- 1 -

RESEARCH REPORT

WIPO SIX MONTHS STUDY-CUM-RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IN

THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FIELD

USING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

SPECIALIST SKILL STANDARDS

Sponsored By

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

in Collaboration with the Japan Patent Office

May 8 – September 30, 2011

Submitted by

JING Shuang

Deputy Director, Quality Control Division of

Patent Examination Administration Department,

State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO),

People‘s Republic of China

Supervised by

Prof. Kazunari SUGIMITSU

Director, Research Center for Intellectual Property & Science

Kanazawa Institute of Technology

- 1 -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For this program, I would like to express my high appreciation to the following

people and institutions:

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the World Intellectual Property

Organization (WIPO) and Japan Patent Office (JPO) for providing this opportunity to

enhance my knowledge and experiences regarding intellectual property rights. My

sincere thanks also go to the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of the People‘s

Republic of China for giving me this unique opportunity to engage in theoretical

research on the basis of practical experience.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the Asia-Pacific Industrial Property

Center (APIC) of the Japan Institute of Innovation and Invention (JIII) for providing a

good working environment and facilities for my research.

I am grateful to Ms. Yuki Obinata in ASPAC WIPO, Mr. Shimpei Yamamoto, Mr.

Toru Yamazaki, Ms. Kaori Ogino, Ms. Atsuko Watanabe, Mr. Yoshihiro Nakayama,

Ms. Junko Watanabe, and other officials of the International Affairs Division, JPO for

their arrangement of this program. I am also grateful to other JPO officials for their

kindly answering to my questions, even though I don‘t know their names.

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all APIC staff members for kindly

helping in every aspect, including APIC Director General Mr. Takao Ogiya, Mr.

Yuichi Shibuya, Mr. Kazuhiro Okazawa and Ms. Yumi Ohno. Special thanks go to

Ms. Satoko Miyazaki and Ms. Yukiko Koyanagi, the coordinators of this program, for

their support, attention and detailed arrangements during these five months. Thanks

also go to Ms. Kimiko Yamanoi for sending questionnaires and collecting data of my

survey, Ms. Kazumi Kinoshita for her lovely dancing, Ms. Chie Noshiro for her sweet

smiles, Ms. Ayako Sakuma for her friendship and all the memories we shared, Ms.

Michiko Hiyama for saving my computer from viruses many times, Ms. Sachiko

Osanai for taking care of me all the time, Ms. Aiko Imayama for her morning greeting

every day, Ms. Mariko Takahashi and Ms. Mineko Miura for valuable experiences of

Japanese culture, and Mr. Tadao Oike for my first portrait.

I also give my thanks to Mr. Toshihiko Shimizu, Mr. Haruomi Kamoi, Mr. Masakazu

Yokoyama, Mr. Takayuki Shibata, Mr. Kenjiro Nomura, Mr. Takahiro Kijima and so

on. Thanks go to Ms. Kim, Mr. Smith and Mr. Robert for correcting mistakes in my

English work. Additional thanks go to other staff of APIC and every lecturer of the

training courses in APIC.

- 2 -

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Kazunari Sugimitsu, at

the Research Center for Intellectual Property & Science Kanazawa Institute of

Technology for his instruction and advice on my research.

Thanks also go to Ms. Takami Oda from the Association of Intellectual Property

Education for collecting my survey data and translating it into Chinese. I am also

grateful to everyone I have interviewed during my research: Mr. Mitsuhiro Takasaki,

Engineer Inc., executives and staff of Panasonic Corporation; Mr. Jun Atsumi, Hatta

& Associates; Mr. Zhao Changming, ASMI; Ms. Liu Xiaoyu, IBM China; Ms. Zheng

Ning, Mazda China; Ms. Wang Lijun, Toshiba China; Mr. Wang Liang, Lifan

Industry Group China; and Mr. Wang Tao, Panasonic China.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the interpreters who helped me complete

my interviews and presentations: Ms. Yoko Okazaki, Ms. Reiko Madren and Ms.

