Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

54 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY classification system. By applying this categorisation, 39 % of the services are in the domain of finance and legal framework. 31 % are customized in-depth consulting services, and around 28 % are (passive) information provision services. Pro-active awareness-raising activities make up 15 % of the identified services. Surprisingly, training services account for only 9 % of the measures. This low share might indicate a lack of respective service offerings – which was in later research phases also corroborated by the experts interviewed. Despite of the multiple count issues, the functional classification system aims to offer – together with the frequency count of Graph 8 – a comprehensive overview of the main activity areas of IPR support services for SMEs. It has to be remembered that this classification tries to be as evidence-based as possible, and as such it does not necessarily reflect all the policy options available. And, given the multiple count problem, one could still argue for slightly different classifications. In fact, if policy makers would decide to increase the variety of services in certain activity fields, while decreasing the number in other fields, the classification system would have to be updated in order to better reflect the changed structure. Cases in point are, for example, the currently observable rise of support services which deal with counterfeiting issues in China (and a number of other emerging markets) and which offer support on-site. Sub services could very much form a class of their own in the future, if more of these are to be established. The same could also apply to fostered hypothetical IPR litigation insurance schemes, or equally hypothetical state-supported patent pools for SMEs. 13 In the following benchmarking exercise and in the good practice analysis, due account of the classification system will be taken in order to allow for performance assessments in distinctive activity areas, without giving a preference to specific service types in advance. Some generic service types (which are subsumed under one of the five headings) will be, nonetheless, discussed separately as they have peculiarities which policy makers, who wish to set up similar services, would probably need to address. 5.2 Looking for gold: The benchmarking process 5.2.1 The selection process for the benchmarking phase The 210 services classified according to the functional classification system served as a pool for the next phase of the research exercise, the benchmarking procedure. The aim of the benchmarking procedure was to measure the performance of the services in question and to single out candidates and principles of good practice. These 210 services were initially considered aspiring candidates which could make it into the next research phase. The final selection was then made by thoroughly scrutinising the available information and applying the following selection criteria: 1. Clear- and soundness of the objectives of the service stated: The service was to have clearly identifiable goals from which SMEs could benefit and which were sensible in the study context (e.g., they addressed an important IPR-related issue and were stated in such a way that they could be achieved). 2. Clearness of the service design and service offerings: The organisation and the modes of operation were to match the service goals, and, ideally, also hint at an effective and efficient mode of operation. 3. Focus on registrable IP protection methods: The services were to have a focus on registrable IPR. This requirement is in line the aim of the underlying study, but it also keeps track of the finding that most services focus on registrable IPR anyway. 13 See the respective recommendations of Kingston, 2000 and Moulin & Thue, 2005.
4. Level of innovation employed: Services which employed new ways of pursuing certain goals were especially looked into, as respective experiences could provide valuable insight into promising novel ways of offering IPR support to SMEs. 5. Take-up by SMEs and or other available performance measures: In the selection process, considerable emphasis was placed on information concerning the actual performance of the service, as indicated, for example, by the SME takeup, available evaluation results, the reputation of the service, or any other available performance figures. Overall, the service was to have a proven track record. 6. Country context: This selection criterion was put in place in order to account for different stages of economic development (following the assumption that less developed countries might need different types of IPR support services than developed countries) and, similarly, to account for differences in country size. 7. Policy context: This criterion refers to the way the service interacts with other innovation support measures, institutions and services. In total, 72 services were subjected to the benchmarking process. Of the 72 services, it was possible to obtain 66 workable questionnaires from the service providers. 5.2.2 Benchmarking criteria – dimensions along which the performance of services can be assessed on a comparative basis In analysing a heterogeneous set of support services and determining whether one support service is doing better than another, it is necessary to ensure, on one hand, that the measures used allow for comparisons among all types of services analysed, and on the other hand that the measures also take into account service and context specific modes of action which contribute to the success of the service and are not immediately identifiable as such by an outside person. It is clear that no single performance indicator can fulfil these functions simultaneously. Notwithstanding this, there are a number of requirements which have been repeatedly identified in research and literature and which a policy intervention (be it a policy itself, or a support service or programme derived from it) must meet in order to be considered successful (Friedewald et al., 2004): The policy intervention has to be necessary (there has to be a market failure which needs to be addressed) and achievable (which relates foremost to work done in the design phase of the intervention). It also has to be manageable (this relates to the ability to quickly respond to changes in the framework conditions of a service), measurable (one ought to know whether a service is currently performing well or not; hence, the necessity of a monitoring system), connectable (the measure must be able to reach out to key stakeholders and target groups and interact with them) and, eventually, it has to provide an added value. The latter aspect demands that a policy action/ support service should achieve something which would otherwise not have happened at all (pure additionality) or would have happened to a lesser extent (e. g., later in the future). A further requirement can be seen in the fact that experiences gathered should allow for long-term learning. The so-called policy cycle model is, especially in Europe, a generally accepted way of tackling the requirements outlined above; it is believed (and there is plenty of evidence to this end) that policy interventions of all sorts which follow the cyclic model perform better than interventions which pursue other ways of achieving their goals. The model suggests that a policy intervention ideally distinguishes three phases, each accompanied by evaluations which assess how well the service is performing in that particular phase (Radauer & Zinöcker, 2006): 55 TOWARDS GOOD PRACTICES – THE REAL WORLD OF IPR SUPPORT SERVICES
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 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 102 and 103: 100 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 104 and 105: 102 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
Page 106 and 107:
104 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 271 and 272:
Table 10 Overview of public availab
Page 273 and 274:
Nr. B* Country Title of the Service
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
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?