Innovation and intellectual property management in the Canadian aerospace sector Diego Mahecha-
[email protected] Introduction
Framework of the Canadian aerospace industry
This poster correlate innovation process and Intellectual Property (IP) management within the Canadian aerospace industry. We were able to identify the distribution of
First briefly describe the sample of firms that answered the survey. These proportions are representative of the Canadian aerospace sector.Enterprises are located in four regions and the distribution is shown below:
Canadian aerospace firms who practise open innovation (OI) within their organisations. And how firms within the Canadian aerospace industry internalise principles of open business models (BMs) in their strategies.
Data and methodology This study is based on data from a questionnaire-based survey Open Business Models in the Canadian Aerospace Industry that was developed to probe the extent of the use of open innovation (OI) practices and of open business models in the Canadian aerospace industry ecosystem. - Electronic survey conducted in LimeSurvey platform, launched in June 2015. 46 questions structured along 7 themes with 10.9% response rate (71/652 firms). - Preprocessing to reduce the number of items by performing a PCA analysis with Varimax. - Analysis Two-Step Cluster. The resulting distribution was two segments, integrated BM (50% of firms) and externally aware BM (the other 50% of firms).
Conclusions We found that Canadian aerospace enterprises who practice OI can be classified into 2 groups. The first group are companies who have an externally aware BM, characterised as beginning to use IP as a corporative asset. The second group is composed of companies that integrate their innovation process within their BM, and where IP is tread as a financial asset. - Publicly funded R&D consortia and jointventure activities with external partners were the most important OI practices. - The firms consider government grants for developer internal R&D projects, collaborative arrangements and alliances as important for their innovation processes. - The strategic methods (lead-time advantage of competitors, complexity of design and secrecy) as more important than formal methods (patents) of IP protection.
References [1] Chesbrough, H. Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business Press, 2006. [2] Chesbrough, H., and Brunswicker, S. Managing open innovation in large firms. Fraunhofer Verlag, 2013. [3] West, J., and Bogers, M. Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31, 4 (2014), 814–831.
Western provinces 10 firms (14%) 80% develop R&D 70% practice OI Plant size 4 Large 3 Medium 2 Small 1 Micro
Subsector 50% Aerospace 21% Space 29% Defence
Ontario 29 firms (42%) 86% develop R&D 79% practice OI Plant size 2 Large 5 Medium 16 Small 6 Micro
Quebec 26 firms (37%) 85% develop R&D 62% practice OI Plant size 3 Large 7 Medium 15 Small 1 Micro
Subsector 46% Aerospace 17% Space 37% Defence
Subsector 36% Aerospace 24% Space 39% Defence
Atlantic Canada 5 firms (7%) 100% develop R&D 80% practices OI Plant size 0 Large 1 Medium 3 Small 1 Micro
Subsector 33% Aerospace 25% Space 42% Defence
According to the value chain position, the Canadian aerospace industry can be classified in the following four categories: prime contractor (12%), equipment manufacturer (13%), subcontractor/supplier of specialised products and services (63%), and maintenance, repair and overhaul (12%). Innovation outcomes in the aerospace industry have a tendency towards product (73%) and process (72%) innovations, while marketing (31%) and organisational (42%) innovations are much less of a focus.
Results Between the 2 BM’s types, externally aware BM and integrated BM, we found that integrated BM are more open than externally aware BM. We found that publicly funded R&D consortia (inbound practice) and joint-venture activities with external partners (outbound practice) were the most important. Comparing the BM classification with the external funding sources, the firms consider government grants for developer internal R&D projects, collaborative arrangements and alliances as important for their innovation processes. Another important element identified in our analysis is venture capital from both private capital and government capital; it is a source of funding that represents a strong importance. Finally, the strategic methods (lead-time advantage of competitors, complexity of design and secrecy) as more important than formal methods (patents) of IP protection. BM classification and inbound practices 35
25
IP in-licensing
30
Specialised OI intermediaries
25
BM classification and outbound practices
Crowdsourcing
Participation in public standardisation
20
20 15
15
10
10
5
5
External R&D services providers
0
Idea and start-up competitions
Spin-in, acquisition, incubation or investment in SMEs
Publicly funded R&D consortia
35 30
Spin-offs
0
Joint venture activities with external partners
Donations of commons or non-profits IP out-licensing and patent selling
Integrated Externally aware Total
BM classification and funding sources
Corporate business incubation and venturing
Integrated Externally aware Total
BM classification and strategic methods 50
Venture capitals
Secrecy
40
25
Collaboration arrangements and alliances
30
20
15 10 5 0
Government grants for internal R&D projects
Government venture capital support
Integrated Externally aware Total
20 10
Complexity of design
0
Lead-time advantage of competitors
Patents
Integrated Externally aware Total
