Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

254 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY External barriers towards the availability of support services were not considered to be significant barriers for IP course users/attendants. Regarding PVSonline users, the lack of information on external support services (for 2 out of 10 enterprises of high, for 5 of medium relevance) were perceived to be obstacles. User reach-out and satisfaction levels IP course users/attendants stated that they received information about the different services mostly through the DKPTO itself (72 %); 24 % received newsletters, 16 % found information on the internet. Personal recommendations were valued by 20 % of the users. Surprisingly, no user got to know about the service from agencies or heard about it on information days, conferences etc. Regarding PVSonline users, the internet and the DKPTO itself were considered as most important information sources. However, these results cannot be fully confirmed by service experts. Many users receive information about the service offerings via DKPTO’s e-mail or newsletter service. It is very likely, as expert’s state that companies signed up for such services while visiting DKPTO’s information days. The users/attendants of the IP course were quite satisfied with the service: all aspects (the competence of staff, the quality and relevance of the provided information, etc.) are graded with “1.6” or better, on a scale from 1 (very satisfied) to 4 (unsatisfied). Furthermore, 76 % consider the extent of the service offerings to be adequate; 80 % state that the benefits are adequate to efforts – but only 12 % think that the benefits clearly outweigh the efforts. These findings stand in line with those found for the PVSonline users: all 10 users consider the extent of the service offerings to be adequate and think 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 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”). Graph 151 Behavioural additionality of the DKPTO offerings, percentage of respondents*), IP course users Knowledge management Know-How General awareness IPR training Patent usage in IPR strategy Formal IPR responsibilities within enterprise Trademark usage in IPR strategy Patent knowledge in business environment (Trade) secrecy usage in IPR strategy Copyright usage in IPR strategy Design pattern/utility model usage in IPR strategy In-licensing Out-licensing Reliance on design complexity in IPR strategy Reliance on lead-time advantage in IPR strategy -40 -20 0 20 40 60 % 80 *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 4 4 12 8 20 20 16 28 24 44 40 increased decreased
The IP course offered by the DKPTO was seemingly successful to incite changes in attitudes toward IPR protection (see Graph 151). The most significant changes took place in knowledge management know-how (increased for 44 %) and general awareness (increased for 40 %). On the other hand, attitudes towards informal IPR protection measures (i.e. reliance on design complexity and/or lead time advantage) did not change very much. It seems that informal IPR protection is not at the heart of the available service offerings (i.e. IP courses) although service experts claim that the courses do not focus solely on patent issues: difficulty level and content (i.e. information suitable for IPR beginners or for IPR experts) varies widely. Regarding PVSonline users, the most prominent change concerned the trade mark usage in the IPR strategy (increased for 4 out of 10 users). All IP course users/attendants considered the competence of the staff involved in a service similar to the one offered the DKPTO as most important (for 96% of high, for 4 % of medium relevance) followed by the ease of identification (high relevance for 72 %, medium for 16 %) and the scope of the service (for 68 % of high and 32 % of medium relevance) (see Graph 152). A significant high relevance was also noted for information on different IP strategies (“why/why not to patent”). On the other hand, spatial distance seems not to be an important part of such a measure. Competence of staff and timely delivery were identified by almost all PVSonline users (both for 80 % of high and 20 % of medium relevance) as key quality elements for a service comparable to the electronic access through PVSonline. Unsurprisingly for a service which is available on the internet, spatial distance is not a problem. Graph 152 Key quality factors for a service comparable to the ones offered by the DKPTO, percentage of respondents, IP course users Competence of Staff Ease of access & identification Scope of service Information on different IP strategies ("why/why not to patent") Timely delivery Technical information ("how to patent") Individual contact Costs Administrative efforts Referal to & availability of other services in-house Referal to external services Spatial distance *) multiple answers allowed. Source: User Survey, n = 25 16 32 32 32 28 36 48 48 60 28 72 68 24 28 96 32 32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 16 48 32 20 16 32 high relevance medium relevance 4 % 255 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:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207: 204 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?