Inventors and the Invention Process in the US and Japan: Results...
Transcript of Inventors and the Invention Process in the US and Japan: Results...
1
Collaboration and innovation in the US and Japan: Evidence from the
RIETI-Georgia Tech inventor survey
John P. Walsh* and Sadao Nagaoka** May 12, 2008
Correlates of Innovative Activity and Performance. Georgia Tech.Do not quote or cite without permission. Some numbers are still preliminary.
*Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology**Research Counselor, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry and Professor, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University
We would like to thank the research assistance by Naotoshi Tsukada, Wang Tingting, Hsin-I Huang, Taehyun Jung and Yeonji No.
2
Innovation and Collaboration• Innovation is key to economic growth• Innovation process becoming more complex
– Open innovation– Markets for Innovation– National Innovation Systems
• Inventors and their firms need to exploit information and opportunities outside the firm in order to combine one’s own capabilities with resources from the external environment.
• While interdependent innovation seen as hallmark of the Japanese innovation system, increasingly, the US system is seen as moving toward an open innovation model (Chesbrough, 2003, Hicks and Narin, 2001)– However, need systematic data on innovation collaboration in each
country, covering broad range of indicators– Also, differences by firm and inventor characteristics in ability to exploit
outside information (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990)
3
Measuring Collaboration• Prior work has often used bibliometric indicators, which
have several advantages• However, concern that there is over-emphasis on
bibliometric indicators– Need to validate bibliometrics– Also, need to capture other aspects of collaboration
process that are not readily available through bibliometric indicators
• And, need for broad industry/technology coverage– Complement to industry or technology focused
studies (bio, nano)– Examine differences across technologies to better
understand drivers and impacts of collaboration
4
Inventor Surveys• Pioneered by PATVAL, followed by RIETI,
GT/RIETI• Survey inventors (rather than R&D managers)• Large sample, broad technology/industry
coverage• Comparative (JP-US, also Europe)
5
The RIETI and GT/RIETI Inventor Surveys
• A survey on the inventions and the R&D projects that created them:– First such systematic survey on R&D projects in Japan and USA
• Relied significantly on the PATVAL-EU survey, but also significantly expanded it
• Japan and US surveys substantially harmonized in questionnaire and sample target
• Dual-mode (post-mail out, web or post-mail response)– Japan mail-out: Winter to Spring 07– US mail-out Summer, ‘07
6
GT/RIETI Inventor Surveys• Measures
– Inventor demographics, mobility, background, and inventor motivations
– Invention process, collaboration– Business objective of R&D, R&D strategy and
performance– Uses of the patent, commercialization
• Goal:– Empirical: Map the innovation landscape– Methodological: Compare survey and bibliometric
indicators– Analytic: Study the drivers of innovation
7
Primary Sampling Frame –OECD Triadic Patent Families
• Triadic Patent Families– Compiled by OECD– Sharing, either directly or indirectly, at least one priority patent
applications in three patent offices– Filed in EPO and JPO and granted in USPTO
• Advantage of using the TPF– Reduce home country bias – Focus on economically important patents (Random sampling would
result in targeting most questionnaires to economically unimportant patents. Filing in multiple jurisdictions works as a threshold)
• Disadvantage of using the TPF– Select subset of inventions, and even of patented inventions.
Likely to be biased toward commercialized inventions– Perhaps, bias against nonprofit, small, and/or independent
inventors?
8
Data• Japan: 5,300 responses
– 20.6% response rate (27.1% adjusted for undelivered, ineligible, etc.)
– triadic patents: approximately 70% (over 3600) – non-triadic patents: approximately 30%– very important patents (selected from the JPO reports and the
essential patents of standards): roughly 120 patents• US: 1,900 (all triadic)
– 24.1% response rate (31.8% adjusted)• Comparisons based on triadic patent samples• Created country-technology weights to adjust for
different composition across technology in each country– Effects of the weighting quite small
9
Table 1. Composition of the sampleNBER Class Sub-Category Name Japan US
11 Agriculture, Food, Textiles 1.6% 0.4%
12 Coating 2.2% 1.8%
13 Gas 1.2% 0.6%
14 Organic Compounds 3.3% 3.2%
15 Resins 3.4% 4.4%
19 Miscellaneous-chemical 5.7% 12.1%
21 Communications 4.4% 7.8%
22 Computer Hardware 1.6% 2.2%
77 Computer Software 3.4% 4.8%
23 Computer Peripherals 2.1% 1.7%
24 Information Storage 3.3% 2.2%
31 Drugs 3.5% 5.3%
32 Surgery & Medical Instruments 2.3% 6.4%
33 Biotechnology 2.4% 2.1%
39 Miscellaneous-Drug&Med 1.2% 1.5%
41 Electrical Devices 2.5% 2.3%
42 Electrical Lighting 2.6% 1.7%
43 Measuring & Testing 3.0% 3.2%
44 Nuclears & X-rays 2.0% 2.0%
45 Power Systems 4.7% 4.6%
46 Semiconductor Devices 3.5% 2.9%
49 Miscellaneous-Elec. 3.3% 1.7%
51 Materials Processing & Handling 2.8% 2.9%
52 Metal Working 3.7% 2.6%
53 Motors, Engines & Parts 4.0% 2.9%
54 Optics 2.7% 2.2%
55 Transportation 2.0% 1.7%
59 Miscellaneous Mechanical 3.4% 2.2%
61 Agriculture, Husbandry, Food 2.4% 0.7%
63 Apparel & Textile 2.1% 0.5%
64 Earth Working & Wells 0.5% 0.3%
65 Furniture, House Fixtures 1.4% 0.5%
66 Heating 2.3% 0.4%
67 Pipes & Joints 1.8% 0.7%
68 Receptacles 1.5% 1.0%
69 Miscellaneous-Others 6.2% 6.4%
10
Who Invents? (Career and Background)
• Demographics– Age– Percent female– Highest degree
• Workplace– Work organization at the time of invention– Mobility– Work unit at the time of invention
11
Table 2 Basic profile of the surveyed inventors and their organizational affiliations
Source: RIETI Inventor Survey (2007) for Japan, Europe’s PatVal for EU (covering six countries: Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands).
Japan US EuropeSample Size 3658 1919 3818
Academic Universitygraduate (%)
85.9% 93.0 85.3
Background Doctorate (%) 12.4 44.9 34.8Female (%) 1.5 5.4 3.7Age (meanyears)
39.5 47.2 43.7
OrganizationalAffliliation
Large firm(250+)(%)
87.8 80.8 77.2
SME (%) 8.7 14.2 15.1University (%) 2.3 2.3 4.1Other 1.2 2.8 3.7
12
Education/Demographics• Japan (and European) inventors have more varied
educational backgrounds.– Fewer university-educated inventors– Substantially fewer Ph.D.s
• Very small share female inventors in both countries, even relative to the share of female researchers – Japan: about 10% of R&D employees female– US: about 25%
• US inventors much older than Japanese and somewhat older than Europe
13
Organizational affiliation
• Most inventors were employed by organizations
• Employees of corporations with more than 250 employees made up nearly 90% of the triadic patents in Japan and 80% in the US
• Inventors belonging to universities account for a small share of the triadic patents not only in Japan but also in the US
14
Age Profile, Large Firms, US and Japan
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
20-
24
25-
29
30-
34
35-
39
40-
44
45-
49
50-
54
55-
59
60-
64
65-
69
70-
74
JAPAN US
15
Age profiles
• US inventors much older (47 v. 40)• PhDs on average 1 year older (so cannot
explain the gap)• Variance in two countries similar, even if
we limit to large firms for comparability• Americans start later and stop later
– Longer to graduate, more time before getting first permanent job and later retirement age?
