development and use of indicators for measuring economic impact of ip assets korea institute of...
TRANSCRIPT
Development and Use of Indicators for Measuring Economic Impact of IP Assets
Korea Institute of Intellectual Property
Korean Intellectual Property Office
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
Sep. 10, 2008Dr. Han, Yoo-Jin
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
Table of Contents
Background for Developing Indicators1
Concepts & Frameworks3
Composite Indicator5
Long-term Plan for Indicator Development2
Individual Indicators4
2
Method of Collecting Data6
Analysis of Indicators and Implications 7
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
Background for Developing Indicators
□ Purpose for developing National IP Indicators
1. 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
3
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
4
Infra. building for int’l utilizationInfra. building for int’l utilization
2006. 1 (Commence-
ment)
2007.12(2nd Yr.)
• Rationalization of the model & policy analysis• Diversification of policy analysis• Comparison analysis of OECD countries (cross-section)
Development of internationally acknowledgeable & applicable National IP Competitiveness IndicatorsDevelopment of internationally acknowledgeable & applicable National IP Competitiveness Indicators
• Development of world-class indicators• Link w/ int’l institute such as WIPO
Project Implimen-
ting Strategy
/ Roles of KIIP
Int’l recognitionInt’l recognitionPurpose
Model sophistication & analysisModel sophistication & analysis
ProjectName Development of National IP Competitiveness IndicatoDevelopment of National IP Competitiveness Indicatorsrs
- KIIP + Dom. & Int’l. experts- Int’l survey institute
- KIIP + Dom. & Int’l. experts- Int’l survey institute
- KIIP + Int’lly eminent research institute- Int’l survey institute + foreign patent office
- KIIP + Int’lly eminent research institute- Int’l survey institute + foreign patent office
KIPO(KIIP) + WIPOKIPO(KIIP) + WIPO
Development StageDevelopment Stage
Propagation StagePropagation Stage
Utilization StageUtilization Stage
2006.12(1st Yr.)
2008.12(3rd Yr.)
2009.12(4th Yr.)
2010.12(5th Yr.)
• Sophistication of the model & policy analysis• Int’l outreach & recognition• Comparison analysis of OECD 30 countries (Panel)
Long-term Plan for Indicator Development
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
5
Concepts & Frameworks
Nat’l Competitiveness
Nat’l IP Competitiveness
Input
Input Process
National Competitiveness
System
National IP Competitiveness
System
Out-put
Out-put
Process
Main concept : National Competitiveness productivity (Porter, 1990)≒
* Methodology: literature review, brainstorming of internal researchers, survey of outside researchers
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
6
Concepts & Frameworks
Compe-tence<Crea-tion>
Basic Resource<Inside Input>
Performance<Interim Output>
Performance<Final
Output>
Compe-tence
<Manage-ment>
Compe-tence
<Utiliza-tion>Basic Resource
<Outside Input>
One nation’s IP competitiveness system
Environment<Physical Infra.>
Environment<Institutional Infra.>
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
Concepts & Frameworks
7
Components Definition
Basic resourcesResources that should be basically inputted in order to increase a nation’s IP competitiveness
Inside inputCapital and intellectual resources that are basically inputted inside the system for the creation of IPs
Outside inputCapital and intellectual resources that are basically inputted outside the system for the creation of IPs
CompetencesAccumulated capability inside a nation’s system in order that IPs could be linked to economic performance based on inputted basic resources
CreationPotential and efficiency that could generate intellectual property from intellectual creation activities including R&D
Administration (Protection) Potential and efficiency that obtain, protect, and maintain legal rights of IPs
Utilization Potential and efficiency that yield economic performance through IPs
EnvironmentFundamental factors that support inputted basic resources can yield economic performance based on competences
Physical InfrastructureThe level of physical infrastructure that encompasses the creation, administration, and utilization of IPs
Institutional InfrastructureThe level of institutional infrastructure that surrounds the creation, administration, and utilization of IPs
PerformanceEconomic performance that one country produces based on the basic resources, competences, and environment
Interim OutputIntellectual property that is produced through creation and administration capabilities based on inputted capital and knowledge resources
Final Output Direct·indirect economic performance derived by utilizing interim output
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
8
[Reference] Indexes of Various Int’l Organizations/Institutes
Institution Project Name
OECDScience, Technology and Industry Scoreboard
Main Science and Technology Indicators
IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
WEF Global Competitiveness Report
ECEuropean Report on Science & Technology Indicator
European Innovation Scoreboard
• Many international institutions such as the OECD, IMF, WEF and EC are conducting surveys and publicly announcing the results every year
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
9
Individual Indicators: Brainstorming Results
..
