1 / 25

Development and Use of Indicators for Measuring Economic Impact of IP Assets

6 th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs. Development and Use of Indicators for Measuring Economic Impact of IP Assets. Sep. 10, 2008 Dr. Han, Yoo-Jin. Korea Institute of Intellectual Property Korean Intellectual Property Office. Table of Contents. Background for Developing Indicators. 1.

albert
Download Presentation

Development and Use of Indicators for Measuring Economic Impact of IP Assets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs Development and Use of Indicators for Measuring Economic Impact of IP Assets Sep. 10, 2008 Dr. Han, Yoo-Jin Korea Institute of Intellectual Property Korean Intellectual Property Office

  2. Table of Contents Background for Developing Indicators 1 Long-term Plan for Indicator Development 2 Concepts & Frameworks 3 Individual Indicators 4 Composite Indicator 5 6 Method of Collecting Data 7 Analysis of Indicators and Implications

  3. Background for Developing Indicators • □ Purpose for developing National IP Indicators • Development of indicator at a national level • - Diverse and meaningful policy analysis and deduction of implications • - Development of a framework for objective-oriented indicator analysis • - Measurement & comparisons of countries thru national-level IP indicators • - Measurement & comparisons of nations’ scores • 2. Continuous analysis of OECD 30 countries • - Comparison analysis of nation-wise IP competitiveness • - Classification of nations according to the scale and efficiency of input & output • 3. Improvement of the recognition thru international outreach • - Theoretical verification: consultation from domestic & foreign experts • - Assurance of the recognition: presentation at international conferences & seminars

  4. Development of National IP Competitiveness Indicators Utilization Stage Propagation Stage Development Stage • KIIP + Dom. & Int’l. experts • Int’l survey institute • KIIP + Int’lly eminent research institute • Int’l survey institute + foreign patent office Long-term Plan for Indicator Development Project Name Purpose Development of internationally acknowledgeable & applicable National IP Competitiveness Indicators Model sophistication & analysis Int’l recognition Infra. building for int’l utilization KIPO(KIIP) + WIPO Project Implimen-ting Strategy / Roles of KIIP • Development of world-class indicators • Link w/ int’l institute such as WIPO • Sophistication of the model & policy analysis • Int’l outreach & recognition • Comparison analysis of OECD 30countries(Panel) • Rationalization of the model & policy analysis • Diversification of policy analysis • Comparison analysis of OECD countries (cross-section) 2006. 1 (Commence-ment) 2006.12 (1st Yr.) 2007.12 (2nd Yr.) 2008.12 (3rd Yr.) 2009.12 (4th Yr.) 2010.12 (5th Yr.)

  5. Concepts & Frameworks Main concept : National Competitiveness ≒ productivity (Porter, 1990) Nat’l Competitiveness National Competitiveness System Out-put Input Process Nat’l IP Competitiveness Input Process Out-put National IP Competitiveness System * Methodology: literature review, brainstorming of internal researchers, survey of outside researchers

  6. Concepts & Frameworks One nation’s IP competitiveness system Compe-tence <Crea-tion> Compe-tence <Manage-ment> Compe-tence <Utiliza-tion> Performance <Final Output> Basic Resource <Inside Input> Basic Resource <Outside Input> Environment <Physical Infra.> Performance <Interim Output> Environment <Institutional Infra.>

  7. Concepts & Frameworks

  8. [Reference] Indexes of Various Int’l Organizations/Institutes • Many international institutions such as the OECD, IMF, WEF and EC are conducting surveys and publicly announcing the results every year

  9. Individual Indicators: Brainstorming Results National IP Competitiveness System of One Country Basic Resource Inside Input .. Competence • Absolute Scale • Private R&D invest. • Private R&D invest. per GDP Creation Competence • Infrastructure • # of researchers • # of researchers per 10,000 persons • # of filing institutes • # of filing institutes over # of tl institutes • Operation • # of IP applications per researcher • Triadic Patent Families per researcher • # of IP applications per filing institute • Triadic Patent Families per filing institute • Relative Scale • IP stock • IP stock per 10,000 persons Outside Input • Absolute Scale • Public R&D Iiest. • Public R&D invest. per gov. budget Performance Administration Competence Interim Output • Infrastructure • # of patent attorneys • # of patent attorneys per IP application • # of patent examiners • # of patent examiners per IP application • Operation • IP registration ratio • IP examination period • # of IP infringement s • # of PCT applications • Relative Scale • ISCI paper stock • SCI paper stock per 10,000 persons • Absolute Scale • # of IP applications by residents • # of IP registrations by residents • # of IPs in force • Relative Scale • # of IP applications by residents per 10,000 persons • # of IP registrations by residents 10,000 persons • # of IPs in force per 10,000 persons Utilization Competence Environments • Infrastructure • # of knowledge-based firms • # of knowledge-based firms divided by the tl. # of firms • # of TTOs • # of TTOs divided by # of public research institutes • Operation • Efficiency in creation of firms • Efficiency in dissemination of knowledge • Venture capital investment in early stages divided by IPs in force • Value-added per IPs in force Physical Environment • Base Infrastructure • # of IP educational institutes • Degree of emphasizing scientific education • Ease of funding for technological development • Ratio of bachelors’ degree holders in science & engineering per bachelors’ degree holders Final Output • Absolute Scaled Output • Royalties from technology export • Value-added in KBI Institutional Environment • International Relationship • The ratio of IP-related Int’l treaties joined out of all possible IP-related treaties • Contributions to WIPO • Whether or not its official lang is the PCT lang • Incentive systems for foreign investors • Domestic Support • Avg. cost of IP application, registration & maintenance • Degree of IP protection • Legal environment for supporting scientific research • Regulation on technological development • Diffusion Infrastructure • # of BB subscriber per 1,000 persons • DAI (Digital Access Index) • Degree of cooperation amongst firms • Tech cooperation b/w univs and firms • Relative Scaled Output • Royalties from technology export over those from technology import • Value-added in KBI over total value-added

  10. Individual Indicators: Way of Approach 1st level 2nd level 3rd level Basic Resource Inside Input Abs.vs Rel. Outside Input Creation Competence Infra.vs Operation Maintenance Utilization Base vs Diffusion Environment Physical Infra Institutional Infra Domestic Supportvs Int’l Relation Performance Interim Output Final Output

  11. Individual Indicators: Way of Approach Way of approach: Absolute vs Relative Basic Resource Performance Interim Output Inside Input Outside Input Final Output

  12. Individual Indicators: Way of Approach Way of approach: Infra vsOperation Competence: Utilization Competence: Creation Competence: Administration * Note: I (Infrastructure), O (Operation)

  13. Individual Indicators: Way of Approach Way of approach: Base vs Diffusion, Domestic Support vs Int’l Relation Environment: Physical Infra Environment: Institutional Infra * Note: BI (Base Infrastructure), DI (Diffusion Infrastructure) DS (Domestic Support), IR (International Relationship)

  14. Composite Indicator National IP Competitiveness Basic Resource Competence Environment Performance Outside Input Inside Input Physical Env. Institu-tional Env. Interim Output Final Output Crea-tion Mana-gement Utili-zation Analytical Hierarchy Process

  15. Composite Indicator Explanation & Application of AHP Methodology • Deductive approach according to which we deduce weights by giving objective-oriented meaning to • each indicator • Representative decision-making method for solving complex problems in the real world: Grasp of • each attribute’s weight by classifying various attributes hierarchically • Basic principle: i) Hierarchical structuring • ii) Weighting • iii) Consistency • Benefit: it is possible to deduce weights by collecting a few experts’ opinions

  16. [Reference] AHP Survey Example We selected AHP in order to deduce weights since indicators are structured hierarchically and we need to grasp relative importance in a whole hierarchical structure. <Exemplary> * A.I.: Absolutely Important; V.I.: Very Important; I.: Important; S.I.: Slightly Important; E.I.: Equally Important

  17. Composite Indicator Survey of 39 professionals: relative importance amongst indicators National IP Competitiveness Basic Resource0.20 Competence0.35 Environment 0.15 Performance 0.30 Inside Input 0.69 Outside Input 0.31 Creation 0.28 Admini-stration 0.17 Utiliza-tion 0.55 Physical Infra 0.50 Institutional Infra 0.50 Interim Onput 0.38 Final Output 0.62 33) 0.11 41) 0.08 49) 0.10 55) 0.18 1) 0.33 5) 0.34 9) 0.14 17) 0.08 25) 0.13 34) 0.08 42) 0.18 50) 0.13 56) 0.21 2) 0.14 6) 0.17 10) 0.12 18) 0.16 26) 0.18 35) 0.20 43) 0.14 51) 0.27 57) 0.30 3) 0.33 7) 0.29 11) 0.13 19) 0.08 27) 0.09 36) 0.11 44) 0.10 52) 0.10 58) 0.31 4) 0.20 8) 0.20 12) 0.11 20) 0.18 28) 0.10 37) 0.06 45) 0.10 53) 0.14 13) 0.10 21) 0.13 29) 0.14 38) 0.07 46) 0.17 54) 0.26 14) 0.05 22) 0.12 30) 0.13 39) 0.19 47) 0.08 15) 0.19 23) 0.11 31) 0.07 40) 0.18 48) 0.15 16) 0.16 24) 0.14 32) 0.16

  18. Method of Collecting Data Hard Data Soft Data • OECD data • Main Science & Technology Indicators • Structural & Demographic Business Statistics • STAN Database • STI Scoreboard • IMD data • World Competitiveness Yearbook • WEF data • Global Competitiveness Report • WIPO data • IP Statistics • UNESCO data • International Association of Universities: List of Universities • * # of filing institutes: internal database of KIPI • * # of IP infringements: various newspapers and reports of a consulting company • Request to foreign research institutes due to the volume of questionnaires: Evalueserve, TMR • Collecting period: 10~11(2months) • Collecting countries: 29 countries(except Korea) • Number of questionnaires: 18

