Intellectual property operational think tank
Copyright li chun
In the context of the business architecture of intellectual property rights (iprs), there is a long-standing central proposition: who dominates strategies and organizations. Traditional perceptions are often mired in one-way causes, either in the idea of building up organizational teams before operational planning or in the belief that strategies can be isolated from the organization。
This paper presents core perspectives: long-term dimensions, strategic decision-making organizations; short-term reality-based dimensions, organizational counterproductive to strategy; mature intellectual property operations are the two-way dynamic adaptation of strategic lead organizations and organizational carrying strategies. The articles combine ip operational practices to identify the logical relationship between the two, dismantle trade-offs at different stages of development, and provide a cognitive framework for enterprises to build an intellectual property business system。
Introduction
Many enterprises are faced with the dilemma of starting intellectual property operations: whether to form an intellectual property department, recruit people, think about patent layout, ip liquidity, asset operation, or set a top-level intellectual property strategy, matching the corresponding organizational structures and teams。
It has been argued that no one, no department, no better strategy is rhetorical, that the organization determines the strategy, and that it is not clear where to go, that the organization is untargeted and that the strategy determines the organization。
Both points of view are valid, but they are static, one-way judgements. In the context of intellectual property operations, the two are not simply who decides who, but a phased, two-way interaction。
Core logical analysis: strategic decision-making organization is the bottom rule
The strategy is to answer the question of what we want to achieve with intellectual property rights: whether we build technical barriers, undertake ip-authorized operations, finance intellectual property pledges, or build brand ip ecology, layout of data assets。
The organization answers on what kind of people, structures, responsibilities, processes are targeted: sector setting, job segregation, external cooperation agencies, evaluation incentives。
From this source: strategic definition of objectives and business models, matching corresponding organizational patterns。
If the strategic positioning of intellectual property rights is only a fundamental patent trademark declaration and defence, the organization needs only a small number of legal or outsourced service providers。
If strategic positioning is an industrial intellectual property operation, patent licensing, ip incubation, and intangible asset capital operation, complex organizations comprising technology, law enforcement, commerce and asset assessment must be built。
If strategic positioning is an industry-level ip ecological operation, there is a need for a platform-based, alliance-based, open-ended organization, associated with movable property research, investment agencies and industrial subjects。
What kind of intellectual property strategy is needed to match organizational capacity. When strategies change, the organization must be focused。
When an enterprise upgrades from a mere “intellectual property protection” to an “intellectual property asset operation”, the original legal team, which is solely responsible for filing and defending rights, cannot carry out the new strategy and the organization has to adapt simultaneously. This is strategic decision-making。
Iii. Factual constraints: organizational constraints in turn, shaping strategies
Strategies cannot be designed in isolation from organizational capacity. The organization's talent pool, budget, competencies and cross-sectoral synergies constitute the border conditions for strategic landing。
There is also a lack of cross-practice synergy mechanisms where there is no talent within the enterprise to understand technology transfer, ip valuation and negotiation, even if an ambitious intellectual property capitalization strategy is devised. At this point in time, existing organizational capacities constrain the choice of strategic space。
The organization is short-set and will force strategic adjustments: at the stage of under-staffing, enterprises can first choose a light quantitative strategy, prioritize high-value core patents and outsource operational services; and, pending the growth of organizational capacity, gradually upgrade into a chain-wide asset operations strategy。
The organization is the carrying force of a strategic landing, with organizational limitations and a pragmatic build-up of strategies。
Iv. Different stages of intellectual property operation, with different sub-relations
Initial planning period: strategic priorities and strategic decisions
Businesses do not yet have formed intellectual property teams. The first is to define the value objectives of intellectual property rights and to judge, on a strategic basis, what kind of organization is needed, whether internal or external. Set the course, then set the team。
Stable operating period: two-way dynamic adaptation
The change in the organization is accompanied by a continuous and iterative strategy; at the same time, organizational capacity is growing and being short-lined, with continuous feedback to optimize strategic programmes. The evolution of the strategic pull organization and the feasibility of the organizational feedback strategy form a closed circle。
Transition change period: renewed strategic ownership
Business transformations, shocks to capital markets, new layouts and intellectual property strategies need to be reformulated. At this time, organizational change must be promoted to break existing sectoral barriers and adapt to new strategies. The failure of many corporate ip operations is rooted in a strategic renewal, but the old model of organizational structures and appraisal mechanisms remains。
Cognitive error resolution
Mistake one: building an organization in the first place, and setting it up is a strategy。
Corrected: the mere formation of teams, the absence of top-level strategic guidance, the ease with which team work is confined to basic matters such as patent applications, renewals, rights advocacy, etc., and the “certification for certification” that does not create the operational value of assets. The organization will only generate transactional work on its own and will not automatically generate an asset operations strategy。
Mistake two: once a strategy is established, the organization can ignore it。
Correct: the exit strategy is a paper programme. The operation of intellectual property rights (iprs) is a strong practical exercise involving technical excavation, negotiation, assessment, compliance, lack of supporting organizations and incentives, and a strategy that cannot land。
Mistake three: one-time strategy and organization completed, with the same duration。
Correct: intellectual property rights, markets, business continuity, strategies and organizations need dynamic adjustments and there is no one-size-fits-all solution。
Vi. Elements of practice
Top-level planning, maintaining strategy ahead. The objectives, value paths of intellectual property operations are clarified, and the organizational structures, jobs, incentives are designed。
Assessment of organizational capacity and practical development of strategies. An ambitious plan that goes well beyond the load ceiling is developed and implemented in a phased manner, not separate from the existing team capacity。
Establish a two-way feedback mechanism. The organization regularly provides feedback on the implementation of difficult points and reverse optimization strategies; when the strategies are updated, they simultaneously drive change in the organization, appraisal, authority and responsibility。
Wipo is not necessarily self-established. A light-quantitative organizational model, which could be “in-house core plus external professional service providers”, fit the business strategy and do not require all self-building teams。
Concluding remarks
In the context of an ipr operating system, in the long term, strategies determine the organization; in the short term, organizational constraints。
The strategy points to the value orientation of intangible assets and organizational carrying values. A good intellectual property business system is not one-way who decides who, but strategic direction, which supports the strategic landing, with a dynamic and symbiotic growth。
Organizations that are disengaged from the strategy are vulnerable to in-service consumption, and those that are disengaged from the strategy are merely airborne。
Disclaimer: this paper is a research paper on the intellectual property business think tank industry, which is used only for subject exchange, cognitive research and not as the sole basis for decision-making on corporate organization, strategic planning of intellectual property。
