HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FIELD USING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST SKILL STANDARDS

Transcription

1 RESEARCH REPORT WIPO SIX MONTHS STUDY-CUM-RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FIELD USING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SPECIALIST SKILL STANDARDS Sponsored By World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Collaboration with the Japan Patent Office May 8 September 30, 2011 Submitted by JING Shuang Deputy Director, Quality Control Division of Patent Examination Administration Department, State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), People s Republic of China Supervised by Prof. Kazunari SUGIMITSU Director, Research Center for Intellectual Property & Science Kanazawa Institute of Technology - 1 -

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For this program, I would like to express my high appreciation to the following people and institutions: Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Japan Patent Office (JPO) for providing this opportunity to enhance my knowledge and experiences regarding intellectual property rights. My sincere thanks also go to the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of the People s Republic of China for giving me this unique opportunity to engage in theoretical research on the basis of practical experience. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center (APIC) of the Japan Institute of Innovation and Invention (JIII) for providing a good working environment and facilities for my research. I am grateful to Ms. Yuki Obinata in ASPAC WIPO, Mr. Shimpei Yamamoto, Mr. Toru Yamazaki, Ms. Kaori Ogino, Ms. Atsuko Watanabe, Mr. Yoshihiro Nakayama, Ms. Junko Watanabe, and other officials of the International Affairs Division, JPO for their arrangement of this program. I am also grateful to other JPO officials for their kindly answering to my questions, even though I don t know their names. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all APIC staff members for kindly helping in every aspect, including APIC Director General Mr. Takao Ogiya, Mr. Yuichi Shibuya, Mr. Kazuhiro Okazawa and Ms. Yumi Ohno. Special thanks go to Ms. Satoko Miyazaki and Ms. Yukiko Koyanagi, the coordinators of this program, for their support, attention and detailed arrangements during these five months. Thanks also go to Ms. Kimiko Yamanoi for sending questionnaires and collecting data of my survey, Ms. Kazumi Kinoshita for her lovely dancing, Ms. Chie Noshiro for her sweet smiles, Ms. Ayako Sakuma for her friendship and all the memories we shared, Ms. Michiko Hiyama for saving my computer from viruses many times, Ms. Sachiko Osanai for taking care of me all the time, Ms. Aiko Imayama for her morning greeting every day, Ms. Mariko Takahashi and Ms. Mineko Miura for valuable experiences of Japanese culture, and Mr. Tadao Oike for my first portrait. I also give my thanks to Mr. Toshihiko Shimizu, Mr. Haruomi Kamoi, Mr. Masakazu Yokoyama, Mr. Takayuki Shibata, Mr. Kenjiro Nomura, Mr. Takahiro Kijima and so on. Thanks go to Ms. Kim, Mr. Smith and Mr. Robert for correcting mistakes in my English work. Additional thanks go to other staff of APIC and every lecturer of the training courses in APIC

3 I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Kazunari Sugimitsu, at the Research Center for Intellectual Property & Science Kanazawa Institute of Technology for his instruction and advice on my research. Thanks also go to Ms. Takami Oda from the Association of Intellectual Property Education for collecting my survey data and translating it into Chinese. I am also grateful to everyone I have interviewed during my research: Mr. Mitsuhiro Takasaki, Engineer Inc., executives and staff of Panasonic Corporation; Mr. Jun Atsumi, Hatta & Associates; Mr. Zhao Changming, ASMI; Ms. Liu Xiaoyu, IBM China; Ms. Zheng Ning, Mazda China; Ms. Wang Lijun, Toshiba China; Mr. Wang Liang, Lifan Industry Group China; and Mr. Wang Tao, Panasonic China. I would also like to express my gratitude to the interpreters who helped me complete my interviews and presentations: Ms. Yoko Okazaki, Ms. Reiko Madren and Ms. Reiko Tsujimoto. My additional heartfelt thanks go to Mr. Tetsuji Kawakami, Mr. Koichi Eguchi and all staff in AOTS for their accommodation and hospitality. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my SIPO director and colleagues for providing valuable information and support during the course of my overseas study and living. My sincere thanks also go to others who were involved in and contributed to this program that I could not mention here for their attention and help. Tokyo, September 2011 ************************************************************* It should be noted that opinions expressed in this report are purely personal and don t necessarily reflect those of the organization to which the author belongs