16
%PhD, by Sector, US and Japan
51.741.1
30.316.1
14.814.5
13.312.411.9
9.48.9
6.96.9
74.4
88.377.6
73.8
65.337.9
29.344.9
42.729.6
36.7
26.925.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
BiotechnologyDrugs
Organic CompoundsResins
Semiconductor DevicesMeasuring & Testing
Surgery & Medical InstrumentsAll
CommunicationsPower Systems
Computer SoftwareMotors, Engines & Parts
Materials Processing & Handling
%Yes
Japan US
17
%SME, by Sector, US and Japan
14.814.6
11.88.9
8.78.2
6.55.8
5.55.0
4.93.2
1.7
28.1
23.18.6
13.5
14.217.8
18.112.7
14.36.9
3.9
16.37.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Surgery & Medical InstrumentsBiotechnology
Measuring & TestingMaterials Processing &
AllComputer Software
DrugsPower Systems
Semiconductor DevicesOrganic Compounds
Motors, Engines & PartsCommunications
Resins
%Yes
Japan US
18
Key sectoral differences• PhD especially high in bio and chemicals, in
both countries. Also in semiconductors in the US
• In both countries, medical instruments and bio have above average levels of SME inventors– Rates of SME inventors slightly higher in Japan for
measuring and testing– Big difference in Communications, with relatively
many SME inventors in US (16%) and few in Japan (3%)
– Drugs show similar pattern though gap is smaller
19
%University or college, by Sector, US and Japan
12.26.7
6.4
4.94.9
3.52.5
2.52.5
2.32.0
1.61.2
12.8
3.53.5
7.0
5.31.9
0.0
1.32.2
2.30.00.0
1.2
0 5 10 15
BiotechnologyOrganic CompoundsMeasuring & Testing
Surgery & Medical Instruments
DrugsMotors, Engines & Parts
CommunicationsResins
Computer Software
AllMaterials Processing & Handling
Semiconductor DevicesPower Systems
%Yes
Japan US
20
University Inventions• University inventions most common in biotech• Rate of university inventors is the same in each country,
even in bio and software (where US is seen as being especially strong in university inventions)
• Japan has higher rate in measuring/testing and organic compounds
• US somewhat higher in medical instruments
21
Figure 1 Inventor mobility- Within 5 prior year, have you worked for another employer?
%Yes, unweighted
22
Mobility (in) rates, by organization type, US and Japan
23.8
13.4
18.7
10.8
12.9
9
10.1
40
34.2
45.4
40.7
29.7
21.2
25.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Other
University
Smallest firm
Small firm
Medium-sized firm
Large firm
Total
%Yes
US
Japan
23
Mobility• US inventors are more than twice as likely to
have moved compared to Japanese inventors• Difference is especially large in biotechnology,
medical instruments, semiconductors and computer software
• Mobility (in) is highest for small firms in each country, though the jump in US starts with medium small (lt 250), while in Japan, it is only in the smallest firms (lt 100) that we see substantially above average mobility
• We are currently exploring the links between mobility, information flows and innovation
24
Figure 6. Inventor Functional Affiliation
Note: The “Other” category includes design and engineering sectors.
64.48
17.67
8.47
3.13 1.374.88
70
14.7
52.9
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
IndependendR&D unit
R&D sub-unit manufacturing Softwaredeveloping
Marketing other
US JP
%Yes, weighted
25
Inventor Functional Affiliation • R&D more centralized in Japan (70% of inventors in
independent R&D units v. 60% in US)• About 5% come from manufacturing in Japan (slightly
more in the US)• About 1.5% of US triadic patents come from sales and
marketing
26
4.Collaboration/Sources of Information
• Collaboration plays an important role in helping a firm to exploit external capabilities and to facilitate access to new knowledge
• Collaboration– Co-assignment
• Prior work finds that such co-assignment is growing, but still quite rare (about 1.5%) (Hicks and Narin. 2001; Hagedoorn, 2003)
• But, measure limited by available bibliometrics– Cross-organizational co-Inventors– (Non-co-inventor) Collaboration partners
• Sources of Information– Suggesting Project– Contributing to Project Completion
• Financing
27
Figure 13. External Co-inventors, by organization type
4.1
1.4
1.3
2
2.7
0.6
12.4
3.5
0.4
1
1.9
2.4
0.7
13
5.4
4.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Suppliers
Customers and product users
Competitor
Non-competitor(s) within the same industry
Other firm(s)
University and education
Government Research Organization
External co-inventors
US JP
%Yes, unweighted
28
PRO-Industry Coinvention, by firm size, US and
Japan
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Large firm Medium-
sized fir
Small firm Smallest firm
JP-Univ
JP-GovLab
US-Univ
US-GovLab
2929
Figure 14. Formal/Informal Collaborations (excluding co-inventors), by organization type
9.3
0.7
1.2
3.2
4.2
1.8
22.8
15.1
0.8
1.8
2
4.3
2
29.2
11.1
8.1
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Suppliers
Customers and product users
Competitor
Non-competitor(s) within the same industry
Other firm(s)
University and education
Government Research Organization
External collaborations
US JP
%Yes, unweighted
30
Collaborative R&D involving co-inventions
• The level of co-inventions with external co-inventors are similar between Japan and US: slightly more than 10% of the inventions involve external inventors in both countries.
