Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

Similar to the users from SMEs, a rather large share of private inventors tend to
consider the extent of the service offerings as too narrow/superficial, but most are
satisfied in this respect. Spatial distance is for private inventors not a problem: 10
out of 12 users consider it a low barrier. All private inventors questioned agree that
the benefits offered by the service clearly outweigh efforts.
Additionality of the service
In order to answer the question whether a support service works or does not work,
one should 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
positive effect” as opposed to things which would have happened anyway, despite
of the service. Similarly, also other types of changes incurred within the enterprise,
as a result of using the service, are to be recorded (these types of changes are
referred to as “behavioural additionality”).
Additionality effects for the offered financial assistance schemes seem to be rather
high (see Graph 133). According to the survey results, 26 % of the undertakings of
users from SMEs would not have been carried out without support from the service.
On the other hand, 19 % would have carried out the undertakings without any
change or modification.
The usage of the service portfolio offered by the Foundation, from financial support
to marketing and support in commercialization of inventions, seems to have
changed the treatment of many IPR-related aspects by the service utilising firms.
The most notable changes took place with respect to general awareness on IPR
issues and patent usage in the corporate IPR strategy (increased for 76 % and 68 %
of the users, respectively) (see Graph 134). The Foundation can thus claim that its
services significantly change the attitude of its SME customer base towards the
creation of patents. Furthermore, patent and knowledge management know-how
has increased considerably. Interestingly, trade secrecy usage in the IPR strategy
also received a lot more attention – an indication that the Foundation staff does a
rather good job in consulting with regard to general IP management which would
cover also informal protection methods. Equally interesting against the background
of the services high focus on finding licensees for their inventors is, however, also
that licensing activities seem to have increased only for a small share of users.
Identified by a high share of users from SMEs, the most important elements of a
service portfolio comparable to that of the Foundation are the competence of staff
closely followed by the ease of access and identification and timely delivery (see
Graph 135). Information on different IP strategies (why or why not to patent) was
also considered to be one of the most important key factors. Interestingly, users
showed also keen interest in technical information regarding IPR. Administrative
efforts and spatial distance received the lowest relevance figures. Private inventors
shared the views of the SMEs and seem to place a lot of importance on the
existence of individual contacts.
As can be seen from the user survey results, private inventors and users from SMEs
show very similar needs and wants regarding assistance with IPR issues. Despite the
different characteristics, it seems that targeting both groups with one comprehensive
portfolio of support measures would work very well for a service comparable to the
Foundation.
12.3 Elements of good practice
The Foundation for Finnish inventions offers an integrated package of IPR services
which exhibit as whole the following success factors (resp. elements of good
practise):
� Nation-wide offered services with regional outlets (at/with relevant
institutions);
235
ANNEX I – CASE STUDIES