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
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• IP registration ratio• IP examination period• # of IP infringement s • # of PCT applications
Infrastructure• # of patent attorneys• # of patent attorneys per IP application• # of patent examiners•# of patent examiners per IP application
Infrastructure• # of researchers• # of researchers per 10,000 persons• # of filing institutes• # of filing institutes over # of tl institutes
Absolute Scale• Private R&D invest.• Private R&D invest. per GDP
National IP Competitiveness
System of One CountryCompetence
Basic Resource
Operation• # of IP applications per researcher• Triadic Patent Families per researcher• # of IP applications per filing institute• Triadic Patent Families per filing institute
Creation Competence
Utilization Competence
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 holdersDiffusion Infrastructure• # of BB subscriber per 1,000 persons• DAI (Digital Access Index)• Degree of cooperation amongst firms• Tech cooperation b/w univs and firms
Physical Environment
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
Interim Output
Absolute Scaled Output• Royalties from technology export• Value-added in KBI
Relative Scaled Output• Royalties from technology export over those from technology import• Value-added in KBI over total value-added
Final Output
Performance
Domestic Support• Avg. cost of IP application, registration & maintenance• Degree of IP protection• Legal environment for supporting scientific research• Regulation on technological development
Institutional Environment
Environments
Administration Competence
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
Inside Input
Outside Input
Relative Scale• IP stock• IP stock per 10,000 persons
Absolute Scale• Public R&D Iiest.• Public R&D invest. per gov. budget
Relative Scale• ISCI paper stock• SCI paper stock per 10,000 persons
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
10
Individual Indicators: Way of Approach
Final Output
Base vs Diffusion
Domestic Support vs Int’l Relation
Abs. vs Rel.Basic Resource
Competence
Environment
Performance
Inside Input
Outside Input
Creation
Maintenance
Utilization
Physical Infra
Institutional Infra
Interim Output
Infra. vs Operation
11stst level level 22ndnd level level 33rdrd level level
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
11
Way of approach: Absolute vs Relative
Absolute Scale
• Private R&D investment• IP stock
Relative Scale
• Private R&D investment per GDP• IP stock per 10,000 persons
Inside Input
Absolute Scale
• Public R&D investment• SCI paper stock
Relative Scale
• Public R&D invest. per gov. budget• SCI paper stock per 10,000 persons
Outside Input
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
Absolute Scale
• Royalties from technology export• Value-added in KBI
Relative Scale
• Royalties from technology export over those from technology import• Value-added in KBI over total value-addd
Interim Output
Final Output
Performance Performance
Individual Indicators: Way of Approach
Basic Resource Basic Resource
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
12
Way of approach: Infra vs Operation
Competence: Creation Competence: Creation
I
• # of researchers• # of researchers per 10,000 persons• # of filing institutes• # of filing institutes over # of tl institutes
O
• # of IP applications per researcher• Triadic Patent Families per researcher• # of IP Applications per filing institute• Triadic Patent Families per filing institute
Competence: Administration Competence: Administration
I
• # of patent attorneys• # of patent attorneys per IP application• # of patent examiners•# of patent examiners per IP application
O
• IP registration ratio• IP examination period• # of IP infringement s • # of PCT applications
I
• # of knowledge-based firms• # of knowledge-based firms divided by the tl. # of firms• # of TTOs• # of TTOs divided by # of public research institutes
O
• 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
Individual Indicators: Way of Approach
Competence: UtilizationCompetence: Utilization
* Note: I (Infrastructure), O (Operation)
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
13
Way of approach: Base vs Diffusion, Domestic Support vs Int’l Relation
Environment: Physical InfraEnvironment: Physical Infra
BI
• # 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
DI
•# of BB subscriber per 1,000 persons• DAI (Digital Access Index)• Degree of cooperation amongst firms• Tech cooperation b/w univs and firms
DS
• Avg. cost of IP application, registration & maintenance• Degree of IP protection• Legal environment for supporting scientific research• Regulation on technological development
IR
•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
Individual Indicators: Way of Approach
Environment: Institutional InfraEnvironment: Institutional Infra
* Note: BI (Base Infrastructure), DI (Diffusion Infrastructure) DS (Domestic Support), IR (International Relationship)
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
14
Composite Indicator
PerformancePerformanceCompetenceCompetenceBasic ResourceBasic Resource
National IP CompetitivenessNational IP Competitiveness
Outside Input
Inside Input
Crea-tion
Mana-gement
Utili-zation
EnvironmentEnvironment
PhysicalEnv.
