Comparing sets

As described in the last paragraph there are a lot of descriptive results per questionnaire that not only tell us something about the patent management practices of the target population, but also give important feedback for future research. The idea is of course to say something about the relationship between the two sets. Because of the relatively small target population and sample it is not unthinkable that this will have a negative

57 effect on the reliability of the variables involved, without necessarily saying something about the coherence between individual items. Therefore, in the following sub paragraph the two sets are compared by presenting the mean of each variable. Significant differences will be compared using company size to investigate the origin.

4.4.1 Maturity versus Performance

To create a simplistic overview, the mean of each individual variable for the maturity and performance concept are presented in the table below. As described in the theoretical framework and the results the choice was made to translate the survey results to predetermined scales.

Maturity Performance

Patent function Mean (1-4) Mean (1-5)

Incentive Reactive (2) Average (3)

Appropriation Active (3) Good (4)

Protection Active (3) Good (4)

Dissemination Pro-active (4) Good (4)

Asset Reactive (2)* Average (3)

Liability function Active (3) Poor (1)*

Performance indication Active (3) Average (3)

Portfolio Reactive (2) Average (3)

*Unreliable result due to single usable item in questionnaire Table 27. Comparing maturity and performance functions.

For maturity this is the planning attitude scale, and for performance all of the answers were labeled according to a general way of presenting performance measure. Although not a perfect fit, it does present someway to compare both sets. If you look at table, all but the liability function show parallels on maturity and

performance. It must be mentioned of course that the results here are average’s, meaning that deviations in individual items can have an influence on the end result. But, this is for both maturity and performance alike.

From these results no conclusions are drawn from regarding the research questions. There of course may be many other factors that contribute to the scores on maturity and performance. Some of the factors may include the company size. In the next paragraph a brief look at the company size is presented.

4.4.2 Company size

There are of course other ways to compare both sets. In the research model, firm characteristics are expected to be a moderating variable for the relationship between the independent en depend variables. In the next paragraph it is checked whether the variables in this study are reliable enough for a correlation analysis.

However, it is possible to compare both sets on a descriptive level as well. From the firm

characteristics selected in this research, company size is a good way to compare both sets with. For this study, the company size is expressed in the number of employees.

58

Function Between 5 and 20 employees More than 500 employees

Incentive maturity Pro-active Reactive

Appropriation maturity Active Active

Protection maturity Pro-active Pro-active

Dissemination maturity Active Pro-active

Asset maturity Inactive Inactive

Liability function maturity Inactive Pro-active

Performance indication maturity Pro-active Reactive

Portfolio maturity Inactive/Active Active

Table 28. Effect of company size on maturity functions.

In the table above you can see that companies with 5 to 20 employees are compared to companies with over 500 employees. The goal here is to show per maturity patent function which strategic planning attitude was favored in both employee categories. In the original answer model the ‘less than 5 employees’ option was included, but none of the companies seem to have less than 5 employees (see the response analysis at the beginning of this chapter). For example, if you look at the incentive function you can see that companies with more than 500 employees favor a reactive planning attitude.

If you look at the total results it is remarkable that for the incentive and performance indication function smaller companies actually favor a more active strategic planning attitude. This is peculiar, because you would expect larger companies to have more mature practices. Logically these results could have two explanations:

 For specific functions company size is less important.

 Or, the questions that are used to measure specific functions are not attuned enough to larger

companies.

Though for both points valid arguments can be made it seems that the second point is more plausible since the original questionnaire did not yield any mature responses amongst SME’s. Furthermore, the background and theoretical framework of the study indicate that larger companies will probably have more mature patent practices.

Function Between 5 and 20 employees More than 500 employees

Incentive Average Good

Appropriation Average Good

Protection Average Good

Dissemination Good Good

Asset Good Good

Liability function Poor Poor

Performance indication Average Average

Portfolio Average Average

59 The same analysis can be made for the performance of patent functions. As opposed to the maturity functions, larger companies score equally or higher than smaller companies. You would expect larger companies to perform better at patent function. Because this study focuses on larger companies you can compare the results of these larger companies with each other. What you see is that roughly the same distribution for maturity and performance as in the analysis for the entire response group (see 4.4.1). This is not so strange, given that the larger companies represent almost 70% of the entire response group. The biggest differences are in the:

 Incentive function.

 Liability function.

 Asset function.

It is remarkable that for the incentive and asset function the scores on performance are higher than maturity. This could indicate that for larger companies the maturity of practices of a patent function does not determine the performance of patent functions. Again, this could also mean that the questions that are used to measure specific functions are not attuned enough to larger companies.