• The amount of formal or informal collaboration (excluding co-invention) is about 25% in the US and almost 30% in Japn
• However, only 1.8% of the US triadic patent have multiple assignees– Thus, bibliometrics are likely to significantly under-estimate the amount of cross-organization
invention in US (cf. Thursby, Fuller and Thursby, 2007)– Co-assignment data is less of a problem in Japan– Co-assignment higher (5-6%) in drugs, biotech and semiconductor
• In both countries, the bulk of these external co-inventors are vertically related (either suppliers or users).
• Horizontal co-inventions (collaborations among competitors) are much less common than vertical co-inventions.
• Co-inventions involving university or public laboratory researchers constitute small minorities in both countries
– University co-inventors most common in small firms, and more common among small Japanese firms compared to US
– In US, rate of university co-inventors for startups (lt100 ees and lt 5 y.o.) is 2.3% (about the same as overall average)
31
Figure 15A: Sources of Information-Suggesting New Project
%High (4 or 5), unweighted
US (above)JP
32
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
High school or
lower
Tech college
or junior
college
University Master
degree
Ph.D. Total
JP: Scientific Lit Sugg. JP: Patent Lit Sugg. US: Scientific Lit Sugg. US: Patent Lit Sugg.
Sources of Information, Scientific Lit. and Patents, by education, US and Japan
33
Sources of Knowledge• Four of the most important five sources of knowledge for
conception are common for Japan and US: (1)patent literature, (2)users, (3)knowledge inside a firm to which an inventor belongs, and (4)scientific and technical literature– Publications especially important for drugs and bio.
• US inventors appreciate scientific and technical literature more than patent literature while the reverse is the case for Japanese inventors
• This is true across all education levels, except for High School inventors in US and PhD inventors in Japan
• Future work will compare these survey data to bibliometric indicators of knowledge flows
34
Ordered logi t estimates Number of obs = 1261 LR chi2(11) = 114.02 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000Log likelihood = -1642.9097 Pseudo R2 = 0.0335------------------------------------------------------------------------------ rb1a | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- a3 | .0142217 .0026282 5.41 0.000 .0090706 .0193729 deg_msphd | .4281627 .1169611 3.66 0.000 .198923 .6574023 invage | -.0004678 .0006586 -0.71 0.478 -.0017586 .0008231 heteroa6a | .2752236 .08461 3.25 0.001 .1093911 .4410561 otype_big | -.6100467 .173853 -3.51 0.000 -.9507923 -.2693011 otype_small | .3325622 .2215142 1.50 0.133 -.1015976 .766722------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ordered logi t estimates Number of obs = 1224 LR chi2(14) = 137.23 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000Log likelihood = -1579.6422 Pseudo R2 = 0.0416------------------------------------------------------------------------------ rb1a | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- a3 | .0125218 .0026308 4.76 0.000 .0073656 .017678 deg_msphd | .3552343 .1231641 2.88 0.004 .1138371 .5966316 invage | -.0006405 .0007002 -0.91 0.360 -.0020129 .0007318 heteroa6a | .2129853 .0878835 2.42 0.015 .0407369 .3852338 a7spill | .0069015 .0166438 0.41 0.678 -.0257198 .0395227 a7open | .0252147 .0193453 1.30 0.192 -.0127014 .0631308 a7public | .0884375 .0246427 3.59 0.000 .0401387 .1367364 otype_big | -.6260459 .1754483 -3.57 0.000 -.9699181 -.2821736 otype_small | .2998854 .2258635 1.33 0.184 -.1427989 .7425697------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicting Patent (Technical) Value
Note: results robust to use of formal/informal collaboration
