Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

46
BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY
a consequence, they included additional services and functions into their
traditional portfolio. Two of the most challenging aspects in this transformation
are (i) their openness to IPR protection and exploitation beyond formal
methods, and (ii) their co-ordination and collaboration with other institutions,
particularly with RTDI agencies.
� (National) RDI agencies, regional development agencies. In terms of
reach and scope (and size), they are the winners during the last 10 to 20 years
of RTDI policy development. In most industrialised countries, they act as the
central ‘market places’ for delivering a wide range of research and innovation
related services. Accordingly, they have very much contributed to and
benefited from the above mentioned principal-agent-asymmetry. Interestingly,
it is rather the rule than the exception that the relationship between the world
of IPR and general innovation support is rather weak – probably fostered by
the monopoly of patent offices.
� The private sector. The most relevant group in the private sector are patent
attorneys, patent information firms and business consultants. They typically act
as brokers or domain specialists, providing in-depth consultancy, mainly on
legal, technical, and management matters. Due to their private status, their
portfolio of services is rather selective, insofar as they cannot afford those
services which are often publicly supported, such as awareness or training
schemes. A quite recent type of private-sector actor is the so-called patent troll,
which combines all three qualifications (legal, technical and business), typically
acting as a small company that enforces patent rights against accused
infringers, but does not manufacture products or supply services based on the
patents in question.
Internal organisation, portfolio of services, practices
During the last two decades, most if not all innovation related policy institutions
have been inspired by the concept of “systems of innovation”, based on the
assumption that the performance of a given institution is mostly determined by the
overall system architecture and its position within the institutional landscape.
Notwithstanding this, there is a quite plausible assumption that the internal
characteristics of institutions are dominant over the scope of services and the
performance of their delivery. Accordingly, the internal (hierarchical) structure of
the respective institutions, their strategies, their practices, the composition of their
services, and not the least their key staff outweigh the influence of the role of their
position in the institutional system.
As regards the internal division of labour, it is decisive, whether the institutions
(particularly patent offices and RTDI agencies) are organised either according (i) to
instruments or related (classes of) services, emphasising the homogeneity
of provision or (ii) based on specific target groups, emphasising the homogeneity
of utilisation. Obviously, the orientation toward target groups provides better preconditions
to adopt new or existing IPR related services or to co-operate with third
parties rather than the division of labour based on instruments or services.
Furthermore, the portfolio of the services provided by an institution determines the
readiness to adopt new services. As regards RTDI agencies, there is a strong
indication of a broadening of the portfolio. Not unlike RTDI agencies, patent offices
also tend to enlarge their portfolio, however by differentiating their existing
services (awareness campaigns, training, pro-active support).
Finally, the quality of practices, employed in the respective agencies, shape the
ways in which new services are adopted, implemented, and provided: Need
assessment, monitoring, quality assurance, and evaluation are the most relevant
dimensions as regards the professionalisation of services. As regards policy culture
– particularly policy planning, monitoring and evaluation, RTDI agencies are
generally more advanced as compared to the traditional patent offices. The
difference has to do with the more dynamic environment and a higher level of