Upload
lymien
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Prof. Stefano ZambonChairman, WICI Europe
University of Ferrara – [email protected]
WIPO Headquarters, Geneva, 1-2 December 2010
WORLD INTELLECTUALPROPERTY ORGANIZATION
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR SMALLAND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES
Attributing Value to Corporate Intangible Capital: IC Reporting and Assessment
2
1) IC Reporting Case Studies (BankInter, Infosys, Brembo)
2) The Italian Institutional Project of Patent/IPR Assessment and Valuation
AGENDA
Human Capital Valuation• Infosys has used the Lev and Schwartz model to
calculate the value of Human Resources • The valuation is based on the present value of
future earnings of employees on the following assumptions:– Employee compensation includes all direct and indirect
benefits earned both in India and Overseas– The incremental earnings based on group/age have been
considered– The future earnings have been discounted at the cost of
capital of 12.18%7
Case Study – Infosys (India)
Balance Sheet including Intangibles & Human Capital
9
Case Study - InfosysIn Rs Crore 1 Crore = 10 Million
Brand Valuation• Infosys has used the brand-earning-multiple method
of Birkin mentioned in the book edited by John Murphy
• The methodology used is as follows: – Determine brand profits by eliminating the non-brand profits
from the total profits– Restate the historical profit at present value – Provide the remuneration of capital to be used for purposes
other than promotion of the brand – Adjust for taxes – Determine the brand strength or brand earning multiple
10
Case Study - Infosys
History – Brembo SpA (Italy)• Brembo is a group based in Curno (Bergamo)
north of Milan • It has been awarded by Forbes as among the first
20 companies with a lower billing than 1 billion $• Brembo production system consists of 16 plants• Beyond 5,300 employees• Operates in 22 countries, including Spain, UK,
Sweden, Poland, Brazil, Mexico, US, Japan, China• President and Owner: Mr. Bombassei & family• Brembo is listed on the Milan Stock Exchange
“If not a brake, it would be a precious sculpture in a museum of modern art.”
Gold Compass Award 2004
performance with STYLE
More than 5,300 employees working for the Group in 21 countries with 34 total plants and commercial sites
A “pocket”-size multinational
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Italy EuropeNAFTA Rest of the world
employees
Multicultural …
181243
297353
454530 566
634678
712806
912
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
mill
ions
eur
o
Revenues
growing organically…
Commercial Vehicles
18%
Passenger Cars62%
Motorbike12%
Racing7%
Other1%
Germany25%
Italy24%
France6%
UK 7%
Asia4%
Nafta12%
Brazil4%
Other2%
Other EU16%
2007 – Revenues by application
2007 – Revenues by area
with balanced revenues distribution…
Relational Capital
STRUCTURE EVOLUTION OF VALUE REPORTING
Growth/ Renewal
Efficiency
Solidity
Structural Capital Human Capital
FROM
Growth/ Renewal Growth/ Renewal
Efficiency
Solidity
Efficiency
Solidity
Relational Capital
Sustainability
PerformanceStructural Capital
Sustainability
Performance
Human Capital
Sustainability
Performance
Financial Capital
Sustainability
Performance
TO
Synthesis
Improvement/GrowthIndicators
Strengthening/Maintenance Indicators
22
Performance• Revenues acquisition Index (existing customers) • Revenues acquisition Index (new customers)• % revenues from products developed in the last 5 years • Market share• Customer satisfaction Index
Sustainability• Corporate image (external) • Revenues concentration index • Most relevant Customer penetration index • % revenues invested in Marketing & Ext.
Communication
Relational Capital
23
Performance• % position coverage with internal growth • Index of multi-competence • Average level of leadership management• Level of trust • Management average age• People Education/School Index
Sustainability • % revenues invested in training • People satisfaction index• Multi-valence index • % female representation within management • Turnover (management) • Turnover (employees) • Turnover (blue collars) • Average seniority (management) • Average seniority (employees)
HumanCapital
24
Performance• N° patents (licensed/active) • Projects (Gate 7ok) / Technical Workforce • Global Productivity • Global TRS • Grievances severity index • PPM customers at km 0 • Internal scrap • % non-conformance costs/revenues
Sustainability• % revenues invested in R& D • Change proposals//active projects • Customer satisfaction (technical area) • % conformity (internal audits) • Corporate Image (internal) • Value Alignment• % revenues invested in internal communication
StructuralCapital
25
2. THE ITALIAN INSTITUTIONAL PROJECT OF PATENT/IPR
ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION(with the help of Dr Sara Giordani)
UIBM Project at a glanceNot looking specifically at a monetary value, but at a tool to collect, select, assess the merit of patent in a
comprehensive view of credit worthiness of the project
Looking at IP correlation with other business or project components for:
- Improving the analysis of credit worthiness, inpresence of IP;
- Improving risk management: risk mitigation logic;
- Locating and “reading” patents in a business,strategic and financial-economic context;
- Facilitating access to debt and venture capital;
- Considering feasibility of using patents as collaterals,guarantee, pledge.