Institu-tional Env.
InterimOutput
Final Output
Analytical Hierarchy Process
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
15
Composite Indicator
• 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
• 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
Explanation & Application of AHP Methodology
Experts group # of Surveyees # of Surveyees who answered Response Ratio
Researchers of a public institute 15 15 100%
Businessmen 10 9 90%
Patent attorneys 10 10 100%
Patent examiners 5 5 100%
Total 40 39 97.5%
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
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.
Factor (A) A.I. V.I. I. S.I. E.I S.I. I. V.I. A.I. Factor (B)
Researchers⑨ ⑧ ⑦ ⑥ ⑤ ④ ③ ② ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ Researchers per
10,000 inhabitants( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( v) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Researchers⑨ ⑧ ⑦ ⑥ ⑤ ④ ③ ② ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ # of IP application
institutes( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( v ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Researchers
⑨ ⑧ ⑦ ⑥ ⑤ ④ ③ ② ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ # of filing institutes
over # of tl
institutes( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( v ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
<Exemplary>
* A.I.: Absolutely Important; V.I.: Very Important; I.: Important; S.I.: Slightly Important; E.I.: Equally Important
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
17
Composite Indicator
Basic Resource 0.20
Basic Resource 0.20
National IP CompetitivenessNational IP Competitiveness
Inside Input0.69
Outside Input0.31
Creation0.28
Admini-stration
0.17
Utiliza-tion0.55
Interim Onput0.38
Final Output
0.62
1) 0.33
Physical Infra0.50
Institutional Infra0.50
2) 0.143) 0.334) 0.20
5) 0.346) 0.177) 0.298) 0.20
9) 0.14
10) 0.1211) 0.1312) 0.1113) 0.1014) 0.0515) 0.1916) 0.16
17) 0.0818) 0.1619) 0.0820) 0.1821) 0.1322) 0.1223) 0.1124) 0.14
25) 0.1326) 0.1827) 0.0928) 0.1029) 0.1430) 0.1331) 0.0732) 0.16
33) 0.1134) 0.0835) 0.2036) 0.1137) 0.0638) 0.0739) 0.1940) 0.18
41) 0.0842) 0.1843) 0.1444) 0.1045) 0.1046) 0.1747) 0.0848) 0.15
49) 0.1050) 0.1351) 0.2752) 0.1053) 0.1454) 0.26
55) 0.1856) 0.2157) 0.3058) 0.31
Competence 0.35
Competence 0.35
Environment 0.15
Environment 0.15
Performance 0.30
Performance 0.30
Survey of 39 professionals: relative importance amongst indicators
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
18
Method of Collecting 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 (2 months)
- Collecting countries: 29 countries(except Korea)
- Number of questionnaires: 18
Hard Data Soft Data
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
19
Nation-wise analysis (OECD 30 countries, total score: 100): Ranking
1: US 68.16
2: Japan 47.11
3: Germany 44.06
4: France 43.22
5: UK 39.97
6: Finland 39.12
7: Switzerland 38.12
8: Sweden 37.46
9: Denmark 37.36
10: Korea 36.52
11: Iceland 36.23
12: Canada 36.15
15: Netherlands 31.12
OECD Average: 31.24
16: Belgium 30.33
17: Ireland 29.82
18: Austria 29.69
19: New Zealand 27.72
20: Italy 27.51
21: Spain 26.91
22: Norway 26.64
23: Hungary 25.02
24: Czechoslovakia 21.81
25: Mexico 19.16
26: Greece 16.66
27: Portugal 15.74
30: Turkey 12.52
13: Luxemburg 34.11
14: Australia 31.72
28: Slovakia 14.71
29: Poland 12.61
OECD Average: 31.24
US Korea Turkey
Ratio of the earned score to the average 2.2 1.2 0.4