35
Logistic regression Number of obs = 1319 LR chi2(9) = 103.10 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000Log likelihood = -859.96814 Pseudo R2 = 0.0566------------------------------------------------------------------------------ commyn | Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- rb1a | 1.442957 .0804933 6.57 0.000 1.293511 1.609668 anycollab | 1.670405 .2309517 3.71 0.000 1.273896 2.19033 otype_big | .5809189 .1158231 -2.72 0.006 .3930102 .858672 otype_small | 1.168253 .3018477 0.60 0.547 .7040562 1.938502------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logistic regression Number of obs = 1274 LR chi2(12) = 136.45 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000Log likelihood = -812.32975 Pseudo R2 = 0.0775------------------------------------------------------------------------------ commyn | Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- a7spill | 1.101135 .0218462 4.86 0.000 1.059139 1.144796 a7open | .9093785 .019816 -4.36 0.000 .8713576 .9490584 a7public | .9798294 .0270871 -0.74 0.461 .9281522 1.034384 rb1a | 1.511976 .0892847 7.00 0.000 1.346728 1.6975 anycollab | 1.453863 .211944 2.57 0.010 1.092535 1.934691 otype_big | .5735825 .1169899 -2.73 0.006 .3845757 .8554801 otype_small | 1.092231 .2890866 0.33 0.739 .6501633 1.834875------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicting Commercialization
Note: inventor heterogeneity does not predict commercialization
36
Figure 26. Finance Shares of R&D Projects
Note: Averages not adjusted for project size. Internal funds includes debt or equity funding
37
Table 4 Funding sources: share (%) of funding for the research by organization type
Note. Large firm has 501 or more employees, Medium-sized firm has 251- 500 (250-500 in the US) employees, Small firm has 101-250 (100-249) employees, Smallest firm has 100 (99) or less employees
38
Financing R&D
• More venture capital for financing of the inventions in the US
-Especially large for the smallest firms with less than 100 employees
• More government financing of the inventions in the US -Largest difference for medium sized firms
• More industry finance for the inventions of university professors in Japan
39
Conclusions: SimilaritiesHigh similarity between US and Japan despite large
institutional differences:- Few female inventors- Relatively small contribution of university as inventors
and in collaborations- Inventor motivations similar (“task” motives strong)- Similar levels of cooperative R&D (co-invent and
collaboration), and similar profiles of partners
40
Key differences
- High inventor mobility in US- US inventors older, more likely to have
PhD- Greater use of patents in Japan and
scientific literature in the US
41
Lessons for Bibliometrics• Co-assignment significantly under-represents
cross-organization collaboration– Misses about 85% of cross-organization co-invention– Misses almost 95% of cross-organization
collaboration• Future work will analyze predictors of these
different forms of collaborations (co-assignment, cross-organizational co-invention, informal/formal collaboration), to both understanding collaboration process and put bibliometrics in context
42
Future research
• Institutional and organizational drivers of these differences– For example, why are US inventors so much older?
• Implications of these differences for patent value and commercialization– For example, how does mobility affect information
flows, patent value and commercialization– What are the predictors of, and effects of, R&D
collaboration (on patent value and on commercialization)
43
Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
John P. WALSHGeorgia Institute of TechnologySchool of Public Policy685 Cherry StreetAtlanta, GA 30332-0345 USAEmail: [email protected]