Patents: from a legal path to an economic effectPatents: from a legal path to an economic effect
Invention
Patent Exploitation and Valuation
Legal context
Business Context
Patenting and Patent Grant
Management of IP and its role within the initiative, market, competitors...
n Industrial Property (R&D, technology, innovation) and surrounding intangibles (HR, Know-how...)
n Exploitation for creating economic value n Access to financing – Debt / Risk capital (investments /
funding)
Potential for creating future economic valuestrategy, operations
Investments / Financing
Business PlanIndustrial Property
Patents
Business Potential
Profits
In this ecosystem there are (at least) 3 elements for innovation and economic growth
Nurturing “enabling conditions”• Patent Systems shape today's
economic and business arena; are considered a fundamental component of development
• Patents represent a competitive resource and could be a competitive advantage
• Patents act as catalysts in the business context
• impact the revenues generating potential and capability of enterprises
-- Patent system / Institutions; Patent system / Institutions; -- Enterprises / Industry; Enterprises / Industry; -- Finance Sector / banksFinance Sector / banks
can affect business sustainability, business risk, can affect business sustainability, business risk, as well as the bottom lineas well as the bottom line
Key Key players:players:
Industrial Property
Finance: Banks, Investors
Innovative Enterprise
Financing projects / ventures backed–up
by IP
Create / Obtain / Transfer patents / IP
Enterprise Financing / Rating
The triangle: patent The triangle: patent –– business business –– financingfinancing
Linking IP to Finance:A Methodology to recognize the economic value in the business context and a Tool to communicate it
How a patent, or a patent portfolio, or a cluster of various IPRs could impact profitability (margins, bottom line, sustainability...)?
This is a question for the entrepreneur, who invests in IP for a project, his/her own enterprise /
venture...
The bank or the venture capitalist or the investor of a project / venture backed up
by IP, (too), would have a similar question
Need to codify and share information
• Decide what perspectives/ languages
• Look for commonalities• Involve practitioners • Get the stakeholders at the same
table
• Patent system / Institutions
• Enterprises / Industry
• Universities/ Research
• Financial Sector / banks
+ Interviews
An Italian Proposal:Institutional - UIBM Project Vision
... an instrument to support analysis, evaluation and appraisal according to
“a joint methodology shared among all by public administrations, the public and private research sectors, private enterprises and banks...
public institutions, economic-financial experts, intellectual property experts, patent attorneys, entrepreneurs, representatives of the Confederation of Italian Industries (Confindustria), of the
Universities and of the Italian Banking Association (ABI)
UIBM Project Objectives... elaborate and deploy an evaluation model with which to identify and locate the economic value of patents, namely the added value accruing to an enterprise from the exploitation of new patented technologies”.
Mapping and Measuring the patents in a business context together with the business plan for value extraction;
TARGET: instrument to support analysis, evaluation and appraisal according to a joint methodology for evaluating the relevance and solidity of the contribution of patents (intellectual property) to the
cash-flow generation potential
Patents as business tool and their relevance for decision of investing/financing
ChallengesThe approach should:• Balance complexity and standardization• Comply with qualitative and quantitative analysis• Measure relevance and merit• Be compatible with current evaluation practices
(e.g. of projects) in banks• Be aligned with other regulations/ definitions (e.g.
IAS, FASB, Basel II...)• Be a communication tool; comprehensible and
transparent
Memorandum of Understanding• Signed on October 21, 2008 by the Italian Ministry of
Economic Development, the Italian Banking Association, Confindustria (Italian employers' federation, main organization representing Italian manufacturing and services companies) and the Conference of Italian University Rectors
• The memorandum refers to the approach and methodology identified and developed by the working group, which was constituted in 2005 by the Ministry. It refers to a jointly developed framework for analysis and evaluation, which derives from the methodology and represents an application of the model.
• The parties agree to share the framework and to consider it as a common tool for analysis.
Value Extraction and Modeling
Exploitation and Valuation of patent(s)
Business Context
IP creation and management
Value Extraction
For evaluating usually we (would like to) refer to a
model in support of aqualitative / quantitative
analysis for understanding the contribution of the
patent(s) to the value creation
The Entrepreneur “acts” upon real exploitation
initiatives backed-up by IP, for improving the cash flows
(premium price, cost reduction, increased market
share, partnerships and contracts...)
Evaluation in a business contextRecognize the Value Drivers;
Identify, select and “read” the Value Driver Indicators in the • Value Creating Process (enterprise)
Recognize the Enablers;
Identify, select and “read” Opportunities & Threats in the • Value Creating Process in the Market (context)
Evaluation Process (model)
In the valorization and exploitation path, the patent/ IP can be viewed through the factors
that could have an impact on income1. Efficacy of protection2. Position of the invention(s) in the state of the art and in
the technology road-map3. Placement of the patent(s)/ invention(s) in the
enterprise: efficacy and efficiency of the exploitation4. Marketing of the patent(s) / invention(s) (market access
channels)5. Market (trend(s), readiness...)
Structuring the areas of analysis
IP Evaluation
IP StrategyIP Valuation
IP Assets
Patent Analysis/Valuation Framework: UIBM PlatformPatent Analysis/Valuation Framework: UIBM PlatformTechnical solution/
Technology PerspectiveDevelopment Phase
Time-to-marketCosts / Benefits
Substitutes/ alternativesLife Cycle
Required SkillsPatenting Level /
Intensity
External PerspectiveSectors Trend
Market GrowthGrowth Factors
Market SegmentsNeeds
Vulnerability
Invention/ Patent Perspective
State of the Art (cited)Evolution of Art (citing)Novelty, Inventive step
OwnershipGeographic and
Technological coverageApplications
Internal PerspectiveInventor(s)
Resources for developmentProduction
Evolution of the ideaComplementary Assets
Quality
Access to MarketCompetitors
Third Party RightsReference MarketRelevant Market
Sales/ distribution channel/ network
Clients/ Customers
PatentsPatents
IP Evaluation
IP StrategyIP Valuation
IP Assets
DesignsDesigns
Other IPR (design) Analysis/Valuation FrameworkOther IPR (design) Analysis/Valuation FrameworkDesign-Model
PerspectiveDevelopment Phase
Time-to-marketCosts / Benefits-Values
Single/ Multiple productsSubstitutes/ alternatives
Life CycleCrowded Field
Registration Intensity
External PerspectiveSectors’ Trend Market GrowthGrowth Factors
Social values/ beliefsVulnerability
Registered Industrial Design Perspective
Prior DesignsNovelty, Individual
CharacterOwnership of Rights
Geographic andClass coverageApplications
Design FreedomInternal Perspective
Designer(s)/ FirmResources for exploitationProduction
Evolving of the ideaComplementary Assets
QualityOther IPs (e.g.
technology)
Access to MarketCompetitors
Third Parties’ RightsReference MarketRelevant Market
Marketing StrategyChannel/ network
CustomersOther IPs (e.g. TM)
Ø Organizing and Structuring criteria and indicators, mapping the asset(s)
• It should comprise the
5 different perspectives
• Need to define and select
indicators
• It should allow for correlations among
parameters
Ø Availability of Rating/ Ranking Methods
• Flexible/ Multi-criteria/ Multi-parameters
• Already known and used by Financial world, (Banks, Investors), by Marketing experts, by technical-economic valuation practitioners...
