Benchmarking National - PRO INNO Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SMES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL <strong>PRO</strong>PERTY As a matter of fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that the tight market for knowledgeable IPR experts is indeed a limiting factor for expanding the service offerings: “Maintaining knowledgeable staff has proven difficult.” (service provider 1) “We are faced with a lack of skilled and multilingual staff.” (service provider 2) “[We have] difficulty of retaining staff at regional level; the salaries are not attractive.” (service provider 3) “One of the greatest benefits we had [from using this service] was to note that there are indeed very few knowledge people – and to learn to live with that.” (SME user of an IPR support service) The statement made by the third service provider has an implication arising from the lack of human resources: It will not likely be possible to offer high quality IPR support services to SMEs in each and every regional outlet or locality. However, this might not pose a big problem, as spatial distance is considered to be the least important quality factor for an IPR support service by the user base. Again, this result regarding less importance for spatial distance holds for almost all services analysed – probably because there is not an every day need for such measures, and if such a need arises SMEs are willing to travel a reasonable distance. Against this background, it appears sensible to opt for a centralised approach: A nation-wide offering could pool knowledge and human resources at some main headquarter location, while regional outlets market the service and refer interested parties to the main unit. This could also have positive implications with regard to marketing and visibility. Graph 13 Key quality factors for the provision of IPR services, user perceptions according to relevance, service users in %, aggregated answers Competence of Staff Ease of access & identification Timely delivery Costs Individual contact Information on different IP strategies (”why/why notto patent”) Scope of service Administrative efforts Technical information (”how to patent”) Referal to & availability of other services in-house Referal to external services Spatial distance Source: Austrian Institute for SME Research, services considered = all (15); n = 630 14 29 26 44 42 40 51 49 47 31 67 67 77 35 35 25 % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 24 31 26 33 31 17 19 high relevance medium relevance 12
Budgets Of the service providers in the benchmarking process, 73 % eventually provided budget data. Care must be used in comparing budget figures because the services have different service goals and designs and also different accounting and costing standards. The reported numbers suggest nonetheless that the benchmarked services may, on average, be funded at rather low levels. The median amounts to € 187,000 p.a., which means that about half of the services may draw on less than that amount. Taking overheads into account, the median would be at around € 158,000 p.a. – hence, around 50 % of the service providers can spend at most € 158,000 p.a. on direct support activities. For the case study services, in contrast, the average budget available amounted to almost € 400,000 p.a., all available for direct service activities, again using median values. These results provide additional evidence that, despite the large number of identified services, only small pockets of well-funded schemes exist for supporting SMEs in the field of IPR. 5.3.5 The performance of the IPR support services While the preceding section examined the resource (or input) side, this section now looks at the output/outcome side. The analysis presented draws on the one hand on information provided by the service providers in phase 2 of the research mission, e.g., monitoring data. On the other hand, important insights are gained from the results of the user survey in phase 3. 5.3.5.1 User take-up and out-reach User take-up Graph 14 shows which indicators are used by the service providers to monitor the take-up of the offerings. It shows that most of the services collect information on the number of users or beneficiaries of the services (71 %). The usage of more Graph 14 Indicators used to measure take-up of the services, percentage of services No. of users/beneficiaries of the service No. of participants in sessions/courses No. of persons/institutions approached No./Share of SME users/beneficiaries No. of queries and/or information requests No. of applications No. of applications by SMEs No. of SMEs approached No. of queries and/or information requests by SMEs Source: benchmarking process, n = 66 other indicators 11 22 32 29 43 48 48 45 52 71 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % 67 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 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:
118 BENCHMARKING NATIONAL AND REGIO
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?