Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

188 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY 35 users, all of which were contacted); and, on the other hand, 44 users/attendants of the roadshow “ideas.well.protected” were questioned on their experiences. Considering the small sample size of the express search users, great care has to be taken when interpreting results regarding this service. As with respect to roadshow attendants, 44 % had less than 9 employees. A further 22 % had 10 to 49 employees and 50 to 249 employees, respectively (see Graph 88). The company size distribution of the express search users showed the following picture: 7 out of 12 express search users have not more than 9 employees, 3 have 10 to 49 employees while 3 employ more than 50 persons. Looking at the development activities, the underlying benchmarking study reveals a significant amount of innovative companies among the users of both services. Between 2003 and 2005, 64 % of the roadshow users/attendants introduced new or significantly improved products onto the market; around 40 % introduced process innovations. During the same time, 9 out of 12 express search users delivered product innovations to customers, 6 came up with process innovations. As concerns R&D, around 90 % of the roadshow users/attendants conducted intramural R&D, on average 50% of the staff work in R&D. Regarding express search users, 10 out of 12 users were engaged in intramural R&D, almost 40 % of the staff works in R&D. Graph 88 serv.ip–Company size distribution in interview sample, 2005, percentage of respondents, roadshow users 22% 12% 22% 0 to 9 employees 10 to 49 employees 50 to 249 employees 250 and more employees Source: User Survey, n = 44 Graph 89 serv.ip–Usage of different service providers by SMEs, percentage of respondents, roadshow users*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 10 22 17 <strong>National</strong> agency 40 33 10 10 10 Regional agency Chamber of commerce *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 44 Patent office 36 24 Patent attorney frequently occasionally 44% 31 21 14 7 5 6 External consultants EU Other
Roadshow users/attendants most frequently took advantage of the service offerings of patent attorneys and chambers of commerce (see Graph 89). As with other services analysed, the high usage rate of patent attorneys underlines the significance of this type of service provider for IPR-affine SMEs; the high role chambers of commerce play can be attributed to relatively well working collaboration patterns of serv.ip with the chambers – the latter helped significantly in organising the roadshow events. Surprising is the relatively low share of users who made use of national development agencies, despite their high significance for R&D funding in the Austrian innovation system. This may point to particularly low cooperation levels between serv.ip and the agencies; an assumption which is substantiated further in the course of the user survey and also in statements of IPR experts. Express search users made frequent use of national and regional agencies, 4 and 3 users, respectively; 5 out of 12 users took at most occasional advantage of the patent office. As regards factors hampering innovation activities, the roadshow users/attendants complained mostly about economic risks (for 55 % of high and 32 % of medium relevance), high innovation costs (for 45 % of high and for further 43 % of medium relevance), and financial sources associated with innovation projects (for 34 % of high and 43 % of medium relevance) (see Graph 90). Almost the same result patterns were found for express search users. Between 2003 and 2005, the majority of the roadshow users/attendants stated that they used at least some IP protection method and employed a variety of methods at the same time; only few (5 %) had no deliberate IPR strategy in place (see Graph 91). Thus, a high share of attendants can be seen as experienced IPR users which is – for an IPR awareness raising campaign – somewhat of a surprise. Comments gathered in course of the user survey suggest that many of the attracted experienced IPR users took advantage of the event because they wanted to inform themselves on possible news and updates concerning the IPR framework. Also qualitative statements point to two distinct user groups: “IPR freshmen” with relatively little knowledge on IPR and “IPR seniors” with considerable IPR knowhow. This heterogeneity illustrates that user segmentation may be an important issue for awareness raising campaigns, given the broadness of the topic of intellectual property rights: While overall satisfaction levels were not bad (see also below), some of the experienced users who looked for answers to specific questions and/or wanted updates on e.g. new legal procedures were a bit disappointed to not get such information. For example, some users stated that ““specific information Graph 90 serv.ip–Hampering factors for innovations, 2003 to 2005, percentage of respondents*), roadshow users % 100 80 60 40 20 0 43 45 Innovation costs 32 55 Economic risks 43 30 27 Regulations & standards 34 Finance *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 44 27 20 20 25 16 14 14 9 Lack of market info Lack of qualified personnel high relevance medium relevance Organisational issues Client responsiveness 27 2 Lack of technology info 189 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:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
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 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141: 138 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?