EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LCNF
C.1.7
Barriers That May Have Discouraged Project Partner Involvement (Q1.7)
Questions:
Are you aware of any barriers that may have discouraged project partner
involvement?
C.1.7.1 Summary of Responses
Four respondents that answered the question felt there were no direct barriers. The
barrier most respondents mentioned was the intellectual property rights with this being
mentioned in six responses.
One respondent had no clear view, and one did not respond.
C.1.7.2 Intellectual Property
As mentioned, intellectual property was mentioned as a barrier by several respondents
with the issue being the partners having to give up too much ownership of IP. One of
these respondents stated that although background IP is protected and foreground IP is to
be shared; sometimes it is not possible to reveal the latter without revealing some of the
former. They believe allowing partners to retain foreground IP would encourage more
partners especially SME’s and start-ups that cannot afford to lose IP, and it will attract
innovators which, in their opinion, surely is the point.
Another of these respondents made a point that when a supplier talked on a project with a
DNO to test their product on the network this will inevitably improve the product, but then
the DNO will claim ownership of the IP of the improvement as they funded it. They, once
again, say this is a big barrier for SMEs as they will not have the experience or resource
to be able to negotiate a licence with the DNO. They suggested a way to avoid this is
scoping projects so suppliers develop no foreground IP, claiming all of it back as
background IP.
The IP points made in the previous question responses are also relevant here.
C.1.7.3 Other Barriers
One response stated that initially the barrier was that companies were not prepared to
take the risk on the new initiative, but this is no longer a problem as the LCNF has
become established.
One respondent was aware of organisations which could be potential partners if they were
more familiar with the program; they feel more needs to be done to disseminate the
knowledge outside of the more established channels.
Another respondent is aware that some companies are hesitant to prepare bids with
project partners in case the partners feel they will have an open cheque come delivery.
These companies would prefer an informal arrangement, with the work tendered out once
the project has been awarded, but the problem with this is the contribution of the project
partners to the scope and development will be less.
A barrier mentioned in the previous question responses was once again brought up by a
different respondent – the lack of resources DNOs have for innovation projects, and
having to prioritise day-to-day running of the business over that. They think this could
possibly by remedied by an allowance for “key” disciplines such as those responsible for
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
October 2016
713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx
173