Review of Methods and Tools for Intellectual Property Analysis of Public Sector Entities

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The low efficiency of intellectual property (IP) in the public sector in our current economic environment is largely due to the insufficient development of the prevailing accounting and analytical system. Analytical methods, and the information basis of their application, are the core of this system. The formation of an accounting and analytical system consistent with the development priorities of public sector entities requires special research.
This article provides a review of the methods and tools of analysis used by Russian and foreign scientists in the field of IP. Our research sample comprises 52 foreign and 39 Russian sources. Through a detailed textual analysis process, we systematise the existing methods used in the analyses of certain aspects of intellectual activity, and assess the information disclosure therein. Our evaluation is targeted towards identifying prospects for harmonising Russian and international approaches, and provide the groundwork for the improvement of accounting and analytical support for IP management in the public sector.
Our results reveal possibilities for expanding the system of IP analysis methods for solving problems in the field of the IP economics and management on the basis of patent analytics. We also collate and classify patent analytics methods, and identify existing methodological problems at the macro- and microeconomic levels. Analytical methods are grouped in accordance with three stages of the reciprocal model of IP accounting and analysis in the public sector, developed within the framework of a novel theoretical and methodological approach.
In conclusion, we illustrate the potential for applying the methods of nonlinear dynamics and the dynamic theory of innovation (re: patent information) to determine the trajectories of public sector entity development concerning levels of information disclosure. We also identify areas for follow up research revealed through our analysis.

About the authors

E. Khomenko

Novosibirsk State Technical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: xomenko@corp.nstu.ru

References

  1. Holgersson M., van Santen S. The business of intellectual property: A literature review of IP management research. Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review. 2018;1(1):44-63.
  2. Holgersson M., Aaboen L. A literature review of intellectual property management in technology transfer offices: From appropriation to utilization. Technology in Society. 2019;59:101132. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.04.008.
  3. Mascarenhas C., Ferreira J.J., Marques C. University-industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Science and Public Policy. 2018;45(5):708-718. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy003.
  4. Yaghoubi M., Teymourzadeh E., Bahadori M., Ghardashi F. Conceptual model of innovation capability in industrial and academic research centers: A systematic review. Iranian Journal of Management Studies. 2017;10(3):609-640. doi: 10.22059/IJMS.2017.238379.672756.
  5. Maresova P., Štemberková R., Fadeyi O. Models, processes, and roles of universities in technology transfer management: A systematic review. Administrative Sciences. 2019;9(3):67. doi: 10.3390/admsci9030067.
  6. Aristodemou L., Tietze F. The state-of-the-art on intellectual property analytics (IPA): A literature review on artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning methods for analyzing intellectual property (IP) data. World Patent Information. 2018;55:37-51. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2018.07.002.
  7. Aristodemou L., Tietze F., Athanassopoulou N., Minshall T. Exploring the future of patent analytics: A technology roadmapping approach. Centre for Technology Management Working Paper Series. 2017;(5). URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/269032/17_05_Aristodemou_et_al.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  8. Castilla-Polo F., Gallardo-Vázquez D. The main topics of research on disclosures of intangible assets: A critical review. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2016;29(2):323-356. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-11-2014-1864.
  9. Castilla-Polo F., Ruiz-Rodriguez C. Content analysis within intangible assets disclosure: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2017;18(3):506-543. doi: 10.1108/JIC-11-2016-0123.
  10. Cuozzo B., Dumay J., Palmaccio M., Lombardi R. Intellectual capital disclosure: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2017;18(1):9-28. doi: 10.1108/JIC-10-2016-0104.
  11. Khomenko E. Modeling of accounting and analytical processes in the educational and scientific organizations for effective commercialization of intellectual property. Audit i Finansovyj Analiz = Audit and Financial Analysis. 2018;(5):197-202. (In Russ.).
  12. Khomenko E. Reverse methodological approach in accounting and analysis of intellectual property of public sector entities. Audit = The Audit Magazine. 2020;(3):15-20. (In Russ.).
