the service has significance for SMEs
• Service design• Service design• Service targeted as a whole or in (analysable) parts at IPR
• Degree of legal formality• 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
Overview of identified support services
• In total, 224 support services for SMEs in the field of IPR in Europe have been identified.
• database listing: 279 services (incl. overseas)
• high variation among countries
• number of services identified overseas: 55 • number of services identified overseas: 55
• Only 35% of the services were explicitly dedicated services for SMEs.
• Most services (80%) were offered nationwide, the rest at a regional/local level.
7
Degree of legal formality of IPR covered by identified services, by services *)
90
69 67
37
4150
60
70
80
90
100%
8
18
37
0
10
20
30
40
patents designs trademarks otherregistrable IPRs
non-registrableIPRs
informalprotectionpractices*) multiple answers allowed
Source: Radauer et al, 2007, identification process, n=279
�Regardless of selection criteria, most public funded services target registrable IPR (esp. patents)
Phase of IPR usage targeted, by services *)
49
74
37
60
30
40
50
60
70
80%
9
0
10
20
30
research on innovativeprojects and related IPRs
process ofdevelopment/registraton of
IPRs
acquisition of existing IPRs utilisation of IPRs
*) multiple answers allowed
Source: Radauer et al., 2007, identification process, n=279
�Most services address the process of development/registration of IPR�Multiple phases covered by many services
Building a sound classification system
• Issue: multiple counting
– e.g., “consulting services” are often also “information services”
• Number of categories
• Issue: Embedded services vs. integrated services
– Embedded services: Service part of another service or service – Embedded services: Service part of another service or service portfolio which is not targeted at IPR
– Integrated services: Services part of a portfolio of IPR-related services
� Review of classification system, taking into account
� Qualitative service descriptions
� Comparisons between countries
� Other classification systems (OECD/WIPO etc.)
10
Evidence-based “functional” classification system
1. (Pro-active) awareness raising services & Public Relations
� actively address SMEs and/or promote the usage of the IPR system
2. (Passive) Information provision services
� (passively) offer information to interested parties, partly for research purposes
3. Training3. Training
� Educational measures where SMEs do benefit to a larger proportion
4. Customized in-depth consulting and advisory services/points
� broader scope
5. Financial assistance & legal framework
� Subsidies for patent filings, tax credits…
11
Functional classification, by services *)
39
3031
25
30
35
40
45%
12
8
15
0
5
10
15
20
Finance & legalframew ork
Customised in-depthconsulting services
Informationprovision services
Proactiveaw areness raising
Training
*) multiple counts allowed
Source: Radauer et al,, identification process
TOWARDS GOODPRACTICES
Benchmarking (Phase 2)
13
Benchmarking indicators (I)
• Development and Design• Type and scope of preparatory activities
• Time of preparation activities
• …..
• Implementation• Budgets and resources used• Budgets and resources used
• Governance• Evidence of an effective administration
• Existence of quality assurance mechanisms
• Marketing activities employed
• …
14
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
• …
15
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 employed4. Level of innovation of the instruments employed
5. Take-up by SMEs and/or other available performance measures
6. Country context
7. Policy context
16
Towards Good Practices: Overview of benchmarked services
• In total, 72 services were subjected to benchmarking.
• In the end: comprehensive data gathered from 66 services.services.
�Overall: “good practices” as a whole were hard to spot!
�Plenty of opportunities to learn about “elements of good practice”
17
Type of service offering institutions of benchmarked services, by services *)
30
39
36
25
30
35
40
45%
18
8
14
9
0
5
10
15
20
Nationalgovernmental
body
Regionalgovernmental
body
Patent office Nationaldevelopment
agency
Regionaldevelopment
agency
Others (e.g.,associations)
*) multiple counts allowed
Source: Radauer et al. 2007, benchmarking process, n=66
Institutional map
• High/increased activity levels from the National Patent Offices:• seem to look for new new roles
• active in (pro-active) awareness raising activities and in (technical) information provision (e.g., patent searches)
• Most of the time new in the innovation policy landscape
Case of Switzerland: IP Office not even mentioned in OECD � Case of Switzerland: IP Office not even mentioned in OECD innovation report chart on the national innovation system (Radauer & Streicher 2008)
� Challenges
• Technology/development agencies• cover IPR, but IPR services there are often marginalised
• National governmental bodies• Have their IPR services often implemented by organisations other
(“Other” category) than the PTO or technology/development agencies
19
Quality assurance mechanisms in place, by services *)
50
31
23
59
47
3629
24
35 35 35
30
40
50
60
70%
20
23
12
0
10
20
30
Regularmonitoringexercises
Interimevaluations
Ex-postevaluations
Regular audits Other qualityassurance
mechanisms
No qualityassurance
mechanisms
Benchmarked services "Good Practice" elements exhibiting services
*) multiple counts allowed
Source: Radauer et al. 2007, Benchmarking process, n (benchmarked services) = 66, n (Good Practices) = 15
Evaluation culture (I)
• Only around 5 out of 10 services are subject to formal evaluation exercises
• 23% stated that they had no form of quality assurance mechanisms in place
• Issue seemingly more with services from the • Issue seemingly more with services from the PTOs
• Evaluated services perform better than non-evaluated ones
• Lack of evaluation culture has implications…
�…in terms of customer (need) orientation
�…in terms of accountability
21
Evaluation culture (II)
IPR support services are, in terms of investigated implemented innovation policy instruments, to implemented innovation policy instruments, to
a large extent uncharted territory!
� Systems failure!
