In yesterday's posting, I continued my rant about how we don't have an innovation policy that reflects the real nature of innovation. Our policy - and that of most governments - general follows the linear model of innovation which runs from scientific research to final product. While that is one path, it is only one of many. And probably not even the most common. More common is an entrepreneur identifies an opportunity and mixes and matches the tools to exploit that opportunity.
We do have some policy tools to help in this opportunity-pull process. One of those is by directly helping businesses who acting entrepreneurially regardless of their size (start-ups, rapidly growing companies and established firms). That assistance takes many forms and is usually labeled as something other than innovation policy -- such as small business policy or clean energy or manufacturing. It includes financial assistance (including tax credits, loans, grants), business contacts (including research partnerships and government procurement) and technical assistance (such as SBA technical assistance and the MEP centers).
One of the emerging and more important parts of technical assistance is helping companies develop and manage their intangible assets. In an earlier posting I describe what some other countries are doing in this regard, including that Scottish Intellectual Assets Centre.
Here is another example -- the UK Intellectual Property Office's Intangible Assets Network:
This website aims to:
* Help you learn about intangible assets;
* Help you manage intangible assets and create value from them;
* Highlight the risks to your organisation if you don't manage IA effectively.
It is directed particularly at finance officers, information officers and project managers as they are likely to hold some level of responsibility for the management of IA.
Interestingly, the site is also meant to help in public sectors. One section includes information on IA Policy which:
is intended to serve as a tool to assist Government organisations who do not currently have a structured policy on Intellectual Property (IP) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and who wish to establish one.
My one concern about the site is that it is IP-centric (understandable given it is the IP Office). The list of "intangibles" are really a list of intellectual property categories (some of which such as databases and design the US does not include under IPR). It does include "knowhow." But the description is what would be covered in the US under trade secrets.
Most troubling, it lumps all the other areas of what we would consider intangibles into "goodwill":
While the majority of goodwill may lay in brand, goodwill is broader than "brand" as it can accommodate value attributable to other intangibles such as staff expertise etc.
So two steps forward and one step back. There is hope, however. The Intellectual Assets Centre is a partner in the endeavor. They may be able, over time, to set this on a path that understands the breath of intangible assets and the need to manage across that breath.
Leave a comment