  13. Buonomo I., Benevene P., Barbieri B., Cortini M. Intangible assets and performance in nonprofit organizations: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:729. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00729.
  14. Wu Y. H., Welch E. W., Huang W.-L. Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation. 2015;36-37:12-25. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.09.004.
  15. Halilem N., Amara N., Olmos-Peñuela J., Mohiuddin M. "To own, or not to own?" A multilevel analysis of intellectual property right policies on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy. 2017;46(8):1479-1489. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.002.
  16. Öcalan-Özel S., Pénin J. Exclusive or open? An economic analysis of university intellectual property patenting and licensing strategies. Journal of Innovation Economics. 2016;3(21):133-153. doi: 10.3917/jie.021.0133.
  17. Chataway J., Parks S., Smith E. How will open science impact on university-industry collaboration? Foresight and STI Governance. 2017;11(2):44-53. doi: 10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.27.42.
  18. de Beer J., McCarthy I. P., Soliman A., Treen E. Click here to agree: Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions. Business Horizons. 2017;60(2):207-217. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2016.11.002.
  19. van Stijn N., van Rijnsoever F. J., van Veelen M. Exploring the motives and practices of university-startup interaction: Evidence from Route 128. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2018;43(3):674-713. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9625-5.
  20. Veltri S., Puntillo P. On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion for university managers: A case study. Journal of Management & Governance. 2020;24(1):135-167. doi: 10.1007/s10997-019-09461-5.
  21. Fernández-Esquinas M., Pinto H., Yruela M. P., Pereira T. S. Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university-industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016;113(Pt. B):266-279. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.013.
  22. Bikard M., Vakili K., Teodoridis F. When collaboration bridges institutions: The impact of university-industry collaboration on academic productivity. Organization Science. 2019;30(2):426-445. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1235.
  23. Gretsch O., Tietze F., Kock A. Firms' intellectual property ownership aggressiveness in university-industry collaboration projects: Choosing the right governance mode. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2020;29(2):359-370. doi: 10.1111/caim.12354.
  24. Jefferson D. J., Maida M., Farkas A., Alandete-Saez M., Bennett A. B. Technology transfer in the Americas: Common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2017;42(6):1307-1333. doi: 10.1007/s10961-016-9516-1.
  25. Kalantaridis C., Küttim M., Govind M., Sousa C. How to commercialize university-generated knowledge internationally? A comparative analysis of contingent institutional conditions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017;123:35-44. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.013.
  26. Weckowska D. M., Molas-Gallart J., Tang P., Twigg D., Castro-Martinez E., Kijeńska-Dabrowska I. et al. University patenting and technology commercialization - legal frameworks and the importance of local practice. R & D Management. 2018;48(1):88-108. doi: 10.1111/radm.12123.
  27. Mets T., Kelli A., Mets A., Tiimann T. From patent counting towards the system of IP strategic indicators. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics. 2016;27(3):316-324. doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.27.3.13799.
  28. Fernandes G., Pinto E. B., Araújo M., Magalhães P., Machado R. J. A method for measuring the success of collaborative university-industry R&D funded contracts. Procedia Computer Science. 2017;121:451-460. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.061.
  29. Stefan I., Bengtsson L. Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017;120:252-260. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.014.
  30. Grazzi M., Piccardo C., Vergari C. Concordance and complementarity in IP instruments. Industry and Innovation. 2020;27(7):756-788. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2020.1726728.
  31. Lybbert T. J., Zolas N. J. Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An "algorithmic links with probabilities" approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity. Research Policy. 2014;43(3):530-542. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.001.
  32. Bakanov M. I., Mel'nik M. V., Sheremet A. D. Economic analysis theory. Moscow: Finansy i statistika; 2004. 534 p. (In Russ.).