  19. Analysis of Indicators & Implications Nation-wise analysis(OECD 30 countries, total score: 100): Ranking OECD Average: 31.24 OECD Average: 31.24 16: Belgium 30.33 68.16 1: US 17: Ireland 29.82 47.11 2: Japan 18: Austria 29.69 44.06 3: Germany 19: New Zealand 27.72 4: France 43.22 27.51 20: Italy 39.97 5: UK 21: Spain 26.91 6: Finland 39.12 22: Norway 26.64 7: Switzerland 38.12 23: Hungary 25.02 8: Sweden 37.46 21.81 24: Czechoslovakia 9: Denmark 37.36 19.16 25: Mexico 10: Korea 36.52 16.66 26: Greece 11: Iceland 36.23 27: Portugal 15.74 36.15 12: Canada 14.71 28: Slovakia 34.11 13: Luxemburg 12.61 29: Poland 14: Australia 31.72 12.52 30: Turkey 15: Netherlands 31.12

  20. Analysis of Indicators & Implications Nation-wise analysis(OECD 30 countries, total score: 100): Ranking Average of countries over 20 million inhabitants: 34.28 Average of countries under 20 million inhabitants: 26.12 1: Finland 39.12 68.16 1: USA 2: Switzerland 38.12 47.11 2: Japan 3: Sweden 37.46 44.06 3: Germany 4: Denmark 37.36 4: France 43.22 5: Iceland 36.23 5: UL 39.97 6: Luxembourg 34.11 6: Korea 36.52 7: Netherlands 31.12 7: Canada 36.15 8: Belgium 30.33 8: Australia 31.72 9: Iceland 29.82 9: Italy 27.51 10: Australia 29.69 10: Spain 26.91 11: New Zealand 27.72 11: Mexico 19.16 12: Norway 26.64 12: Poland 12.61 13: Hungary 25.02 12.52 13: Turkey 21.81 14: Czechoslovakia 15: Greece 16.66 16: Portugal 15.74 17: Slovak Republic 14.71

  21. Analysis of Indicators & Implications ▶ ▶ Classification of nations: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency▶ ▶ Efficiency indicator (Output/Input) II. Group demanding Input Increment I. Group demanding Benchmarking Scale indicator (Output+Input) IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement III. Group demanding Output/Input Enhancement

  22. Analysis of Indicators & Implications ▶ ▶ Classification of nations: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency▶ ▶ Efficiency (Performance/ Basic Resource) II. Group demanding Input Increment (11states) I. Group demanding Benchmarking(8states) HUN LUX MEX SVK POL CVK DEN NED BEL GRE UK ITA TUR POR AUS FRA US CAN NZL SWI FIN GER IRL SPN JPN NOR KOR ISL AUT SWE III. Group demanding Output/Input Enhancement (4 states) IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement (7 states) Scale(Basic Resource +Performance)

  23. Analysis of Indicators & Implications ▶ ▶ Country-wise comparison: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency▶ ▶ Efficiency(Interim Output/ Basic Resource) II. Group demanding Input Increment (6states) I. Group demanding Benchmarking(5states) LUX TUR POL HUN FRA NZL JPN AUS MEX KOR IRL SPN UK CVK GER US CAN NED POR SWI BEL GRE DEN ISL SWE ITA SVK FIN AUT NOR III. Group demanding Output/Input Enhancement (9 states) IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement (10 states) Scale(Basic Resource +Interim Input)

  24. Analysis of Indicators & Implications ▶ ▶ Country-wise comparison: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency▶ ▶ Efficiency(Final Output/ Interim Output) II. Group demanding Input Increment (11states) I. Group demanding Benchmarking(3states) NOR SVK HUN MEX ITA GRE DEN CVK BEL NED FIN AUT POR SWE CAN UK SWI US GER FRA SPN POL ISL AUS LUX IRL NZL KOR JPN III. Group demanding Output /Input Enhancement (5 states) IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement (11 states) TUR Scale(Interim Output +Final Output)

  25. Analysis of Indicators & Implications ▶ ▶ Implications to Business Field▶ ▶ • Contributions • Broad perspective to firms: this research does not seem directly apply to business field. However, the whole framework reflects a comprehensive process such as creation, administration and utilization of intellectual property(IP), thereby allowing us to incorporate and structuralize IP activities in one country • Limitations • Conceptual Limitation: the sectors may not fully reflect the process under which an IP is created, administered and utilized after basic resources are inputted, consequently producing final output. • Methodological Limitation:the methodology used here (literature review, brainstorming of internal researchers, survey of outside researchers) may not be adequate enough to comprehensively encompass the whole process under which an IP is created, administered and utilized after basic resources are inputted, consequently producing final output.

More Related