Reiko Tsujimoto.

My additional heartfelt thanks go to Mr. Tetsuji Kawakami, Mr. Koichi Eguchi and

all staff in AOTS for their accommodation and hospitality.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my SIPO director and colleagues for

providing valuable information and support during the course of my overseas study

and living. My sincere thanks also go to others who were involved in and contributed

to this program that I could not mention here for their attention and help .

Tokyo, September 2011

*************************************************************

It should be noted that opinions expressed in this report are purely personal and

don’t necessarily reflect those of the organization to which the author belongs.

- 3 -

ABSTRACT

This report mainly explores the implementation, effect and prospect of specialists‘

skill standards in the intellectual property field. It is based upon the Intellectual

Property Specialists Skill Standard (IPSS) that was released in 2007 by METI Japan

to analyze the definition and procedures, and upon the combination of two main styles

of implementation—Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) and

Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST)—to spread the research and

actual implementation of this standard within leading companies, small- and medium-

sized enterprises, and individual households.

I also used ‗stakeholder analysis‘ to evaluate the implementation effects according to

the public evaluation standard, and to make suggestions. Finally, for reference I

included analyses and prospects of the international development trend of IPSS and

IPMST, as well as the effects on other countries and the significance of using them.

KEYWORDS

Human Resource Development, Skill standard, Intellectual property management,

Skill evaluation, Skill test

- 4 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... - 1 -

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. - 3 -

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ - 6 -

1.1 Objectives................................................................................................................. - 6 -

1.2 Summary of Theories and Documents ..................................................................... - 6 -

1.2.1 Competency Model of Human Resource Development ............................... - 6 -

1.2.2 Stakeholder Analysis of Public Policy Evaluation ....................................... - 6 -

1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................ - 6 -

1.3.1 The Research Process ................................................................................... - 6 -

1.3.2 The Research Methods ................................................................................. - 7 -

CHAPTER 2- OVERVIEW OF IPSS ...................................................................................... - 8 -

2.1 Background .............................................................................................................. - 8 -

2.1.1 Demands of Enterprises ............................................................................... - 8 -

2.1.2 Strategy of ―A Nation Built on Intellectual Property‖ .................................. - 8 -

2.2 History ...................................................................................................................... - 9 -

2.2.1 From ITSS to IPSS ..................................................................................... - 10 -

2.2.2 From IPT to IPMST ................................................................................... - 11 -

2.2.2.1 Relationship between PAE and IPT ........................................................... - 11 -

2.2.2.2 From IPT to IPMST ................................................................................... - 12 -

CHAPTER 3- UTILIZATION OF IPSS: DATA AND CASES ............................................. - 14 -

3.1 Best Models of IPSS Utilization ............................................................................ - 14 -

3.1.1 Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) .............................. - 14 -

3.1.2 Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) ............................ - 14 -

3.2 Survey on Assessment of IPMST ........................................................................... - 14 -

3.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ - 14 -

3.2.2 Respondents Profile ................................................................................... - 14 -

3.2.2.1 IP qualification

3.2.2.2 Job distribution

3.2.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................. - 15 -

3.2.3.1 Knowledge of IPSS

3.2.3.2 Use of IP Skill Evaluation Standard

3.2.3.3 Comparison Between PAE and IPMST Grade 1

3.3 Survey on the IPSS Utilization in SMEs ................................................................ - 18 -

3.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ - 18 -

3.3.2 Summary of Data ....................................................................................... - 18 -

3.4 IPSES in Leading Companies: Case Study on Panasonic Corporation .................. - 19 -

3.4.1 Interview .................................................................................................... - 19 -