Percentage attained compared to the country in the first place (%) 100 53 17
Analysis of Indicators & Implications
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
20
Analysis of Indicators & Implications
1: USA 68.16
2: Japan 47.11
3: Germany 44.06
4: France 43.22
5: UL 39.97
1: Finland 39.12
2: Switzerland 38.12
3: Sweden 37.46
4: Denmark 37.36
5: Iceland 36.23
7: Canada 36.157: Netherlands 31.12
8: Belgium 30.33
9: Iceland 29.82
10: Australia 29.69
11: New Zealand 27.72
9: Italy 27.51
10: Spain 26.91
12: Norway 26.64
13: Hungary 25.02
14: Czechoslovakia 21.81
11: Mexico 19.16
13: Turkey 12.52
6: Luxembourg 34.11
8: Australia 31.72
12: Poland 12.61
6: Korea 36.52
Average of countries over 20 million inhabitants: 34.28
15: Greece 16.66
16: Portugal 15.74
17: Slovak Republic 14.71
Average of countries under 20 million inhabitants: 26.12
US Korea Turkey
Ratio of the earned score to the average 2.0 1.1 0.4
Percentage attained compared to the country in the first place (%)
100 53 17
Finland Slovakia
Ratio of the earned score to the average 1.5 0.6
Percentage attained compared to the country in the first place (%)
100 38
Nation-wise analysis (OECD 30 countries, total score: 100): Ranking
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
21
▶▶ Classification of nations: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency ▶▶
I. Group demanding Benchmarking
IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement
Scale indicator(Output+Input)
Efficiency indicator(Output/Input)
II. Group demanding Input Increment
III. Group demanding Output/Input Enhancement
Analysis of Indicators & Implications
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
22
Efficiency(Performance/
Basic Resource)
Scale(Basic Resource
+Performance)
TUR
POL
SVK
GREPOR
IRL
CVK
MEX
NOR
NZL
HUN
AUT
SPN
ITABEL NED
LUX
AUSCAN
FIN
ISL
SWI
SWE
DENUK
KOR
FRA
GER JPN
US
I. Group demanding Benchmarking (8 states)
IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement (7 states)
III. Group demanding Output/Input Enhancement (4 states)
II. Group demanding Input Increment (11 states)
Analysis of Indicators & Implications ▶▶ Classification of nations: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency ▶
▶
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
23
Efficiency(Interim Output/
Basic Resource)
SVK
GRE
POL
POR
MEX
HUN
TUR
CVK
NOR
ITAAUT
BEL NED
SPNIRL
DEN
NZL
CAN
FIN
AUS
ISL
SWE
LUX
UKSWI
FRA
KORJPN
USGER
I. Group demanding Benchmarking (5 states)
IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement (10 states)
III. Group demanding Output/Input Enhancement (9 states)
II. Group demanding Input Increment (6 states)
▶▶ Country-wise comparison: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency ▶▶
Analysis of Indicators & Implications
Scale(Basic Resource +Interim
Input)
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
24
Scale(Interim Output +Final
Output)
Efficiency(Final Output/
Interim Output)
TUR
POL
GRE
SVK
POR
IRL
NOR
AUT
CVK
SPN
ITA
NZL
MEX
FIN
BEL
SWE
ISL
NED
CANSWI
AUS
HUN
DEN
KOR
GER
UK
LUX
FRA
JPN
US
I. Group demanding Benchmarking (3 states)
IV. Group demanding Output Enhancement (11 states)
III. Group demanding Output /Input Enhancement
(5 states)
II. Group demanding Input Increment (11 states)
▶▶ Country-wise comparison: Evaluation of the system’s scale & efficiency ▶▶
Analysis of Indicators & Implications
6th ANNUAL WIPO FORUM ON IP & SMEs
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.