  33. Savitskaya G. V. Analysis of the economic activity of the enterprise. Moscow: Infra-M; 2016. 378 p. (In Russ.).
  34. Saifulin R. Analysis of the efficiency of using intangible assets. Ekonomika i zhizn'. 1995;(27):19. (In Russ.).
  35. Zhuravleva N. V., Kremer K. I., L’vovich E. M. Theoretical and methodological foundations of intellectual property accounting and analysis. Voronezh: Nauchnaya kniga; 2007. 140 p. (In Russ.).
  36. Prokopleva Yu. V. Management and analysis of the use of objects of intellectual property of enterprises. Upravlenie v sovremennykh sistemakh = Management in Modern Systems. 2018;(1):3-12. (In Russ.).
  37. Prokopleva Yu. V. Comprehensive analysis of the efficiency of using intangible assets. Mezhdunarodnyi bukhgalterskii uchet = International Accounting. 2013;(39):27-40. (In Russ.).
  38. Mistyukova I. P., Ryabchenko T. N., Furmanova N. V. Actual problems of accounting, analysis and audit of intangible assets. Nevinnomyssk: Nevinnomyssk Institute of Economics, Management and Law; 2014. 167 p. (In Russ.).
  39. Endovitskii D. A., Isaenko A. N., Lubkov V. A., Zhuravleva N. V., Korobeinikova L. S. et al. Economic analysis of organization assets. Moscow: Eksmo; 2009. 608 p. (In Russ.).
  40. Krivitskaya K. V. Methodology for the analysis of operations to provide intangible assets of industrial property for use. Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriya i praktika = Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice. 2012;(39):52-57. (In Russ.).
  41. Plaskova N. S., Polyanskaya T. A., Prodanova N. A. Methodology of accounting and analytical support of the innovation management system. Moscow: Infra-M; 2020. 179 p. (In Russ.).
  42. Ilysheva N. N., Krylov S. I. Accounting, analysis and strategic management of innovative activities. Moscow: Finansy i statistika; 2014. 216 p. (In Russ.).
  43. Ilysheva N. N., Mikhailov O. V. Accounting, assessment and management of intangible assets. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Technical University; 2004. 314 p. (In Russ.).
  44. Mikhailov O. V. Improvement of theoretical and methodological aspects of accounting and analysis of intangible assets in commercial organizations. Cand. econ. sci. diss. Synopsis. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Technical University; 2005. 22 p. (In Russ.).
  45. Kuzubov S. A. Intellectual assets: Accounting, analysis and audit. Moscow: Finansy i statistika; 2009. 184 p. (In Russ.).
  46. Balakireva N. M. Intangible assets. Accounting, audit, analysis. Moscow: Eksmo; 2005. 414 p. (In Russ.).
  47. Bulyga R. P. Methodological problems of accounting, analysis and audit of intellectual capital. Moscow: Financial Academy under the RF Government; 2005. 400 p. (In Russ.).
  48. Gusev V. B., Isaeva N. A. Analysis of the impact of intangible assets on the synergistic effect of enterprises' activities. In: Management of large-scale systems development MLSD'2017. Proc. Int. conf. (Moscow, 2-4 Oct., 2017). Vol. 1. Moscow: V.A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences of RAS; 2017:147-152. (In Russ.).
  49. Gusev V. B., Isaeva N. A. Expert analysis of the intangible assets management system considering risk assessments. Problemy upravleniya = Control Sciences. 2017;(1):40-46. (In Russ.).
  50. Gusev V. B., Isaeva N. A. Reflexive risk analysis in the management of intangible assets. In: Management of large-scale systems development MLSD'2016. Proc. 9th Int. conf. (Moscow, 3-5 Oct., 2016). Vol. 1. Moscow: V.A. Trapeznikov Institute of Control Sciences of RAS; 2016:226-232. (In Russ.).
  51. Trippe A. Guidelines for preparing patent landscape reports. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization; 2015. 131 p. URL: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_946.pdf.
  52. Ena O., Popov N. Methodology for developing patent landscapes of the FIPS project office. Stankoinstrument. 2019;(1):28-35. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22184/24999407.2019.14.01.28.35.
