Page 1 - Welcome Page 2 - Update Page 3 - News Page 4 - Brief lines |
* Welcome * Welcome to this issue of 2PLM, an e-zine distributed every two weeks on a free subscription basis. This week's lead article "IP Management Tools Poised for Growth" is from Bradford L. Goldense, President and CEO, Goldense Group, Inc. (GGI) and Anne Schwartz, Director of Publications, Goldense Group, Inc. First, though, a few words about the release of a new publication "Overcoming the PLM Dilemma : Making Progress in 2005". * Overcoming the PLM Dilemma : Making Progress in 2005 * This is a results-oriented Manual for PLM Project Managers, PDM Managers, IS Managers and people with similar responsibilities faced with the dilemma of how best to make progress with PLM. This dilemma often arises in companies in which some islands of PLM (e.g. CAD, PDM, cross-functional product development and support processes, CAM, PPM, CPD, electronic catalog, modular product structure, e-training, etc.) have been implemented, but executives have neither launched a PLM Initiative nor started to develop a PLM Strategy. The first Chapter in the Manual describes and explains the typical situation in such organizations, showing how it leads to a dilemma that inhibits progress. The following chapters show how to overcome the dilemma quickly, and make the required progress. Chapter 2 provides the information about 25 main subjects of PLM needed for a common understanding and discussion of PLM. Chapter 3 describes a unified concept of PLM showing how the many components of PLM fit together. Having such a concept helps build the strategy, develop the roadmap and plan, and prioritize investment decisions. The following chapters describe the PLM project that enables this concept to become reality. The Appendix includes over a hundred PowerPoint slides from which executive presentations can be assembled for a variety of objectives such as getting agreement to move forward and, for example, develop a PLM Strategy or launch a PLM Initiative. Details * IP Management Tools Poised for Growth * In the January 17, 2005 issue of 2PLM, we highlighted recent research on product development, intellectual property, and top corporate metrics by Goldense Group, Inc. In this issue we present the fifth in a series of six articles, which focuses on results in the area of "Intellectual Property Management Tools." Next month, look for results on "Most Popular Corporate Metrics Used by Industry for RD&E." As the knowledge economy has developed over the past two decades, more companies now recognize the importance of protecting their valuable intellectual property (IP). These protections might come in the form of a formal registration such as a patent, trademark or copyright, or an internal protection such as company proprietary or trade secret. With this in mind, GGI's 2004 Product Development Metrics Survey investigated the tools used to manage IP. The 2004 Survey was sent to a broad distribution of product development professionals, and replies were received from 202 companies in a range of industries including industrial and medical products, aerospace, defense, electronics, and chemicals. Respondents were asked to identify the most common system used to manage their IP inventory, and the most common type of IP protection. Results were compared to those for the Product Selection process to investigate the relative maturity of both processes. 
In order to manage their inventory of IP, companies use a variety of systems, such as single or multi-user software/database, spreadsheets, or a paper system. The most common system to manage IP inventory was an "internally developed spreadsheet used by multiple people," reported by 26% of respondents. The second most common system was "no formal automated tools or spreadsheets; all information managed and supplied by external counsel," reported by 18% of respondents. The third most common system was "completely internally managed hard-copy system," reported by 15% of respondents. The top three systems cover 59% of industry. The second and third most popular approaches are not really internal systems or tools. While there are several flavors of automated systems or tools in the remaining six categories, there is no clearly predominant trend or system in use at this time. With regard to the most common forms of IP protection, "patents" and "company proprietary" are the two most frequently used categories. Patents are used almost always or frequently by 76% of respondent companies. We expect the use of patents to rise towards 90% as companies expand the protection of their IP. The driving forces will be twofold. Regulatory and legislative changes will continue to increase the valuation of IP as a dollarized asset on corporate balance sheets, which will cause increased registration. The large profit percentage of the revenue generated through the licensing or sale of IP is highly attractive, also causing increased registration. Company proprietary is used almost always or frequently by 64% of respondents. There will always be a significant usage of internal designations such as company proprietary or trade secret. It is fairly well recognized that the best protection for certain IP will be realized by not fully documenting it, which is necessary to register it. Not insignificant barriers remain. The high costs of registering a patent range from $15,000 to $125,000 per patent in the US and upwards to $800K to $1M+ for global registration, not to mention maintenance fees and any legal fees for enforcement. The lead times for US registration are usually in excess of a year, and global registration processes across many countries can take three to five years. As well, there are some significant countries that do not respect licensed IP as such. In summary, as companies continue to pay more attention to protecting their IP, we expect to see increased sophistication of available tools and systems and certain of these enablers emerging as the preferred method for IP management. We anticipate these developments and time frames to parallel those of tool development in support of other major process changes such as product selection or portfolio management, perhaps taking up to twenty years. For more information about GGI's 2004 Product Development Metrics Survey, the research and the available reports, go to GGI's web site. |