3.4.2 IP Activities and IP Human Resources in Panasonic Corporation ............. - 19 -

3.4.2.1 Global-scale IP activities

3.4.2.2 Large numbers of IP personnel

3.4.2.3 Changing business environment

3.4.3 The process of introducing IPSES.............................................................. - 21 -

- 5 -

3.4.3.1 Introduction of Company-wide Skill Evaluation System

3.4.3.2 Formulation and Publication of IPSS

3.4.4 The Framework of IPSES .......................................................................... - 22 -

3.4.5 Implementation of IPSES ........................................................................... - 22 -

3.4.6 Brief Summary ........................................................................................... - 23 -

3.5 IPMST in SMEs: Case Study on Engineer Inc. ...................................................... - 23 -

3.5.1 Interview .................................................................................................... - 23 -

3.5.2 Profile of Engineer Inc. .............................................................................. - 23 -

3.5.3 IPMST in Engineer Inc. ............................................................................. - 24 -

CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ - 25 -

4.1 Terms and Definitions ............................................................................................ - 25 -

4.1.1 Stakeholders

4.1.2 Target groups

4.2 Direct Beneficiaries ................................................................................................ - 25 -

4.3 Input ....................................................................................................................... - 27 -

4.4 Results .................................................................................................................... - 27 -

4.5 Outputs ................................................................................................................... - 27 -

4.6 Outcomes ............................................................................................................... - 27 -

4.7 Impact .................................................................................................................... - 27 -

4.8 Stakeholders on IPSS Issue .................................................................................... - 27 -

4.8.1 Role of Stakeholders .................................................................................. - 27 -

4.8.2 Stakeholder importance and influence matrix ............................................ - 28 -

4.8.3 Responsibilities and Activities of Stakeholders ......................................... - 28 -

4.9 Effectiveness Analysis ........................................................................................... - 27 -

4.9.1 General Effectiveness ................................................................................. - 29 -

4.9.2 Positive Effects ........................................................................................... - 29 -

4.9.3 Negative Effects ......................................................................................... - 29 -

4.9.4 Anticipated Effectiveness ........................................................................... - 29 -

4.9.5 Unexpected Effectiveness .......................................................................... - 29 -

CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSION AND PROSPECT ................................................................ - 30 -

5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. - 30 -

5.1.1 The World‘s First IP Skill Standard ............................................................ - 30 -

5.1.2 Preliminary Effects Observed .................................................................... - 30 -

5.1.3 Insufficient Engagement of Stakeholders ................................................... - 30 -

5.2 Suggestions ............................................................................................................ - 30 -

5.2.1 Full Engagement of All Stakeholders ......................................................... - 30 -

5.2.2 A Simple Version for SMEs ....................................................................... - 30 -

5.2.3 Exemption Between PAE and IPMST ........................................................ - 30 -

5.2.4 IP Education Curriculums in According with IPSS.................................... - 30 -

5.3 Future Prospects ..................................................................................................... - 30 -

5.3.1 Development of Skill Standard .................................................................. - 30 -

5.3.2 Possible Methods of Utilizing IPSS in Other Countries ............................ - 31 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... - 32 -

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... - 34 -

- 6 -

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives

Based on the research of Intellectual Property Specialists Skill Standard (IPSS)

formulation and implementation, exploring the implementation, effects and prospects

of specialists‘ skill standard in the intellectual property field, to make the initial

evaluation on the public policy that METI formulate and published IPSS, summarize

the success experience, provide suggestions and analyze the significance of using

Japan‘s practical experience for reference.

1.2 Summary of Theories and Documents

1.2.1 Competency Model of Human Resource Development

Competency is the ability of an individual to perform a job properly. A competency is

a set of defined behaviors that provide a structured guide enabling the identification,

evaluation and development of the behaviors in individual employees.

The Theory of Competency Model was initiated by David McClelland in 1973.

1.2.2 Stakeholder Analysis of Public Policy Evaluation

Stakeholder analysis is a term that refers to the action of analyzing the attitudes of

stakeholders towards something. It is frequently used during the preparation phase of

a project to assess the attitudes of the stakeholders regarding the potential changes.

Stakeholder analysis can be done once or on a regular basis to track changes in

stakeholder attitudes over time.

A stakeholder is any person or organization, who can be positively or negatively

impacted by, or cause an impact on the actions of a company, government, or

organization.

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 The Research Process

The research will be separated into four stages: collecting information → interviews

and questionnaires →analysis → conclusions and suggestions.

Accordingly, the report consists of following five parts:

Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter is to introduce the objectives and methods of

this research and summary of theories and documents.

Chapter 2: Overview of IPSS. In this chapter, it will give an overview of IPSS,

including the background and history of its establishment.

Chapter 3: Utilization of IPSS in Japan: Data and Cases. This is the core part of the

- 7 -

fact-finding, which aims to investigate the current situation of IPSS utilization.

Various ways of using IPSS in leading companies, in SMEs and among individuals

will be illustrated by cases and relevant survey data.

Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis. Analysis in this chapter will focus on the

implementation effectiveness of IPSS, which is regarded as a kind of public policy.

The stakeholder model will be used for evaluation.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and prospects. Based on the data and analysis showed in

chapters 3 and 4, the researcher will draw the conclusions and make suggestions. The

future prospects of using IPSS, such as possible ways of using IPSS in other countries,

will also be discussed.

1.3.2 Research Methods

The following methods will be taken on this research to collect and analyze

information, and then draw conclusions.

I Case Study and Interviews

In order to investigate various ways of using IPSS in different enterprises, the

researcher selected two typical cases to study. One is the Panasonic Corporation,

which represents leading companies, while another is Engineer Corporation, a small

and medium-sized enterprise. The researcher will have interviews with those

companies mentioned above and discuss the implementation and effectiveness of

IPSS.

To collect information, the researcher will also interview several specialists who work

in company IPR departments both in Japan and China.

II Questionnaire Survey

For further understanding of current IPSS implementation, two surveys will be carried

out in this research. One is a survey of SMEs in Japan, while another focuses on

examinees of IPMST. Questionnaires will be designed respectively.

III Comparative Study

Thise study will focus on the examinees‘ assessments of PAE and IPMST grade 1,

especially in terms of company IP practices.

IV On-the-spot Investigation

The researcher will take the opportunity of the 9th

IPMST to visit one of examination

locations and gather first-hand observations.

- 8 -

CHAPTER 2- OVERVIEW OF IPSS

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Demands of Enterprises

In recent years, IPR departments in large Japanese companies are facing business

transformations in several areas, including from application to utilization,

quantity-oriented to quality-oriented, patent-focused to multiple IP categories, and

domestic to international.

Therefore, requirements of IP specialist skills in enterprises are becoming diverse,

while a variety of skills need to be clarified in order to grasp the current situation of IP

human resources in enterprises. In the past, large Japanese companies evaluated their

IP personnel skills by using Patent Attorney Examinations (PAE). However, these

were not designed for IP personnel of companies, and it was hard to meet the various

requirements. Companies need something new.

The demand has been proven by the results of a questionnaire survey conducted at the

briefing session on IP specialist certificate system on March 23, 2004. When asked

about "the need for a IP-related certificate system other than the Patent Attorney

Examination‖, 89% (208/234) of the respondents answered that this was ―necessary.‖

Figure 2.1.1: The result of a questionnaire survey on the need of IP-related certificate

system other than Patent Attorney Examination

2.1.2 Strategy of “A Nation Built on Intellectual Property”

In order to achieve the national objective, ―A Nation Built on Intellectual Property,‖

Japan attaches great importance to human resource development in the IP field. In the

- 9 -

―Intellectual Property Strategy Outline‖ of Japan published in July 2002, Chapter 3

put forward specific requirements of IP specialist skills in enterprises.

The government‘s ―Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005‖ devotes a full

chapter (Chapter 5) to ―human resources development.‖ The following parts of this

chapter are related to the formulation of IPSS.