4 ABSTRACT This report mainly explores the implementation, effect and prospect of specialists skill standards in the intellectual property field. It is based upon the Intellectual Property Specialists Skill Standard (IPSS) that was released in 2007 by METI Japan to analyze the definition and procedures, and upon the combination of two main styles of implementation Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) and Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) to spread the research and actual implementation of this standard within leading companies, small- and mediumsized enterprises, and individual households. I also used stakeholder analysis to evaluate the implementation effects according to the public evaluation standard, and to make suggestions. Finally, for reference I included analyses and prospects of the international development trend of IPSS and IPMST, as well as the effects on other countries and the significance of using them. KEYWORDS Human Resource Development, Skill standard, Intellectual property management, Skill evaluation, Skill test - 3 -

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION Objectives Summary of Theories and Documents Competency Model of Human Resource Development Stakeholder Analysis of Public Policy Evaluation Methodology The Research Process The Research Methods CHAPTER 2- OVERVIEW OF IPSS Background Demands of Enterprises Strategy of A Nation Built on Intellectual Property History From ITSS to IPSS From IPT to IPMST Relationship between PAE and IPT From IPT to IPMST CHAPTER 3- UTILIZATION OF IPSS: DATA AND CASES Best Models of IPSS Utilization Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) Survey on Assessment of IPMST Introduction Respondents Profile IP qualification Job distribution Data Analysis Knowledge of IPSS Use of IP Skill Evaluation Standard Comparison Between PAE and IPMST Grade Survey on the IPSS Utilization in SMEs Introduction Summary of Data IPSES in Leading Companies: Case Study on Panasonic Corporation Interview IP Activities and IP Human Resources in Panasonic Corporation Global-scale IP activities Large numbers of IP personnel Changing business environment The process of introducing IPSES

6 Introduction of Company-wide Skill Evaluation System Formulation and Publication of IPSS The Framework of IPSES Implementation of IPSES Brief Summary IPMST in SMEs: Case Study on Engineer Inc Interview Profile of Engineer Inc IPMST in Engineer Inc CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Terms and Definitions Stakeholders Target groups 4.2 Direct Beneficiaries Input Results Outputs Outcomes Impact Stakeholders on IPSS Issue Role of Stakeholders Stakeholder importance and influence matrix Responsibilities and Activities of Stakeholders Effectiveness Analysis General Effectiveness Positive Effects Negative Effects Anticipated Effectiveness Unexpected Effectiveness CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSION AND PROSPECT Conclusion The World s First IP Skill Standard Preliminary Effects Observed Insufficient Engagement of Stakeholders Suggestions Full Engagement of All Stakeholders A Simple Version for SMEs Exemption Between PAE and IPMST IP Education Curriculums in According with IPSS Future Prospects Development of Skill Standard Possible Methods of Utilizing IPSS in Other Countries BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS

7 CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives Based on the research of Intellectual Property Specialists Skill Standard (IPSS) formulation and implementation, exploring the implementation, effects and prospects of specialists skill standard in the intellectual property field, to make the initial evaluation on the public policy that METI formulate and published IPSS, summarize the success experience, provide suggestions and analyze the significance of using Japan s practical experience for reference. 1.2 Summary of Theories and Documents Competency Model of Human Resource Development Competency is the ability of an individual to perform a job properly. A competency is a set of defined behaviors that provide a structured guide enabling the identification, evaluation and development of the behaviors in individual employees. The Theory of Competency Model was initiated by David McClelland in Stakeholder Analysis of Public Policy Evaluation Stakeholder analysis is a term that refers to the action of analyzing the attitudes of stakeholders towards something. It is frequently used during the preparation phase of a project to assess the attitudes of the stakeholders regarding the potential changes. Stakeholder analysis can be done once or on a regular basis to track changes in stakeholder attitudes over time. A stakeholder is any person or organization, who can be positively or negatively impacted by, or cause an impact on the actions of a company, government, or organization. 1.3 Methodology The Research Process The research will be separated into four stages: collecting information interviews and questionnaires analysis conclusions and suggestions. Accordingly, the report consists of following five parts: Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter is to introduce the objectives and methods of this research and summary of theories and documents. Chapter 2: Overview of IPSS. In this chapter, it will give an overview of IPSS, including the background and history of its establishment. Chapter 3: Utilization of IPSS in Japan: Data and Cases. This is the core part of the - 6 -

8 fact-finding, which aims to investigate the current situation of IPSS utilization. Various ways of using IPSS in leading companies, in SMEs and among individuals will be illustrated by cases and relevant survey data. Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis. Analysis in this chapter will focus on the implementation effectiveness of IPSS, which is regarded as a kind of public policy. The stakeholder model will be used for evaluation. Chapter 5: Conclusion and prospects. Based on the data and analysis showed in chapters 3 and 4, the researcher will draw the conclusions and make suggestions. The future prospects of using IPSS, such as possible ways of using IPSS in other countries, will also be discussed Research Methods The following methods will be taken on this research to collect and analyze information, and then draw conclusions. I Case Study and Interviews In order to investigate various ways of using IPSS in different enterprises, the researcher selected two typical cases to study. One is the Panasonic Corporation, which represents leading companies, while another is Engineer Corporation, a small and medium-sized enterprise. The researcher will have interviews with those companies mentioned above and discuss the implementation and effectiveness of IPSS. To collect information, the researcher will also interview several specialists who work in company IPR departments both in Japan and China. II Questionnaire Survey For further understanding of current IPSS implementation, two surveys will be carried out in this research. One is a survey of SMEs in Japan, while another focuses on examinees of IPMST. Questionnaires will be designed respectively. III Comparative Study Thise study will focus on the examinees assessments of PAE and IPMST grade 1, especially in terms of company IP practices. IV On-the-spot Investigation The researcher will take the opportunity of the 9 th IPMST to visit one of examination locations and gather first-hand observations

9 CHAPTER 2- OVERVIEW OF IPSS 2.1 Background Demands of Enterprises In recent years, IPR departments in large Japanese companies are facing business transformations in several areas, including from application to utilization, quantity-oriented to quality-oriented, patent-focused to multiple IP categories, and domestic to international. Therefore, requirements of IP specialist skills in enterprises are becoming diverse, while a variety of skills need to be clarified in order to grasp the current situation of IP human resources in enterprises. In the past, large Japanese companies evaluated their IP personnel skills by using Patent Attorney Examinations (PAE). However, these were not designed for IP personnel of companies, and it was hard to meet the various requirements. Companies need something new. The demand has been proven by the results of a questionnaire survey conducted at the briefing session on IP specialist certificate system on March 23, When asked about "the need for a IP-related certificate system other than the Patent Attorney Examination, 89% (208/234) of the respondents answered that this was necessary. Figure 2.1.1: The result of a questionnaire survey on the need of IP-related certificate system other than Patent Attorney Examination Strategy of A Nation Built on Intellectual Property In order to achieve the national objective, A Nation Built on Intellectual Property, Japan attaches great importance to human resource development in the IP field. In the - 8 -

10 Intellectual Property Strategy Outline of Japan published in July 2002, Chapter 3 put forward specific requirements of IP specialist skills in enterprises. The government s Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005 devotes a full chapter (Chapter 5) to human resources development. The following parts of this chapter are related to the formulation of IPSS. 1. Promoting a Comprehensive Strategy for the Development of Human Resources Related to Intellectual Property To achieve this goal, the GOJ will promote a Comprehensive Strategy for Fostering Intellectual Property Experts, with the aim of doubling the number of intellectual property experts from about 60,000 to 120,000 during the ten-year period from FY2005, fostering people who specialize in multiple fields, have international perspectives, and have a good sense of business, actively using such people. A) Clarify the profile of intellectual property experts: Investigate the current quality and quantity as well as needs of intellectual property experts with respect to individual sectors, phases, and fields mentioned above, and clarify the role and use desired for intellectual property experts and their corresponding profile. B) Clarify skills required for intellectual property experts: Investigate skills required for intellectual property experts (range and level of knowledge and technical capability), and set goals. C) Clarify methods of fostering intellectual property experts: Build a mechanism to enable people to acquire the knowledge and technical capability required to be intellectual property experts, prepare a ten-year roadmap, and evaluate achievements annually. These requirements were emphasized in the Intellectual Property Strategic Program History To meet the demands of enterprises and achieve strategic objectives, METI decided to formulate a specialist skill standard especially for IP personnel in enterprises. The Intellectual Property Policy Office of the Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau in METI was in charge of this project. The project gathered 14 experts in the IP field and representatives from more than 50 companies. The Intellectual Property Skill Standard Committee was established in October, Professor Kazunari Sugimitsu from the Kanazawa Institute of Technology was the chairperson. The committee submitted the research report in March, One year later, METI published the Intellectual Property Specialist Skill Standard on its website

11 2.2.1 From ITSS to IPSS The Skill Standards for IT Professionals (ITSS) includes indices that identify and systemize practical abilities for IT services. The objective of the ITSS is to promote effective capital investment for human resource development in the IT service industry by utilizing the index provided by the skill standards. The ITSS was developed in 2002, led by METI. Some of the IT-related skill standards in the US and Europe, such as SFIA and e-cf, were used for reference. Organized into a career framework, ITSS classifies the information services industry into 11 job categories and 35 specialty fields, including IT architect and software development. In each field, there are seven levels based on individual experience and performance. The skill framework of ITSS is as shown in Figure below. Figure 2.2.1: The skill framework of ITSS Having published ITSS version 1.0, METI subsequently transferred the control of ITSS to the Information-technology Promotion Agency (IPA), an incorporated administrative agency sponsored by METI, and entrusted IPA with the administration of these standards. IPA is now in charge of the updates, maintenance and promotion of ITSS. The current version of ITSS is v3.0 which was updated in A large number of companies in Japan have introduced ITSS as an index for personnel evaluation. It is said that the majority of IT-related companies use these standards as a reference in some way or another. The successful experience of ITSS might inspire people to develop a new skill standard in the IP field. In fact, it may not be far off to regard the IPSS as a version of ITSS for the intellectual property industry. The IPSS adopted a framework similar to

12 that of ITSS, and categorized IP management professions within 18 job categories and 61 specific items. For each item, there are five levels based on individual experience and performance From IPT to IPMST Relationship between PAE and IPT Prior to 2004, the Patent Attorney Examination (PAE) was almost the only method of evaluating IP specialist skill levels in Japan. It is a prestigious examination within the IP field, and famous for its difficulty. The purpose of PAE is to assess the knowledge required to be certified as a patent attorney, so it focuses on the knowledge about laws and regulations related to industrial property rights rather than the practical skills required to work for corporations, organizations, or research institutes. To solve this problem, the Association of Intellectual Property Education (AIPE) introduced the "Intellectual Property Test (IPT) in This is different from the traditional Patent Attorney Examination, in that the IPT is aimed at IP personnel in corporations, organizations, and research institutes. Its examination contents covered a broad scope of knowledge about domestic and international IP systems, emphasizing practical operation. Therefore, the IPT was popular with companies. Up until March 2008, the total number of IPT examinees was approximately 40,000. The relationship between the PAE and IPT is as shown in Figure below. Figure 2.2.2: Relationship between the PAE and IPT Patent Attorney Examination (PAE) Patent Law Utility Model Law Design Law Trademark Law Treaties, etc. Copyright Law Unfair Competition Prevention Law Intellectual Property Test (IPT) Agreement/Litigation Antimonopoly Law Foreign law (US, China, etc.) Search and strategy planning Theory Jurisprudence Practice Practice

13 From IPT to IPMST After the release of IPSS, the Japanese Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) added IP management as a new specialty area to the technical skills tests, which is a national certificatation system, in October AIPE was appointed as the test agency for the new national examination Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) on February 29, The former IPT was transited from private-sector examination to national examination. IPMST is designed in accordance with IPSS. It is classified into three grades: 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Each grade consists of a written and practical test. The 1st grade is divided into two specialty areas, "expert in patents" and "expert in media content". The relationship between IPMST and IPSS is as shown in Figure below. Figure 2.2.3: Relationship between IPMST and IPSS IPSS Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Patent 2 nd Grade 3 rd Grade Content 1 st Grade 1 st Grade Written test Written test IPMST Practical test Practical test The IPMST was started in July 2008, and has been held a total of nine times to date. The annual number of examinees has been steadily increasing. The total number of examinees is now more than 100, ,529 of them passed the examination and became registered as a Certified Skilled Worker of Intellectual Property Management. The number of IPMST examinees is as shown in Figure below. Figure 2.2.4: The number of IPMST examinees

14 - 13 -

15 CHAPTER 3- UTILIZATION OF IPSS: DATA AND CASES 3.1 Best Models of IPSS Utilization Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) The Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) is a series of indicators to evaluate individuals IP skills based on objective evaluation criteria Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) The Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) is a national examination that measures knowledge and practical skills about creation, protection and utilization of intellectual property. 3.2 Survey on Assessment of IPMST Introduction A questionnaires survey on the Assessment of IPMST has been conducted in this research. The objective of this survey was to investigate the knowledge of IPSS and assessment of IPMST among people who experienced IPMST. The utilization of IPSES and a comparison between the PAE and IPMST are also included. The target group of this survey included certified IP management specialists, namely those people who had passed both the written and practical tests of IPMST. From the first time of the IPMST in July 2008 to the ninth time in July 2011, the total number of people who passed the tests and registered as certified IP management specialists was 24,529. The survey was conducted on the website of AIPE from Aug. 31 st 2011 to Sep. 1 st, questionnaires were sent, with 530 valid responses received. The total response rate was 3.4% Respondents Profile IP Qualification All of the 530 respondents passed at least one grade of the IPMST test. 34 of them obtained patent attorney certification, while 16 passed both the PAE and IPMST Grade 1 tests. Their opinions on the two tests are essential for purposes of comparison. The IP qualification distribution of respondents is as shown in Table below. Certified IP management specialists are categorized by the highest grade of certification they obtained

16 Table 3.2.1: Respondents IP qualification distribution With patent Without patent attorney attorney Total certification certification IPMST Grade Patent only Content only Patent and content IPMST Grade IPMST Grade Total Job distribution A large proportion of respondents are from IP departments, which accounts for 22%. R&D and other IP-related employees account for 14% and 15%, respectively. The job distribution of respondents is as shown in Figure below. Figure 3.2.1: Job distribution of respondents Job Distribution of Respondents student-ip 2% others 18% IP 22% IP-unrelated 15% IP-related 15% patent attorney 5% R&D 14% business 9% Data Analysis The questionnaires included ten questions related to the knowledge of IPSS, use of IP skill evaluation standards, and comparison between PAE and IPMST Grade Knowledge of IPSS

17 The survey results showed that 36.2% (192/530) of respondents knew about IPSS as a national skill standard and a tool of IP skills evaluation. 78.6% (151/192) of them knew about the fact that IPMST was designed based on IPSS Use of IP Skill Evaluation Standards The question was as follows: What kind of standard has been used to evaluate IP management skills of employees in your company/organization? Answers from respondents were varied. As it is shown in Figure 3.2.2, Most companies/ organizations had no evaluation or standard, with only 15.3% (81/530) of respondents saying that evaluation standards were used in their companies. Among such companies, 43.2% (35/81) had their own company evaluation standards, while 25.9% (20/81) admitted that they adopted evaluation standards based on or reference to IPSS, while the rest 30.0% (25/81) used other standards. Figure 3.2.2: IP skill evaluation standard contribution As mentioned above, 20 respondents said that their companies/organizations adopted IPSS as an IP skill evaluation standard. 18 of them provided their companies names, which are listed in Table below. Table 3.2.2: Name list of companies/organizations that refer to the IPSS DENSO CORPORATION Fujitsu System Solutions Hitachi, Ltd. ISEKI & CO,. LTD. Japan Science and Technology Agency

18 KOYO SANGYO Co., Ltd. NTT-ME Corporation Patent Drawing Service SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. Sharp Corporation Sony Corporation Takagi Co., Ltd. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated Toshiba Solutions Corporation Yamagata University Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. YKK Corporation ZENRIN CO., LTD Comparison Between PAE and IPMST Grade 1 With respect to the difficulty and coverage of examination, IPMST Grade 1 is considered to be comparable with PAE. Since IPMST was designed for IP staff in companies, it might have the advantage of PAE in terms of company s IP practice. This survey intended to prove as such. In response to the question, Which is better in terms of the company s IP practice: PAE or IPMST Grade 1?, half of the respondents answered that it was hard to say, while 39.4% (209/530) of respondents believed that IPMST Grade 1 was better or closer to the company s IP practice. Among those respondents who passed both of the two tests, 75% (12/16) expressed the same opinion. The reason that respondents are in favor of IPMST Grade 1 is as shown in Figure This was mainly because the knowledge covered by IPMST Grade 1 was broader, and the skills that IPMST required were more practical to the company s IP management. Figure 3.2.3: Comparison between PAE and IPMST-1 in terms of company IP practice

19 Comparision Between PAE and IPMST-1, in terms of the Company's IP Practice PAE better, Broader 4.3% knowledge, 86 More practical, 79 Hard to say, 52.1% IPMST-1 better, 39.4% No answer, 4.2% Foreign issues are more involved, 20 Strategy is involved, 17 Others, Survey on the IPSS Utilization in SMEs Introduction This research included a questionnaire survey on IPSS utilization among SMEs in order to investigate the current situation of IP human resources, utilization of IPMST, and knowledge of IPSS among Japanese SMEs. The target group of this survey was comprised of companies included on the list of 300 Vibrant Small and Medium Manufacturing Enterprises of questionnaires were sent via postal mail on Aug. 16 th, valid responses were received prior to Aug. 30th 2011, with a response rate of 42.3% Summary of Data The survey consisted of ten questions that were divided into three parts. The first four questions intended to assess the current IP human resource situation in these companies, mainly the number of qualified IP specialists. The second part aimed to know whether the IPMST of any other kind of in-house qualification would be supported by SMEs. The third part focused on the popularity of IPSS. The summary of questions and answers is as shown in Table below. Table 3.3.1: Summary data of the survey on IPSS utilization in SMEs Answers (Yes) % Current IP human resource situation Number of patent attorneys in the company 1 0.8%

20 Answers (Yes) % Have heard about IPMST % Someone passed IPMST in the company 6 4.7% Number of people who passed IPMST in the company 8 IPMST grade-1 0 IPMST grade-2 5 IPMST grade-3 3 Utilization of IPMST Supporting IPMST % Means of supporting IPMST (multiple choice) Reward when passed the test 2 1.6% Allowance for those who passed the test 3 2.4% Test fee 4 3.1% Textbook fee 6 4.7% No support % Encouraging in-house qualification % Knowledge of IPSS Have heard about IPSS 7 5.5% Have heard that the IPMST is based on IPSS 4 3.1% Taking IPSS as reference 3 2.4% 3.4 IPSES in Leading Companies: Case Study of Panasonic Corporation Interview The case study was mainly based on literature research and interviews with managers of IP Department in Panasonic. The summary information of the interview is as below. Date: Sep. 5 th 2011 Place: Headquarters of Panasonic Corporation, Osaka Interviewee 1: The General Manager of Personnel Corporate Intellectual Property Division, Panasonic Corporation Interviewee 2: The Manager of Human Resources Group, Intellectual Property Rights Operations Company (IPOC), Panasonic Corporation IP Activities and IP Human Resources in the Panasonic Corporation Global-scale IP activities As an international leading company, Panasonic Corporation promotes global-scale IP activities. As of March 31, 2011, Panasonic held 41,630 patents in Japan and 59,

21 patents overseas. It was ranked first in the world for international patent filings under PCT in both 2009 and Large numbers of IP personnel IP personnel in Panasonic notable for their large numbers, fine division of labor and high quality. The composition of IP personnel in Panasonic is as shown in Figure below. Figure 3.4.1: Composition of IP personnel in Panasonic IP Personnel in Panasonic More than 1300 persons Corporate Intellectual Property Division 250 persons IPOC 750 persons SANYO Electric and oversees branches More than 300 persons IP Strategy 20 persons Executive Team 230 persons As for the professional qualification, 160 IP staff has obtained patent attorney certification in Japan, while 20 have obtained such certification overseas. There were also several people who obtained lawyer certification in Japan or other countries. A total of ten employees passed the IPMST Changing business environment The business environment of Panasonic has been changing dramatically, as fierce global competition has forced companies to cooperate with each other. IP activities to reinforce cooperation with external organizations is also showing a remarkable increase, with the range and scope of IP activities in companies expanding globally. To promptly and accurately respond to such rapid business changes, Panasonic requires six types of IP specialists. Accordingly, new skills such as those relating to IP strategizing are also required. The requirements are shown in the table below

22 Table 3.4.1: Requirements of human resources in company IP departments Six types of human resources required in company IP departments Specialist in invention development and rights acquisition Specialist in IP investigation and analysis Specialist in the use of rights and licenses Specialist in design and trademarks Specialist in IP strategy and planning Specialist in IP management IP skills required of human resources in company IP departments Skills in basic knowledge of IP system and relevant law and regulation Skills in IP development and rights acquisition Skills in IP investigation and business investigation Skills in IP strategy and utilization Skills in information/system management Skills in knowledge of technology and merchandise Due to various requirements of IP personnel skills and types, the issue of accurately understanding the current situation of IP human resources in the company has became important The process of introducing IPSES Introduction of Company-wide Skill Evaluation System Panasonic introduced a Skill Evaluation System throughout the company in FY2006. This system is intended to accelerate employees skills development and the learning of new skills, starting by visualizing the skills of each employee based on objective evaluation criteria by job type and operation department. The aim is to encourage individuals to achieve personal transformation and fully exercise their talents by visualizing individuals skills and making a united effort between both employees and the company. From 2004 to 2006, Panasonic spent two years establishing its own IP skill standard and evaluation system. More than 20 people, including managers, human resource experts and IP staff were involved in this effort Formulation and Publication of IPSS The IP Departments of Panasonic were invited by METI to join the project of IPSS formulation while they were establishing their own Skill Evaluation System. Panasonic actively participated in and played a leading role in the process of IPSS formulation. IPSS was highly appraised by the HR Manager of Panasonic Corporation who believes that IPSS specializes in intellectual property and covers all fields of IP in detail. In particular, the description of the assessment index and segmentation of IP

23 business are useful and helpful for companies The Framework of IPSES As is shown in Figure 3.4.2, the framework of IPSES consists of two parts. One is common skills that are shared throughout entire company, such as interpersonal relationship skills. The other part is comprised of skills that differ by job function. This consists of technical skills and process skills. Each part includes several skills, and each skill has its own index of 8 levels. Figure 3.4.2: Panasonic IPSES framework Skills Skills by Job Function Common Skills Technical Skills Process Skills Interpersonal Relationships Other Implementation of IPSES The process of using IPSES includes four steps. Step 1: Plan This step is divided into three sub-steps: self-evaluation, communication, and target setting. IPSES provided an external evaluation index for each level of skills in order for employees to easily self-evaluate their current skill level (for example, level 7 for prior art searches and level 5 for national patent rights acquisition). Panasonic established a Communication Program system whereby all employees meet with their managers once a year to consider how to develop their individual careers and set target goals for their work. (For example, at the end of this year, I will achieve level 6 of the national patent rights acquisition skill). Usually, employees are encouraged to challenge themselves to achieve a higher skill level. When both the manager and employee agree with the target skill level, they discuss how to achieve

24 and measure it. Step 2: Do On the Job Training (OJT) in the workplace plays an important role in human resources development at Panasonic, wherein managers arrange employees to take training course or provide other opportunities to enhance their skill to target levels. Step 3: Check At the end of the year, the manager checks whether an employee has achieved his/her target skill level, and makes assessments or gives comments for each employee. The evaluation results are not directly related to the payment system in Panasonic. Step 4: Act Managers and employees take measures to improve their work the following year Brief Summary From the process introduced above, it may be concluded that the objective of using IPSES is mainly to grasp the current situation of IP personnel. Together with other measures, such as OJT, this might then accelerate the human resources development in IP departments. Although IPSES has been utilized at Panasonic for five years, the interviewees said that it is still too early to say whether it has had an effect on IP human resource development in the company. 3.5 IPMST in SMEs: Case Study on Engineer Inc Interview The case study was mainly based on literature research and the interview with the president of Engineer Inc. The summary information of the interview is as below. Date: Sep. 7 th 2011 Place: Shinagawa Interviewee: Mr. Mitsuhiro TAKASAKI, President of Engineer Inc Profile of Engineer Inc. Engineer Inc. is belongs to the group of small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. The company was established in 1972 in Osaka. It now has 30 employees and registered capital of 20,000,000 yen. Engineer Inc. attaches importance to innovation and IP management. For example, its so-called Nejisaurus product (specially designed pliers for removing screws with broken heads) has been granted 11 patents, designs, and trademarks in Japan and abroad. It has won many awards, including the Osaka Governor s Award at the Kinki

25 Region Commendations for Invention in 2010, and the if Product Design Award in IPMST in Engineer Inc. Mr. Takasaki summarized four key elements for SMEs to survive amidst fierce global competition: marketing, patents, design and promotion. This requires a large number of IP personnel in SMEs In the beginning, Mr. Takasaki spent a significant amount of money on consulting patent attorneys. It was very hard to communicate with his patent attorney, however, because he lacked basic knowledge about IP. He therefore decided to study it, and passed the IPT in He found that IPT was practical for IP management in his company, so he encouraged employees to take the IPT and subsequently the IPMST. Now, two persons in his company have passed the IPMST Grade 2, and three have passed Grade 3. They are able to discuss IP issues amongst each other frequently, and feel more confident when communicating with patent attorneys. Ms. Takasaki believes that IPMST is an effective way for SMEs to foster their own IP personnel, and suggested arranging seminars to promote it

26 CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Terms and Definitions Stakeholders Groups that have a role and interest in the objectives and implementation of a program or project, including target groups, direct beneficiaries, those responsible for ensuring that the results are produced as planned, and those that are accountable for the resources that they provide to that program or project Target groups The main stakeholders of a program or project that are expected to gain from the results of that program or project. 4.2 Direct Beneficiaries Usually, institutions and/or individuals who are the direct recipients of technical cooperation aimed at strengthening their capacity to undertake development tasks that are directed at specific target groups. In micro-level interventions, the direct beneficiaries and the target groups are the same. 4.3 Input A means mobilized for the conduct of program or project activities, i.e., financial, human and physical resources. 4.4 Results A broad term used to refer to the effects of a program or project. The terms "outputs", "outcomes" and "impact" describe more precisely the different types of results. 4.5 Outputs Tangible products (including services) of a program or project that are necessary to achieve its objectives. 4.6 Outcomes Results of a program or project relative to its immediate objectives that are generated by the program or project outputs. 4.7 Impact Results of a program or project that are assessed with reference to the development objectives or long-term goals of that program or project; changes in a situation, whether planned or unplanned, positive or negative, that a program or project helps to bring about. 4.8 Stakeholders on IPSS Issue Roles of Stakeholders

27 Possible IPSS stakeholders include government institutions, enterprises, individuals, certain non-government organizations in the IP field, and some private sectors that provide IP training services, such as LEC and TAC. The roles of IPSS stakeholders are s shown in Table below. Table 4.2.1: Roles of IPSS Stakeholders Roles Target Groups Direct Beneficiaries Direct Managers Resources Providers External Consultants, Suppliers and Supporters Others who may be affected or interested Stakeholders Enterprises, Individuals, Society-at-large AIPE METI METI, MHLW, MEXT LEC, TAC etc. WIPO JPAA, JIPA, INPIT etc Stakeholder importance and influence matrix There are four parts divided by the different importance and influence of each stakeholder with regard to the implementation of IPSS. Group 1:High importance/low influence stakeholders This group has a key relationship with the implementation of IPSS, but has little influence on policy, such as SMEs, students and IP staff. Group 2:High importance/high influence stakeholders This group plays a very important and influential role with regard to implementation, such as large companies and government agencies. Group 3:Low importance/low influence stakeholders. This group has little influence and cannot make any changes regarding implementation, such as international organizations. Group 4:Low importance/high influence stakeholders Although this group has little relationship with the implementation, it still has great influence especially on the group of people that will have conflicts of interest after implementing the policy, such as JIPA and JPAA. The analysis results above are shown in Figure below. Figure 4.2.1: The importance and influence matrix of IPSS stakeholders

28 Students SMEs Univ.. WIPO IP Staff staff Training Ins. Ins. Large Companies s JPAA AIPE JIPA PA METI MLHW Responsibilities and Activities of Stakeholders The responsibilities and activities of IPSS stakeholders are shown in Table below. Table 4.2.2: Responsibilities and Activities of IPSS Stakeholders Stakeholders Responsibilities Activities Enterprises Individuals To study and make full use of IPSS Individuals are more enthusiastic METI-IP policy To establish IPSS; Established and maker To designate an executive body published for its maintenance METI-IP policy To promote and improve the use Has not been executive body of IPSS designated MHLW To set up a skill test based on Hold IPMST IPSS successfully MEXT To educate students according to The IP education IPSS curriculum is developing, but not in accordance with IPSS. AIPE To help those above Organized IPMST well 4.9 Effectiveness Analysis General Effectiveness Effectiveness assessments are based on analyses of targets, input, output and outcomes. The results are shown in Table below. Table 4.3.1: Effectiveness Assessment of IPSS