  53. Nikolaev A. S. Management of enterprise innovation activity using methods of patent analytics and patent landscapes. Ekonomika. Pravo. Innovatsii. 2019;(2):49-55. (In Russ.).
  54. Oplachko A. Implementation of patent landscapes in business processes of holding companies with state participation. Intellektual'naya sobstvennost'. Promyshlennaya sobstvennost' = Intellectual Property. Industrial Property. 2018;(2):23-34. (In Russ.).
  55. Abood A., Feltenberger D. Automated patent landscaping. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2018;26(2):103-125. doi: 10.1007/s10506-018-9222-4.
  56. Smith J. A., Arshad Z., Trippe A., Collins G. S., Brindley D. A., Carr A. J. The reporting items for patent landscapes statement. Nature Biotechnology. 2018;36(11):1043-1047. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4291.
  57. GOST R 15.011-96. System of products development and launching into manufacture. Patent investigations. Procedure and scope. URL: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/5200264 (In Russ.).
  58. Shvedova V. V. Study of the patent purity of the object. Moscow: Information and Publishing Center "Patent"; 2015. 214 p. (In Russ.).
  59. Skornyakov E. P., Gorbunova M. E. Patent research. Moscow: Information and Publishing Center "Patent"; 2011. 183 p. (In Russ.).
  60. Pasimeni F., Fiorini A., Georgakaki A. Assessing private R&D spending in Europe for climate change mitigation technologies via patent data. World Patent Information. 2019;59:101927. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2019.101927.
  61. Neretin O. P. Tools for Russian scientific and educational organizations to determine scientific and technological priorities based on patent data. In: World-class scientific publication - 2017: Best practices in preparation and promotion of publications. Proc. 6th Int. sci.-pract. conf. (Moscow, 18-21 Apr., 2017). Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publ.; 2017;90-94. (In Russ.).
  62. Kerimov V. V. Theory, methodology and methods of intellectual property audit based on "Due Diligence". Moscow: Dashkov & Co.; 2014. 102 p. (In Russ.).
  63. Antonets V. A., Nechaeva N. V., Khomkin K. A., Shvedova V. V. Innovative business: Formation of models for the commercialization of advanced developments. Moscow: Delo; 2009. 320 p. (In Russ.).
  64. Grimaldi M., Cricelli L., Rogo F. Auditing patent portfolio for strategic exploitation: A decision support framework for intellectual property managers. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2018;19(2):272-293. doi: 10.1108/JIC-01-2017-0019.
  65. Kim S. Y., Lee H. J. The effect of patent acquisition on subsequent patenting activity. World Patent Information. 2019;59:101933. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2019.101933.
  66. Gmoshinskii V. G., Fliorent G. N. Theoretical foundations of engineering forecasting. Moscow: Nauka; 1973. 303 p. (In Russ.).
  67. Bezsonov N. V. Methodological guide for calculating the economic effect from the use of inventions and innovation proposals. Moscow: All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Patent Information; 1985. 104 p. (In Russ.).
  68. Skornyakov E. P., Tsekhmistrenko N. M., Gorbunova M. E. Patent research in the valuation of industrial property value. Moscow: Patent; 2008. 78 p. (In Russ.).
  69. Odasso C., Scellato G., Ughetto E. Selling patents at auction: An empirical analysis of patent value. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2015;24(2):417-438. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtu015.
  70. Jutimongkonkul K., Pentrakoon D., Wonglimpiyarat J. Patent valuation techniques: Practical uses in Thailand. International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship. 2020;4(1):58-75. doi: 10.1504/IJTE.2020.108097.
  71. Chang S.-H., Fan C.-Y. A new model for measuring the impact of patent value growth trajectory. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management. 2017;17(1):40-57. doi: 10.1504/IJTPM.2017.083742.
  72. Tahmooresnejad L., Beaudry C. Capturing the economic value of triadic patents. Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):127-157. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2959-4.
  73. Gans J. S., Murray F. E., Stern S. Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication. Research Policy. 2017;46(4):820-835. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.005.
  74. Peters T., Thiel J., Tucci C. L. Protecting growth options in dynamic markets: The role of strategic disclosure in integrated intellectual property strategies. California Management Review. 2013;55(4):121-142. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2013.55.4.121.
  75. Welpe I. M., Wollersheim J., Ringelhan S., Osterloh M., eds. Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. 488 p.
  76. Kamath B. Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure: Evidence from India. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. 2017;15(3):367-391. doi: 10.1108/JFRA-01-2016-0003.
  77. Catalfo P., Wulf I. Intangibles disclosure in Management Commentary regulation in Germany and Italy: A semantic approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2016;17(1):103-119. doi: 10.1108/JIC-09-2015-0083.
  78. Devalle A., Rizzato F., Busso D. Disclosure indexes and compliance with mandatory disclosure - The case of intangible assets in the Italian market. Advances in Accounting. 2016;35:8-25. doi: 10.1016/j.adiac.2016.04.003.
  79. André P., Dionysiou D., Tsalavoutas I. Mandated disclosures under IAS 36 Impairment of Assets and IAS 38 Intangible Assets: Value relevance and impact on analysts' forecasts. Applied Economics. 2018;50(7):707-725. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2017.1340570.
  80. Fontana S., Coluccia D., Solimene S. VAIC as a tool for measuring intangibles value in voluntary multistakeholder disclosure. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2019;10(4):1679-1699. doi: 10.1007/s13132-018-0526-0.
  81. Kachouri M., Jarboui A. Exploring the relation between corporate reporting and corporate governance effectiveness. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. 2017;15(3):347-366. doi: 10.1108/JFRA-06-2016-0053.
  82. Maaloul A., Ben Amar W., Zeghal D. Voluntary disclosure of intangibles and analysts' earnings forecasts and recommendations. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2016;17(4):421-439. doi: 10.1108/JAAR-10-2014-0105.
  83. Denoncourt J. Intellectual property, finance and corporate governance. Abingdon: Routledge; 2018. 288 p.
  84. Louder than words: Principles and actions for making corporate reports less complex and more relevant. London: Financial Reporting Council; 2009. 64 p. URL: https://qtxasset.com/cfoinnovation/field/field_p_files/white_paper/FRC_DiscussionPaper_Louder_than_words.pdf.
  85. Schiemann F., Richter K., Günther T. The relationship between recognised intangible assets and voluntary intellectual capital disclosure. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2015;16(2):240-264. doi: 10.1108/JAAR-11-2012-0076.
  86. Malinetskii G. G., Potapov A. B. Modern problems of nonlinear dynamics. Moscow: Editorial URSS; 2000. 336 p. (In Russ.).
  87. Kumratova A. M., Popova E. V. Risk assessment and management: Analysis of time series by methods of nonlinear dynamics. Krasnodar: Kuban State Agrarian University; 2014. 212 p. (In Russ.).
  88. Kozlov D. A. Methods of nonlinear dynamics in modeling macroeconomic processes. Nauchnye trudy: Institut narodnokhozyaistvennogo prognozirovaniya RAN = Scientific Articles: Institute of Economic Forecasting. Russian Academy of Sciences. 2003;1:157-173. (In Russ.).
  89. Popova E. V., Perepelitsa V. A., Komissarova K. A. Modeling the activities of insurance companies using nonlinear dynamics methods. Krasnodar: Kuban State Agrarian University; 2007. 200 p. (In Russ.).
  90. Minaev A. A., Minaev G. A. Nonlinear differential equations as a characteristic of dynamic patent systems (DPS). Izobretatel'stvo. 2015;6(4):13-24. (In Russ.).
  91. Minaev A. A., Minaev G. A. Foundations of the dynamic theory of innovation (patent information). Moscow: Sputnik+; 2013. 52 p. (In Russ.).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2020 Khomenko E.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.