1. Promoting a Comprehensive Strategy for the Development of Human

Resources Related to Intellectual Property

To achieve this goal, the GOJ will promote a Comprehensive Strategy for Fostering

Intellectual Property Experts, with the aim of doubling the number of intellectual

property experts from about 60,000 to 120,000 during the ten-year period from

FY2005, fostering people who specialize in multiple fields, have international

perspectives, and have a good sense of business, actively using such people.

A) Clarify the profile of intellectual property experts:

Investigate the current quality and quantity as well as needs of intellectual property

experts with respect to individual sectors, phases, and fields mentioned above, and

clarify the role and use desired for intellectual property experts and their

corresponding profile.

B) Clarify skills required for intellectual property experts:

Investigate skills required for intellectual property experts (range and level of

knowledge and technical capability), and set goals.

C) Clarify methods of fostering intellectual property experts:

Build a mechanism to enable people to acquire the knowledge and technical capability

required to be intellectual property experts, prepare a ten-year roadmap, and evaluate

achievements annually.

These requirements were emphasized in the ―Intellectual Property Strategic Program

2006.‖

2.2 History

To meet the demands of enterprises and achieve strategic objectives, METI decided to

formulate a specialist skill standard especially for IP personnel in enterprises. The

Intellectual Property Policy Office of the Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau in

METI was in charge of this project. The project gathered 14 experts in the IP field and

representatives from more than 50 companies. The ―Intellectual Property Skill

Standard Committee‖ was established in October, 2005. Professor Kazunari

Sugimitsu from the Kanazawa Institute of Technology was the chairperson. The

committee submitted the research report in March, 2006. One year later, METI

published the ―Intellectual Property Specialist Skill Standard‖ on its website.

- 10 -

2.2.1 From ITSS to IPSS

The Skill Standards for IT Professionals (ITSS) includes indices that identify and

systemize practical abilities for IT services. The objective of the ITSS is to promote

effective capital investment for human resource development in the IT service

industry by utilizing the index provided by the skill standards.

The ITSS was developed in 2002, led by METI. Some of the IT-related skill standards

in the US and Europe, such as SFIA and e-CF, were used for reference. Organized

into a career framework, ITSS classifies the information services industry into 11 job

categories and 35 specialty fields, including IT architect and software development. In

each field, there are seven levels based on individual experience and performance.

The skill framework of ITSS is as shown in Figure 2.2.1 below.

Figure 2.2.1: The skill framework of ITSS

Having published ITSS version 1.0, METI subsequently transferred the control of

ITSS to the Information-technology Promotion Agency (IPA), an incorporated

administrative agency sponsored by METI, and entrusted IPA with the administration

of these standards. IPA is now in charge of the updates, maintenance and promotion of

ITSS. The current version of ITSS is v3.0 which was updated in 2008.

A large number of companies in Japan have introduced ITSS as an index for

personnel evaluation. It is said that the majority of IT-related companies use these

standards as a reference in some way or another.

The successful experience of ITSS might inspire people to develop a new skill

standard in the IP field. In fact, it may not be far off to regard the IPSS as a version of

ITSS for the intellectual property industry. The IPSS adopted a framework similar to

- 11 -

that of ITSS, and categorized IP management professions within 18 job categories and

61 specific items. For each item, there are five levels based on individual experience

and performance.

2.2.2 From IPT to IPMST

2.2.2.1 Relationship between PAE and IPT

Prior to 2004, the Patent Attorney Examination (PAE) was almost the only method of

evaluating IP specialist skill levels in Japan. It is a prestigious examination within the

IP field, and famous for its difficulty. The purpose of PAE is to assess the knowledge

required to be ―certified‖ as a patent attorney, so it focuses on the knowledge about

laws and regulations related to industrial property rights rather than the practical skills

required to work for corporations, organizations, or research institutes.

