Duncan Bucknell - over at IPThinkTank - has an interesting posting The biggest issue in IP management? He argues that the biggest pool of IP and therefore the biggest challenge for IP management is in small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). As he notes, "The vast majority of IP management is done where there is no IP function." He call for the development of tools for IP management that can be applied to all size firms, like accounting.
Neil Wilkof over at IP Finance counters with the comment
There are some models for developing the tools that Bucknell calls for -- and for disseminating those tolls to SMEs. In Scotland, for example, there is the Intellectual Asset Centre. Their mission is threefold:
This is somewhat similar to the US manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) centers in the US. MEP, however, is limited to manufacturing firms and focuses on issues of quality and productivity. In my posting yesterday, I noted that as part of the next wave of innovation policies we need to expand MEP's services to include intangible asset management. But we need to do more.
We need a dedicated institution(s?) on the Scottish IA-Centre model with the sole purpose of intangible asset management. Placing IA management specialists at MEP centers is a good step. But MEP has a number of activities they need to focus on - and its narrow target is helping manufacturing companies. The focus of the IA Centre is both narrower and has much more broader target. It focuses on intangibles but goes beyond helping companies to also raising awareness and fostering expertise in the field. A US IA Center could undertake the same activities. It could feed into the MEP activities - as well as into other business assistance programs run but the federal, state and local governments as well as those by other organizations, such as universities. Such a center could be the catalyst for IA management activities.
Something worth considering.
Neil Wilkof over at IP Finance counters with the comment
that if we are to go about the "development of tools" correctly called for by Bucknell, we will first need to address the prerequisite question: What is the relationship between IP and innovation? Only after we have created a structured approach to answering that question can we then proceed to the "development of tools."I'm not sure that I would go as far as Wilkof in that we have to spell out the precise relationship between IP and innovation. But he is correct in that we have to take a broader perspective. SMEs often don't just lack capacity for IP management, they don't have the capacity for any form on intangible asset management. The broader framework needs to go well beyond IP to embrace all their intangibles.
There are some models for developing the tools that Bucknell calls for -- and for disseminating those tolls to SMEs. In Scotland, for example, there is the Intellectual Asset Centre. Their mission is threefold:
- to raise awareness and understanding of intellectual assets among Scottish organizations
- to help those organisztions identify and exploit their intellectual assets
- to work with independent intellectual assets management specialists and encourage their sector to grow
This is somewhat similar to the US manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) centers in the US. MEP, however, is limited to manufacturing firms and focuses on issues of quality and productivity. In my posting yesterday, I noted that as part of the next wave of innovation policies we need to expand MEP's services to include intangible asset management. But we need to do more.
We need a dedicated institution(s?) on the Scottish IA-Centre model with the sole purpose of intangible asset management. Placing IA management specialists at MEP centers is a good step. But MEP has a number of activities they need to focus on - and its narrow target is helping manufacturing companies. The focus of the IA Centre is both narrower and has much more broader target. It focuses on intangibles but goes beyond helping companies to also raising awareness and fostering expertise in the field. A US IA Center could undertake the same activities. It could feed into the MEP activities - as well as into other business assistance programs run but the federal, state and local governments as well as those by other organizations, such as universities. Such a center could be the catalyst for IA management activities.
Something worth considering.
Leave a comment