Developing the framework of analysis
Framework Components (according to Razgaitis and other authors)
I. Scoring criteria – Criteria, indicators
II. Scoring SystemIII. Scoring Scales
IV. Weighting factorsV. Decision Table – Partial and overall results; specific areas
to look at
R. Razgaitis. 2003. Valuation and Pricing of technology-based Intellectual Property. Wiley
The Model – framework of analysis
• Assigning rates / scores
• Using weights
• Taking into account correlations among modules and within modules
• Possibility of using individual, aggregated, module or overall results
• Analysis tool, in support of strategy, evaluation methods (traditional ones, too)
Results and Mapping
Primary GroupingCriteria:
• Robustness of [ ... ], Capacity
• Impact / Effect
Secondary GroupingCriteria:
• (Coefficient of) Probability of Success
• Relevance
ROBUSTNESS
IMPA
CT
SUCCESS PROBABILITY
RE
LE
VAN
CE
“Bank-oriented” secondary groupingCriteria:
• Success Probability à (Risk = 1 – Probability)
• Relevance à (~ “Profitability”)
PROBABILITY
RE
LE
VAN
CE
RISK
PRO
FITA
BIL
ITY
Scores: 1 (low), 5 (high)
13 51
3
5
risultato
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Capacità
Impa
tto
risultato
Successo - Rilevanza
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
MODULO 1 - Aspetti propri del brevetto
Robustezza / Capacità del brevetto 4,38 84,4%Impatto / Effetto (incl. Opzioni) 3,52 63,0%
Impatto / Effetto 3,48 61,9%Opzioni 3,75 68,8%
Probabilità di Successo 3,77 69,3%Rilevanza (incl. Opzioni) 4,07 76,9%
MODULO 1 3,94 73,5%
Robustness / Capacity of patentImpact/ Effect (incl. Options)
Impact/ EffectOptions
Probability of SuccessRelevance (incl. Options)
MODULE 1
Capacity
Impa
ct Probability of Success
Rel
evan
ce
MODULE 1: Patent perspective
Module 1 - Patent
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
1 Stato del brevetto: - Fase nel ciclo di vita della domanda - Fase nel ciclo di vita del brevetto
R
n We consider here in what phase of the granting process the patent or the patent application is (are)
n For a patent application it could be for example in the final examination phase, or the search report has just been released, or there is an intention to grant...
n If the patent has been granted, how many years are left for exploitation? Did the period for opposition lapsed?
Robustness/ Capacity of patent(s)
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Module 1 - Patent
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n It considers here the novelty aspects of a patent application: how novel can the invention be considered when confronted with the State of the Art?
n Here the reference document is the issued Search Report (X citations)
3 In che misura il brevetto sottintende ed è stato chiesto per una tecnologia superiore/ unicità dell'invenzione?
P novità
Robustness/ Capacity of patent(s)
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Module 1 - Patent
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
4 In quale misura l'invenzione è migliorativa/ superiore rispetto alle tecnologie assimilabili?
P altezza inventiva
n Is the invention in fact an improvement over similar
existing technologies/ solutions? It considers here the aspects related to the “inventive step” or “originality” of the inventive solution.
n Would a skilled person in the art be able to reach the same solution by mean of the published information or with state of the art knowledge?
n This aspect can be found in the issued Search Report, where the relevant documents with respect to the “inventive step” criteria are indicated with a “Y”.
Robustness/ Capacity of patent(s)
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Criteri Score Peso Val Oss al caso
Robustezza/ Capacità del brevetto
1 Stato del brevetto- Fase nel ciclo di vita della domanda- Fase nel ciclo di vita del brevetto
R 4 3 12 il documento e' alla fine della procedure per la concessione e quindi
in un momento interessante per le decisioni di tutela
2 Esame di merito: P 5 3 15
3 Il brevetto sottintende ed e' stato chiesto per una tecnologia superiore/ unicità dell'invenzione?
P 5 3 15 novita'
4 In quale misura l'invenzione e' migliorativa/ superiore rispetto alle tecnologie assimilabili?
P 5 3 15 altezza inventiva
7 Indice di Prior Art:- numerosità- Rilevanza Prior Art - Importanza Prior Art
P 4 2 8 La prior art individuata sono articoli di letteratura vicini, ma non in grado di
compromettere la solidità dell'invenzione.Si nota che il settore,
anche da un punto di vista di documentazione brevettuale è in
evoluzione e il peso di 2 è giustificato anche dal mix di presenze per i
richiedenti o player nello stato della tecnica
8 Possibilità / Probabilità di superare il rischio per il brevetto di essere reso invalido o limitato
PL 3 3 9
9 Premio di controllo: titolarità o altrimenti disponibilità del brevetto / invenzione
P 4 2 8
Robustezza/ Capacità del brevetto
39 24 105 4.38
Module 1 - Patent
MODULO 2 - Aspetti propri della tecnologia
Robustezza Concept / prototipo 4,17 79,2 %Impatto / Effetto (incl. Opzioni) 3,71 67,6 %
Impatto / Effetto 3,62 65,4 %Opzioni 4,00 75,0 %
Probabilità di Successo 3,86 71,6 %Rilevanza (incl. Opzioni) 4,11 77,6 %
MODULO 2 3,98 74,5 %
Successo - Rilevanza
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Probabilità di successo
Rile
vanz
a
Capacità / Robustezza - Impatto
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Robustezza
Impa
ttoRobustness / Capacity of technologyImpact/ Effect (incl. Options)
Impact/ EffectOptions
Probability of SuccessRelevance (incl. Options)
MODULE 2
MODULE 2: Technology perspective
Impa
ct
Probability of Success
Rel
evan
ce
Robustness/ Capacity
Module 2 - Technology
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n It considers the importance or the contribution of the invention to the current/ actual technical and technological developments.
n It is different from indicator nr. 39 as this last one considers the future technical and technological developments: n39 takes a long term view while nr. 30 takes a short term one
n With the weight we “decide” what horizon we prefer for the investment
30 Importanza/ contributo dell’invenzione per gli sviluppi tecnici e tecnologici correnti/ attuali
R
39 Importanza dell’invenzione per gli sviluppi tecnici e tecnologici futuri
P
Robustness/ Capacity of technology
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Module 2 - Technology
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n It considers if other patented solutions, which are close to the invention, allow adequate freedom to operate (e.g. complementary technologies)
n It might be relevant in several fields, for instance in the nanotechnology sectors where patented materials and engineered materials enter the supply chain
32 Le soluzioni brevettate vicine all'invenzione consentono adeguata freedom to operate
P
Robustness/ Capacity of technology
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
25 L'invenzione, il concetto inventivo non è facilmente sostituibile / rimpiazzabile
P 3 2 6
26 Indice di equilibrio tra il rischio tecnico dovuto all'utilizzo di concetti nuovi e comparato con la possibilità di usare concetti più collaudati, se "vecchi"
P 4 3 12
27 Percezione positiva della tecnologia / invenzione principale utilizzata nel concept/ prototipo
R 5 2 10
- riconoscibilita' / visibilita' dell'invenzione- apprezzamento dell'invenzione/ percezione positiva o favorevole per l'invenzione
28 l'invenzione è ben vincolata al prodotto / sistema in cui è destinata
R 5 3 15
- l'invenzione è caratterizzante il prodotto / sistema
29 l'invenzione ha possibilità o leverage per applicazioni diverse su più prodotti/ sistemi
P 5 3 15
30 Importanza/ contributo dell’invenzione per gli sviluppi tecnici e tecnologici correnti/ attuali
R 5 3 15
31 Posizionamento dell'invenzione / concetto tecnologico nella roadmap
P 4 2 8
32 Le soluzioni brevettate vicine all'invenzione consentono adeguata freedom to operate
P 4 3 12
33 Stato di avanzamento/ sviluppo del prodotto/ progetto (punto di vista dell'industrializzazione)
P 1 1 1 Consideriamo che si tratta di early stage, quindi peso
basso- In quale misura l’invenzione/ idea del brevetto e’ vicina alla fase industriale?- Tempi ragionevoli / adeguati per il completamento e test del prodotto industrializzato.
Robustezza del concept/ prototipo
42 26 106 4.08
Module 2 - Technology
Module 3 : Internal Aspects
Main/ Primary groupingCriterion:
• Internal Capacity• All indictors fall in the category
“Capacity/ Robustness” and Probability/ Possibility of Success (P)
“Secondary” GroupingCriteria:
• Human Resources / Assets (A)
• Patent related indicators (B), i.e. related to the management of the patent(s)
The grouping of indicators is different from the preceding cases
The corresponding criteria (2nd dimensions) for Impact/ Effect and for Relevance are
provided by Module 5, External Aspects
MODULO 3 - Aspetti Interni
Capacità interna 3,97 74,2 %
Brevetto 3,90 72,5 %Team 4,00 75,0 %
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Brevetto
Ass
et /
Ris
orse
MODULE 3 – Internal Aspects
Patent related capacity
HR
/ A
sset
s
Internal capacity
Patent related capacity HR / Assets
Module 3 – Internal Aspects
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n It considers the competences and capacity of the team to monitor the market in order to identify counterfeiting activities/ imitated goods/ processes.
n It compares the actual company with enterprises in the same technology sector(s).
n What is the relevance within the company strategy?
Internal Capacity
44 Livello di competenza e capacità di monitorare il mercato per identificare contraffazioni/ imitazioni
A
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
MODULO 4 - Sbocchi di mercato
Capacità di accesso 3,56 63,9 %Impatto / Effetto 3,53 63,3 %
Probabilità di Successo 4,29 82,1 %Rilevanza 3,00 50,0 %
MODULO 4 3,55 63,6 %
Successo - Rilevanza
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Probabilità di successo
Rile
vanz
a
Capacità/ Robustezza - Impatto
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Robustezza
Impa
ttoCapacity of accessImpact/ Effect
Probability of SuccessRelevance
MODULE 4
MODULE 4: Access to market
Impa
ct
Probability of Success
Rel
evan
ce
Robustness/ Capacity
Module 4 – Access to Market
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n It looks at the invention/ solution: Did it consider the industrial property rights of the competitors? Are there any risks involved?
n Competitors might have some sort of patenting/ filing strategies: Have they been considered?
Capacity of access
60 L'invenzione / il prodotto tiene conto dei diritti di proprietà industriali dei concorrenti
P
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Module 4 – Access to Market
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n Nr. 65 looks at the capacity/ ability of the company to introduce the invention in the supply/ value chain and make it valuable
n Nr. 69 asks if there were any advantages if the supply chain would adopt the inventive solution
Capacity of access
65 Possibilità, capacità di elevare di importanza / far penetrare l'invenzione la soluzione brevettata nella filiera (vantaggio se la concorrenza adotta l'invenzione?)
R confrontare con n. 69
Impact / Effect Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
69 Vantaggio nell'adozione della soluzione inventiva a livello di filiera?
R confrontare con n. 65
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
Module 5 : External Aspects
Main/ Primary groupingCriterion:
• Impact / Effect• All indictors fall in the category
“Impact/ Effect” and Relevance (R)
“Secondary” groupingCriteria:
• Strength / Fragility (F)• Controllable
• Opportunity / Enablers (E)
• Beyond control
The corresponding criteria (1st dimensions) for Capacity/
Robustness and for Probability of Success are
provided by Module 3, Internal Aspects
The grouping of indicators is different from the preceding cases
Forza - Opportunità
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
Forza / Fragilità
Enab
ler /
Opp
ortu
nità
MODULO 5 - Aspetti esterni
Impatto / Effetto Aspetti esterni 3,76 69,0 %
Forza / Fragilità 4,07 76,7 %Enabler / Opportunità 3,30 57,5 %
MODULE 5 – External Aspects
Strength/ Fragility
Ena
bler
s/ O
ppor
tuni
ty
Effect External Aspects
Strength/ Fragility Enablers/ Opportunity
Module 5 – External Aspects
Punteggio (0) 1-5
Peso (0) 1-3
Valore (punt x peso) Note
n It asks if a market demand esists or will exist for the inventive solution, and it considers if the solution brings, in fact, something new/ useful/ needed with respect to the existing alternatives in the market.
Impact / Relevance
75 Esiste o esisterà a breve una domanda di mercato per la soluzione inventiva in quanto: - l'invenzione porta qualcosa di nuovo / utile / che in effetti manca rispetto a quanto già disponibile sul mercato?
F
Score WeightResult
(score x weigth)
1
3
5
1,00 3,00 5,00
Capacità
Impa
tto
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
PatentTechn.Int/ExtAccess
MODULES 1-5
Patent Techn. Int/Ext Access
Robustness 4.38 3.96 3.87 3.11
Impact / Effect 3.52 4.21 3.67 3.06
Robustness
Impa
ct
Successo - Rilevanza
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
PatentTechn.Int/ExtAccess
Success Probability
Rel
evan
ce
MODULES 1-5
Patent Techn. Int/Ext Access
Success Probability 3.77 3.55 3.87 3.00
Relevance 4.07 4.57 3.67 3.12
Pilot Cases
• Two pilot cases: two new young enterprises, built upon the results of university researches
– From University partner, CRUI: BioFace (Biometrics)
– From Bank partner, ABI: TTW, a special 3-tilting-wheels vehicle
• Ex-post analysis and evaluation
1
3
5
1,00 3,00 5,00
Capacità
Impa
tto
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Brevetto Tecnolog Int/Ext AccessoCapacità/ Robustezza 4,38 4,15 3,97 3,11Impatto / Effetto 3,52 4,21 3,67 3,24
University Case: Modules 1 -5: Capacity / Impact dimensions
Capacity/ RobustnessImpact/ Effect
Patent Technol Int/Ext Access
Patent TechnolInt/ExtAccess
Capacity
Impa
ct
Successo - Rilevanza
1,00
3,00
5,00
1,00 3,00 5,00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Brevetto Tecnolog Int/Ext AccessoProbabilità di Successo 3,77 3,77 3,97 3,00Rilevanza 4,07 4,57 3,67 3,24
Modules 1 -5: Probability of Success / Relevance dimensions
Probability of SuccessRelevance
Patent TechnolInt/ExtAccess
Patent Technol Int/Ext Access
Probability of Success
Rel
evan
ce
1
3
5
1.00 3.00 5.00
Capacità
Impa
tto
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
1
3
5
1.00 3.00 5.00
Capacità
Impa
tto
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
1
3
5
1.00 3.00 5.00
Capacità
Impa
tto
1
3
5
1.00 3.00 5.00
Capacità
Impa
tto
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
1
3
5
1.00 3.00 5.00
Capacità
Impa
tto
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Capacity Capacity
Capacity Capacity Capacity
Impa
ctIm
pact
Impa
ct
Impa
ct
Impa
ct
Patent TechnolInt/ExtAccess
Successo - Rilevanza
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Successo - Rilevanza
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Successo - Rilevanza
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
Successo - Rilevanza
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Successo - Rilevanza
1.00
3.00
5.00
1.00 3.00 5.00
probabilità di successo
rilev
anza
BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso
Probability of Success
Rele
vanc
eRe
leva
nce
Rele
vanc
e
Rele
vanc
e
Rele
vanc
e
Probability of Success
Probability of Success
Probability of Success
Probability of Success
Patent TechnolInt/ExtAccess
Modular Platform Proposal
• Organize Business Context related indicators and criteria– Business Context related criteria are usually hard-to-quantify
• Structure and simplify analysis, allowing for systematic grouping and integration of indicators/ parameters/ modules
– Indications of risk w.r.t. potential areas (like on a chart) to facilitate credit worthiness analysis
• Provide guidelines / checklists• Flexible, manageable, customizable• It could be integrated and used in support of “judgmental”
evaluation methods– E.g. for new innovative enterprises, start-ups, spin-offs
Usages and BenefitsUsages and Benefits
n Improved understanding of intrinsic value and more reliable calculation of monetary value;
n Adding more parameters for assessing risk, e.g. for financing innovative projects or opening a credit line for innovative SMEs (mitigation of business risk, better credit rating thanks to competitive advantages...)
n Devising financial instruments to facilitate access to capitals to SMEs, to new and innovative firms/ ventures
n Integrate IP related policies into programs in support of enterprises’ creation and development
IP Evaluation
IP StrategyIP Valuation
IP Assets
n Guidelines for simplified evaluation, stretching between finance and strategy, in support of decision making.
n Control / check tool; Recursive check-up
Challenges
The approach should:• Balance complexity and standardization• Comply with qualitative and quantitative analysis• Measure relevance and merit• Be compatible with current evaluation practices (e.g. of
projects) in banks• Be aligned with other regulations/ definitions (e.g. IAS,
FASB, Basel II...)• Be a communication tool; comprehensible and transparent
LimitationsLimitations
n Qualitative analysis n Statistical data still missing; Experimentation ongoing (CRUI)n A decision table / read-out table still needs to be tested.n For specific fields, for instance software or biotechnology,
additional indicators or additional module(s) could be beneficial.
IP Evaluation
IP StrategyIP Valuation
IP Assets
n The tool has been conceived to assist some of the stakeholders involved in the ecosystem for innovation;
n Expert reasoning still involved/ required n “Multilanguage” -> hybrid