Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

144 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY 3.2 The user’s view In order to get an idea on how the service is perceived by its users and customers, a user survey was carried out in the scope of the underlying benchmarking study, the results of which are presented below. Characteristics of the user group 50 companies were surveyed about their experience with IK2. From the survey sample it seems that IK2 targest mostly micro-enterprises: around two thirds of the companies which gave information on this topic employ not more than nine persons, 32 % have 10 to 49 employees; only 4 % are larger companies with up to 249 employees (see Graph 46). Between 2003 and 2005, 64 % of the IK2 users introduced product innovations (new or significantly improved products) onto the market; around 54 % were able to introduce process innovations in the same time (see Graph 47). Regarding innovation activities, almost all participating companies conducted intramural R&D. Equally, almost all employees in the surveyed companies are involved in R&D. With regard to the type of service providers used for innovation and R&D projects, IK2 users draw mostly on the services of regional agencies (see Graph 48). Notwithstanding Graph 46 IK2–Company Size distribution in interview sample, percentage of respondents, 2005 32% 4% 64% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees Source: User Survey, n = 50 Graph 47 IK2–Innovation activities in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 96 Intramural research & experimental development (R&D) 31 Acquisition of R&D (extramural R&D) 50 Acquisition of machinery and equipment *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 19 Training 48 Market introduction of innovations 71 Design 4 Other preparations for production/deliveries
this, IK2 users refer also to a range of other institutions such as patent attorneys, the patent office, external consultants and various other organisations. This may be due to IK2’s referral activities and the heavily used matchmaking functions. During 2003 and 2005, a considerable share of IK2 service users experienced hampering factors for innovations. In line with the findings of other support services, companies complained mostly about high innovation costs (for 46% of high and 26 % of medium relevance), economic risks (for 42 % of high and for further 30 % of medium relevance) and the lack of appropriate sources of finance (of high relevance for 38 %, medium for 18 %) (see Graph 49). Insufficient information about the market, client responsiveness and organisational issues are reported to be of less critical nature. Between 2003 and 2005, 46 % of the IK2 users stated that they used trade marks to protect their IP, making this the most IP protection method utilised. This may point to the innovation projects being more incremental than radical in nature; the innovations may often lack the inventive step necessary for getting a patent granted. Incremental innovations are typical for Low- and Medium Tech (LMT) industries, which are usually associated with mature markets (see Graph 50). In such industries it is said that companies need to follow a differentiation strategy and foster, for example, branding activities. As trade marks are in their very nature used for branding, the high share of trade mark users provide further evidence that Graph 48 IK2–Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents*) 100 80 60 40 20 0 % 25 <strong>National</strong> agency 88 47 8 12 13 11 14 Regional agency Chamber of commerce *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Patent office 67 Patent attorney frequently occasionally Graph 49 IK2–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005 percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 26 30 46 42 38 Innovation costs Economic risks 18 Finance 16 10 6 6 10 10 Lack of technology info *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 50 Lack of qualified personnel Regulations & standards 33 External consultants 38 EU 43 Other 14 4 2 2 Lack of market info high relevance medium relevance Client responsiveness Organisational issues 145 ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES
Page 1:
PRO INNO Europe paper N° 4 BENCHMA
Page 4 and 5:
PRO INNO Europe The innovation poli
Page 7 and 8:
Contents Executive Summary 9 1 Intr
Page 9 and 10:
4. Case Study: Innovation by patent
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary Background 1. The
Page 13 and 14:
under all circumstances), but rathe
Page 15 and 16:
overall policy level, which primari
Page 17 and 18:
the fact that the business perspect
Page 19:
and evaluation). Hence, there is a
Page 22 and 23:
20 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
Page 24 and 25:
Page 27 and 28:
3 SMEs in the IPR world 3.1 SMEs an
Page 29 and 30:
amount of time (mostly up to 20 yea
Page 31 and 32:
In contrast to arrangements for pat
Page 33 and 34:
3.3 Usage Patterns of IP protection
Page 35 and 36:
industries of the ICT sector. These
Page 37 and 38:
In a study conducted by Kingston (K
Page 39 and 40:
Care must be taken that statements
Page 41 and 42:
The first step to ensure that IP ma
Page 43:
The patent troll as an SME-affine e
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97: 94 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGION
Page 102 and 103: 100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 113 and 114: 7. References Abbot, A. (2006): Pat
Page 115 and 116: http://www.european-inventor.org/pd
Page 117: ANNEX I - CASE STUDIES The case stu
Page 196 and 197:
194 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 271 and 272:
Table 10 Overview of public availab
Page 273 and 274:
Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285:
European Commission Benchmarking na
Page 288:
ISBN 978-92-79-06926-0 NB-AX-07-004
show all

Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?