No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Audit Tool for Intellectual Property Management: IP Management in the Queensland Department of Primary Industries
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2016
Abstract
Smart State is a Queensland Government initiative that recognises the central role of knowledge-based economic growth. In this context, the management of intellectual property (IP) within Queensland and Australian government research and development agencies has changed dramatically over recent years. Increasing expectations have been placed on utilising public sector IP to both underpin economic development and augment taxes by generating new revenues. Public sector research and development (R&D) management has come under greater scrutiny to commercialise and/or corporatise their activities. In a study of IP management issues in the Queensland Public Sector we developed a framework to facilitate a holistic audit of IP management in government agencies. In this paper we describe this framework as it pertains to one large public sector Agriculture R&D Agency, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QDPI). The four overlapping domains of the framework are: IP Generation; IP Rights; IP Uptake; and Corporate IP Support. The audit within QDPI, conducted in 2000 near the outset of Smart State, highlighted some well developed IP management practices within QDPI's traditional areas of focus of innovation (IP Generation) and IP ownership and licensing (IP Rights). However, further management practice developments are required to improve the domains of IP Uptake and Corporate IP Support.
- Type
- Special Theme: Queensland: The Smart State
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press
References
Athaide, G. A., Meyers, P. W., and Wilemon, D. L.
1996, ‘Seller-Buyer Interactions During the Commercialisation of Technological Process Innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13: 406–421.Google Scholar
Bontis, N., 1996, ‘There's a Price on Your Head: Managing Intellectual Capital Strategically’, Business-Quarterly, 60(4): 40–47.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Berry, L., and Goel, R.
1991, ‘Guidelines for Successfully Transferring Government-Sponsored Innovation’, Research Policy, 20: 121–143.Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., Maidique, M.A., and Wheelwright, S. C.
2001, Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 3rd Edition, Irwin, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G., 1983, ‘A process for industrial new product development’, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 30(1): 2–11.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G., 1994, ‘Third-Generation New Product Processes’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DCAT
2000, Intellectual Property Policy 2000. Department of Commerce and Trade, Government of Western Australia. www.commerce.wa.gov.au/dct/policies/ipp/index.htm.Google Scholar
EC
2000, TEMAGUIDE: A Guide to Technology Management and Innovation for Companies, Research Report for Innovation Programme, European Communities. centrim.bus.brighton.ac.uk/ajar/club/TEMAGUID/ENGL/DEFAULT.HTML.Google Scholar
FPTT Canada
1997, ‘Guiding Principles for the Management of Intellectual Property Issues. Federal Partners in Technology Transfer Report’, Department of Science and Technology, Canada, September. scitech.gc.ca/fptt/resrch_e.html.Google Scholar
Fuglie, K. B., Day, N., Klotz, C., Ollinger, M., Reilly, J., Vasavada, U., and Yee, J.
1996, ‘Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments Under Alternative Markets and Institutions’, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Jolly, V. K., 1997, Commercialisation of New Technologies.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
QDPI
1998, Creating the Future: QDPI's Priorities 1998-2003, The Queensland Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
QDPI
1999a, The Alignment of DPI's R&D Effort with Government Priorities, The Queensland Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
QDPI
1999b, An Evaluation of DPI's Five Internal Institutes, The Queensland Department of Primary Industries.Google Scholar
QDPI
1999c, Draft Policy Statement on the Development and Commercialisation of Intellectual Property, The Queensland Department of Primary Industries. October.Google Scholar
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., and Finkelstein, S.
1996, Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best’. Harvard Business Review, March: 71–80.Google Scholar
Roussel, P., Saad, K., and Erickson, T.
1991, Third Generation R&D.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Tiedemann, K. J., 1982, ‘A New Model of the Innovation Process’, Research Management, March: 18–21.Google Scholar
Tabrizi, B., and Walleigh, R., 1997, ‘Defining Next Generation Products: An Inside Look’, Harvard Business Review, Nov: 116–124.Google Scholar
Steffens, P., Shulman, A., Waterhouse, M., and Wollin, A.
2000, ‘Capitalising on Intellect: Public Sector Intellectual Property Management in Queensland’, Institute of Public Administration, Queensland Division.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, C., and Clark, K., 1992, ‘Organizing and Leading Heavyweight Development Teams’, California Management Review, 34(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar