A review of two papers that seek to define what qualifies as an intangible asset, and provide actionable insights into value extraction for university spinouts
Thanks for this. Any thoughts as to what metrics would be appropriate for funders or institutions to use in assessing whether and how to continue supporting a commercialization effort?
Minor quibble - 1) the S&P intangible is (mostly) things like brand value and goodwill, and much less protected or tacit IP. 2) most other industrial countries (i.e.,European, Japan, China) do not share the same high proportion of their assets as intangibles, and are not on track to do so. Using the USA as an example infers that the approaches taken by the USA's innovation sector should be emulated - however our smaller scale, different industrial approach, economic culture and industry ownership signal other approaches are required.
I think we are on the same page with respect to the S&P metric - the point I was trying to get across (maybe not very well) is that this is a poor basis for the argument that IP is important, but the conclusion is still sound, so we should be looking for better ways to make the argument. Regarding emulating the US, I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot simply import their frameworks and expect them to work here, for exactly you mention, but that does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned - we just need to me thoughtful about how to act on that learning.
It boils down to measuring impact long after the intervention. Things like 2, 5, and 10-year survival rates and revenue (the Park paper uses revenue in the 10th year, for e.g.). This is a tall order for government programs that are at the mercy of election cycles that are much shorter than the expected time to impact, which begs a careful look at how to insulate long-term economic development initiatives from short-term political priority changes. Crown corps are an interesting angle here (one of the reasons I was excited for the CIC, for example... https://www.caninnovate.ca/p/the-canadian-innovation-corporation)
Thanks for this. Any thoughts as to what metrics would be appropriate for funders or institutions to use in assessing whether and how to continue supporting a commercialization effort?
Minor quibble - 1) the S&P intangible is (mostly) things like brand value and goodwill, and much less protected or tacit IP. 2) most other industrial countries (i.e.,European, Japan, China) do not share the same high proportion of their assets as intangibles, and are not on track to do so. Using the USA as an example infers that the approaches taken by the USA's innovation sector should be emulated - however our smaller scale, different industrial approach, economic culture and industry ownership signal other approaches are required.
I think we are on the same page with respect to the S&P metric - the point I was trying to get across (maybe not very well) is that this is a poor basis for the argument that IP is important, but the conclusion is still sound, so we should be looking for better ways to make the argument. Regarding emulating the US, I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot simply import their frameworks and expect them to work here, for exactly you mention, but that does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned - we just need to me thoughtful about how to act on that learning.
Re: metrics, I have written about this before: https://www.caninnovate.ca/p/measuring-long-term-impact-ip
It boils down to measuring impact long after the intervention. Things like 2, 5, and 10-year survival rates and revenue (the Park paper uses revenue in the 10th year, for e.g.). This is a tall order for government programs that are at the mercy of election cycles that are much shorter than the expected time to impact, which begs a careful look at how to insulate long-term economic development initiatives from short-term political priority changes. Crown corps are an interesting angle here (one of the reasons I was excited for the CIC, for example... https://www.caninnovate.ca/p/the-canadian-innovation-corporation)
Amazing articles you referenced here . Thanks for digging into this .
Thanks for your interest!