Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

244 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY 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”). The subsidy has achieved rather low additionality effects, which might be explained by the focus on trade marks: Trade mark applications are much less costly than patent applications, and the cost barrier tackled by subsidies is thus not as high as with patents. Around 9 % of the undertakings would not have been carried out at all in the absence of support from the service. In addition, 24 % would have been carried out but to a smaller scope, another 26 % of the enterprises surveyed would have carried out their undertakings at a later stage. Around 32 % would have carried out their IP-related undertaking, regardless of the service (see Graph 142). Bearing in mind that most of the subsidized IP actions in 2005 were related to the registry of other formal IPR methods than patents (i.e. newly registered trade marks, designs, etc.), it seems not surprising that the most striking changes in the attitudes towards the protection of IPR concern the usage of trade marks and general IPR awareness. Very few behavioural aspects were recorded with respect to other IP protection and usage tools (see Graph 143). This is not per se a bad example for SEGAPI, as the positive effects are still in line with the goals of the service. It shows that a regional initiative can have high effects in particular selected areas but that a larger more open service (covering e.g. also informal protection methods) might be needed as a complementary offering on the national level. Graph 144 Key quality factors for a service such as SEGAPI Promotion of Industrial Property, percentage of respondents*) Timely delivery Ease of access & identification Costs Administrative efforts Referal to & availability of other services in-house Competence of Staff Referal to external services Individual contact Scope of service Technical information ("how to patent") Information on different IP strategies ("why/why not topatent") Spatial distance *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 53 9 26 25 36 32 43 21 53 51 8 70 68 68 66 21 28 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 38 34 28 40 13 19 23 23 high relevance medium relevance %
Users were also asked what they felt to be the most important elements of a service similar to the SEGAPI offerings. Ease of access and identification (given the fact that marketing still seems to be an area for improvement), administrative efforts and costs as well as timely delivery were considered as most important factors contributing to the success of a service like SEGAPI. Interestingly, the competence of the staff was also considered important by most of the SMEs surveyed, but the share of users who put “high” relevance to this aspect was less than with other services analysed in the scope of this study (see Graph 144). This can be due to the focus on trade marks which may be considered easier to handle than patents. 13.3 Elements of good practice The service exhibits the following success factors (resp. good practice elements): � Clearly stated, very specific goals, offered in a regional context; � Governance structure: Careful planning process and existing evaluation culture; � Integration into a wider range of IPR-related services; interaction with general innovation support programmes; � Referral activities to external consultants (by subsidising them), when solutions are needed that cannot be supplied to SMEs directly; � Uniqueness: Only service of its type in Galicia; � Quite large take up. The service faces the following challenges: � Low visibility with its target group, supposedly due to its young age � According to the statements received by programme officials, larger companies are increasingly seen as a viable target group, but also private individuals. Therefore, it seems that the regional government is getting more interested not to address SMEs only. A step in this direction has been taken in 2006, since when subsidies were also offered on an experimental basis to larger companies, but only to cover expenses derived from the geographical extension of already existing IPR titles. 245 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:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197: 194 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 271 and 272: Table 10 Overview of public availab
Page 273 and 274: Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
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?