Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

200 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY Graph 101 IPAS–(Internal) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 61 Costs of IP protection 29 39 Time to make IP protection work 24 17 Lack of qualified personnel *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 27 20 17 7 10 7 10 2 12 Awareness Lack of info on IP protection unclear cost/benefit of IP protection high relevance medium relevance IPR irrelevant in business context Graph 102 IPAS–(External) barriers to using IP protection mechanisms, percentage of respondents*) % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 32 17 Lack of info on available support services *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 27 12 Lack of accessibility of support services high relevance medium relevance 24 7 Organisational issues Lack of quality of available Graph 103 IPAS–Information channels, by which users got to know about the service, percentage of respondents*) % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 39 Internet 15 Newsletter 20 Information days/conferences 5 General newspaper 10 Professional journal *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 41 27 Personal recommendation 15 Consultants Commercial banks 20 Agency 59 Ent. Irl. itself 20 Other
In addition, however, a high number of users employed informal protection methods, i.e. 41 % relied on trade secrets, 37 % relied on the complexity of design and 29 % tried to maintain a lead time advantage over competitors. The main internal barriers perceived for using IPR are, by far, the costs of IP protection (for 61 % of high and for another 20 % of medium relevance) and the time to make IP protection work (for 39 % of high, and for 29 % of medium relevance) (see Graph 101). The lack of qualified personnel plays an important role, too. Organisational issues are considered less relevant. External barriers towards the availability of support services are perceived to be less severe obstacles but still not unimportant in the overall context of the service (see Graph 102). User reach-out and satisfaction levels As the survey shows, the main source of information on the IPAS scheme was Enterprise Ireland itself (59 %) as well as the internet (39 %), most probably Enterprise Ireland’s web site. This is followed by personal recommendations (27 %), information days and agencies (both 20 %); around 20 % of the companies also received information from other channels, notably patent attorneys, underlining a good cooperation between EI and members of that profession (see Graph 103). IPAS users are, on average, very satisfied with the offered service. All the different aspects of service provision are rated with “1.7” or better (on a scale from 1= very satisfied to 4= unsatisfied); the highest grades were received for the competence of staff and delivery time (both “1.4”; see Graph 104). 86 % of the users gauge the extent of the service offerings to be adequate; 8 % think it is too narrow/ superficial. Spatial distance seems not to be a problem (for 68 % a very low-level barrier and for another 30 % a factor considered to be acceptable). 55 % think that the benefits of using IPAS clearly outweigh the efforts; 43 % state that the benefits are adequate to efforts. Additionality of the service In order to answer the question whether a support service works or does not work, one should also inquire into the added value of the service – i.e., what would have happened in case the service were absent. This is done in order to isolate a “net effect” as opposed to things which would have happened anyway, despite of the service. Similarly, also other type of changes incurred within the enterprise, as a result of using the service, are to be recorded (these changes are referred to as “behavioural additionality”). In this sense, pure additionality effects of the IPAS scheme seem to be rather low (see Graph 105). 9 % of the undertakings would not have been carried out at all Graph 104 IPAS–Satisfaction levels with different aspects of service provision, arithmetic means of grades given by respondents Overall: Service met needs and demands Delivery time Quality of provided material Relevance of provided information Competence of staff Source: User Survey, n = 41 1,4 1,5 1,4 1,5 1,7 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 very satisfied unsatisfied 201 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:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153: 150 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?