22
Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user perceptions
4 9
5 1
6 7
6 7
7 7
2 6
3 1
1 9
1 7
1 2
In d iv id u a l c o n ta c t
C o s ts
T im e ly d e liv e r y
Ea s e o f a c c e s s & id e n t if ic a t io n
C o m p e te n c e o f S ta f f
Source: Radauer et al. 2007
Aggregated answers for all services,Services considered = 15
n = 630
23
1 4
2 6
2 9
4 0
4 2
4 4
4 7
3 1
3 5
3 5
2 5
3 1
3 3
2 4
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0
S p a t ia l d is ta n c e
R e f e r a l to e x te r n a l s e r v ic e s
R e f e r a l t o & a v a ila b ilit y o f o th e r s e r v ic e s in - h o u s e
T e c h n ic a l in f o r m a t io n ( " h o w to p a te n t " )
A d m in is t r a t iv e e f f o r t s
S c o p e o f s e r v ic e
In f o r m a t io n o n d if f e r e n t IP s t r a te g ie s ( " w h y /w h y n o tto p a te n t " )
h ig h r e le v a n c e m e d iu m r e le v a n c e
%
Human resources as key ingredient
• Core success factor: Competence of staff
• Underlined explicitly in around 60% of the
benchmarked services as a success factor.
• Also underlined in user surveys in the good practice • Also underlined in user surveys in the good practice analysis.
• Reason: IPR matters are usually more complicated and require technical, legal and business/strategic knowledge
24
Human resources and educational offerings
� Serious issue: Availability of qualified staff
�Calls for senior staff with experience
�Not every local and regional service can offer sufficient number of expertsof experts
� Issue of reward schemes
�Literature indicates lack of educational offerings in this respect
�A good IPR service has to have a minimum scope (otherwise: referral)
25
Networking and service portfolios
• The level of integration/networking with other services matters.
• Services integrated into a portfolio of other services perform better than isolated ones.perform better than isolated ones.
� Synergy effects in terms of competence available and built throughout service operation
� achieve minimal size of service easier
�However, no service can cover the whole spectrum of IPR issues!
� referral activities important
26
Visibility as a success factor
• Another important success factor: Ease of identification
• A weakness with many services
• Many support services are more easily identifiable, because they are the only service of their kind in the country/region (uniqueness as a success factor).
27
Patent focus vs. IP protection/appropriation in general
• Scope of the service offers
• Most services are patent-centric (with some provisions for trademarks)
• Issue: Information on „why“ and „why not“ to • Issue: Information on „why“ and „why not“ to patent
�Who (from the service advisers) would advise Coca-Cola to go for a trade secret regarding its recipe if it were patentable?
� Lack of services covering all different IP protection instruments!
28
National or regional approaches? (I)
� Because of the success factors explained before: Preference for a nationwide offered integrated service (package) with regional outlets.
� Central unit can have the (otherwise scarce) expertise.
� Regional outlets refer to the central unit
� High visibility
� Networking with other institutions required (but there are limits to networking)
29
National or regional approaches? (II)
� Services of smaller scope and/or operated only at a regional level can also make sense…
�…if they complement nationwide offerings
�…if they have clear goals and targets and respective service �…if they have clear goals and targets and respective service designs in the regional context
�…if they are also networked enough
� Issue of critical mass!
30
Usage frequency of different IPR service providers, percentage of (good practice) service users *)
35 2740
60
80
100%
31
15 11 412 18
8
35 37
22
34 27
24
11 133 20
20
Nat
iona
lag
ency
Reg
iona
lag
ency
Cha
mbe
r of
com
mer
ce
Pat
ent
offic
e
Pat
ent
atto
rney
Ext
erna
lco
nsul
tant
s
EU
Oth
er
f requently occasionally*) multiple answers allowedSource: Radauer et al. 2007, user survey, n = 630
Private or public service offerings?
• Issue of “Crowding out of private service providers”� By extending public service offerings (esp. by the PTOs) conflicts
may arise with private offerings
• Some thoughts (with evidence from the Swiss study)− Conflicts arise often once the degree of counselling gets too large
(thus: focus on awareness raising, first time consulting)− But situation can also be a win-win situation− But situation can also be a win-win situation
� Case of the service “Accompanied patent searches”
− Success factor: Close collaboration with private sector representatives
� E.g., through advisory boards
− Careful reasoning along the lines of market failure is absolutely necessary
− Clear division lines between subsidised and commercial services− The latter should be priced at (higher) market prices.
32
Who should offer IPR support services from the public sector? (I)
• Who should offer publicly funded IPR support services for SMEs?
� Depends on the design of the innovation (support) system and historic context.
� PTOs� Have abundant knowledge on technical and legal matters
concerning registrable IPR
� Are perceived to be “independent” and “reliable” (yet slow)
� Development agencies� Well known/accepted by SMEs in terms of general and
innovation support available
� Better knowledge of business context, wider service portfolios but less IPR know-how
33
Who should offer IPR support services from the public sector? (II)• General know-how gap with both organisations in terms of unregistrable IPR and informal protection practices?
� Two options:a. Scale down PTOs on core competence of patent filings
and searches, enrich development agencies with IPR know-how & link both more togetherand searches, enrich development agencies with IPR know-how & link both more together
b. Enrich PTOs further and create “institutes of intellectual property”, but link them with development agencies, anyway
� In any way: Linkage/permeability seems important!
� Development/technology agencies should act as entry points, not the PTOs!
34
Other success factors and Good Practice elements
• Other important success factors (and good practice elements)
• Timely delivery
� In the context of IPR (patents) especially of relevance (“who is first gets the patent”)(“who is first gets the patent”)
• The role of costs
� IP protection costs are considered to be the major obstacle by SMEs
� existence of well-designed financial subsidy can help, but in other ways one might initially think of
� subsidies cannot compensate for a cheaper European patent
35
Thank you
For further enquiries contact
The studies can be downloaded at
36
The studies can be downloaded at
EU study
http://www.proinno-europe.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.
