Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

32 % would have carried out their patenting project, without any change in the
project settings.
Keeping in mind the major aim of the programme, to create general awareness for
the importance of IPR, one may say that VIVACE did quite well to achieve this aim.
The most striking changes in the attitudes towards the protection of IPR concern
general awareness issues (increased for 46 %) and knowledge management
(increased for 36 %). In addition, a review of the formal IPR responsibilities within
a company has been carried out by 34 % of the surveyed users (see Graph 117).
Users of the VIVACE programme underline the importance of the competence of
staff (for 52 % of high, for 34 % of medium relevance), timely delivery (high
relevance for 58 %, medium for 22 %) and costs (for 54 % of high, and for 20 %
of medium relevance) for a service similar to VIVACE (see Graph 118). Individual
contact to service experts and (low) administrative efforts also play an important
role for such a service. Low relevance rates are given, surprisingly for a networked
programme such as VIVACE, to internal and external referral possibilities and spatial
distance.
10.3 Elements of good practice
The VIVACE programme acts as an umbrella scheme and offers a variety of services
and activities towards different IPR issues. The programme’s objective is to increase
the competitiveness of Hungarian SMEs on a national and international level. The
VIVACE programme shows the following elements of good practice:
� Integrated package covering IP awareness raising activities, economic
incentives, educational measures and economic incentives;
� Expert staff;
� Geographic distribution: Regional nodes provide basis information and refer
for more complicated services to the central institution (the HPO) which has
pooled its programme expertise nationally at a headquarter location;
� Strong networking and partnering activities with other actors active in
innovation support;
� Careful planning, business orientation and high level of standardisation of
the programme;
� Complementary, non-IPR service packages are provided by the HPO’s
partnering institutions, i.e. the Chamber of Commerce;
� Strong reputation of the service offerings in Hungary;
� Comparatively little historic burdens to cope with. This implies that there are
plenty of opportunities to do things right from the start, without having to
worry too much about old structures.
Challenges remain with regard to
� the sustainable endowment with resources;
� the integration into the overall national innovation system;
� The varying degree of commitment of the involved contracted partners for
delivering the service.
The future development of the programme is uncertain. As the programme is due
to end in December 2007, successor programmes are needed to take over where
VIVACE has started. According to expert opinions, follow-up programmes may face
an unpredictable future because of open questions concerning adequate funding.
Furthermore, some experts noted that VIVACE is probably not integrated enough
into the national innovation system and overall innovation strategy. Interesting in
this context is the observation made by experts that there can be a threat of
establishing parallel networks due to the lack of an overall integrated governmental
innovation policy.
215
ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES