|
With
close to half of the world’s economic output coming from
knowledge and its management, managing
intellectual-property (IP) assets is the most important
task for any individual, corporation or country.
During
the National Innovation Summit a few days ago, the
Philippine Intellectual-Property Policy Strategy (IP
Policy Strategy) was presented to President Arroyo. The
IP Policy Strategy, spearheaded by IP Philippines, lays
down a road map to manage the country’s IP assets to
spur social and economic development. The road map is
part of a broader innovation strategy, which is being
led by the Department of Science and Technology.
Innovation, of course, means more than creating new
products. Unlike in the 1990s when innovation was always
about technology, innovation today is not necessarily
associated with a particular technology. It is about
reinventing business processes and building entirely new
markets for untapped customer needs. It’s about
executing the right ideas and bringing them to the
market quickly.
In fact,
scholars and policymakers recognize the critical role of
non-technological innovations in creating economic value
and boosting competitiveness.
But
measurement of innovation activity still rests heavily
on the “traditional” technology-based indicators, such
as research and development (R&D) outputs and patenting
activity.
In a
recent white paper released by the Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU) entitled “Innovation:
Transforming the Way Business Creates,” patent data is
used as a proxy indicator for innovation.
Patents
continue to be used as a tool for measuring innovative
performance. How many patents a country generates per
million population is a basic indicator. Patent
statistics help measure innovation output and R&D
outputs. They also track how knowledge is diffused
across technological disciplines, economic sectors,
firms and countries.
Although
the number of patents may be an imperfect measure of
innovation, the EIU study argues that patent activity
correlates well with three other proxies for innovation
performance.
First
are citations from scientific and technological journals
per million population of a country. This indicator
pertains to the traditional measure of research output
in the form of publications.
Second,
the average of two ratios: the share of medium- and
high-technology products manufactured in a country and
the share of these products in a country’s exports.
Third,
the ability of corporations to absorb new technology as
surveyed in the annual Global Competitiveness Report of
the World Economic Forum (WEF).
How did
the Philippines fare in the EIU 2007 white paper?
The
study made a global ranking of the innovation
performance of 82 countries. The Philippines was ranked
No. 60—among the bottom one-third on the list. Compared
with Asean members, the Philippines trails behind
Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, but is several notches
above Indonesia and Vietnam.
Our
rating in innovative performance can be easily
correlated to our competitiveness rating, which the WEF
releases every year. Addressing the innovation challenge
will bridge the competitiveness gap.
(The author is the director general of the Intellectual
Property Office of the Philippines. Comments may be sent
to dg_asc@ipophil.) |