To solve this problem, the Association of Intellectual Property Education (AIPE)

introduced the "Intellectual Property Test‖ (IPT) in 2004. This is different from the

traditional Patent Attorney Examination, in that the IPT is aimed at IP personnel in

corporations, organizations, and research institutes. Its examination contents covered

a broad scope of knowledge about domestic and international IP systems,

emphasizing practical operation. Therefore, the IPT was popular with companies. Up

until March 2008, the total number of IPT examinees was approximately 40,000.

The relationship between the PAE and IPT is as shown in Figure 2.2.2 below.

Figure 2.2.2: Relationship between the PAE and IPT

Patent Attorney

Examination (PAE)

Jurisprudence Theory Practice Practice

Intellectual Property

Test (IPT)

Patent Law

Utility Model Law

Design Law

Trademark Law

Treaties, etc.

Copyright Law

Unfair Competition

Prevention Law

Agreement/Litigation

Antimonopoly Law

Foreign law (US, China,

etc.)

Search and strategy

planning

- 12 -

2.2.2.2 From IPT to IPMST

After the release of IPSS, the Japanese Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare

(MHLW) added ―IP management‖ as a new specialty area to the ―technical skills

tests‖, which is a national certificatation system, in October 2007. AIPE was

appointed as the test agency for the new national examination ―Intellectual Property

Management Skills Test‖ (IPMST) on February 29, 2008. The former IPT was

transited from private-sector examination to national examination.

IPMST is designed in accordance with IPSS. It is classified into three grades: 1st, 2nd

and 3rd. Each grade consists of a written and practical test. The 1st grade is divided

into two specialty areas, "expert in patents" and "expert in media content". The

relationship between IPMST and IPSS is as shown in Figure 2.2.3 below.

Figure 2.2.3: Relationship between IPMST and IPSS

The IPMST was started in July 2008, and has been held a total of nine times to date.

The annual number of examinees has been steadily increasing. The total number of

examinees is now more than 100,000. 24,529 of them passed the examination and

became registered as a ―Certified Skilled Worker of Intellectual Property

Management.‖ The number of IPMST examinees is as shown in Figure 2.2.4 below.

Figure 2.2.4: The number of IPMST examinees

2nd

Grade

3rd Grade

Patent Content

1st Grade 1st Grade

Written

test

Written

test

Practical

test

Practical

test

Level 5

Level

4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

IPSS

IPMST

- 13 -

- 14 -

CHAPTER 3- UTILIZATION OF IPSS: DATA AND CASES

3.1 Best Models of IPSS Utilization

3.1.1 Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES)

The Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System (IPSES) is a series of indicators to

evaluate individuals‘ IP skills based on objective evaluation criteria.

3.1.2 Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST)

The Intellectual Property Management Skills Test (IPMST) is a national examination

that measures knowledge and practical skills about ―creation‖, ―protection‖ and

―utilization‖ of intellectual property.

3.2 Survey on Assessment of IPMST

3.2.1 Introduction

A questionnaires survey on the Assessment of IPMST has been conducted in this

research. The objective of this survey was to investigate the knowledge of IPSS and

assessment of IPMST among people who experienced IPMST. The utilization of

IPSES and a comparison between the PAE and IPMST are also included.

The target group of this survey included certified IP management specialists, namely

those people who had passed both the written and practical tests of IPMST. From the

first time of the IPMST in July 2008 to the ninth time in July 2011, the total number

of people who passed the tests and registered as certified IP management specialists

was 24,529.

The survey was conducted on the website of AIPE from Aug. 31st 2011 to Sep. 1

st,

2011. 15797 questionnaires were sent, with 530 valid responses received. The total

response rate was 3.4%.

3.2.2 Respondents Profile

3.2.2.1 IP Qualification

All of the 530 respondents passed at least one grade of the IPMST test. 34 of them

obtained patent attorney certification, while 16 passed both the PAE and IPMST

Grade 1 tests. Their opinions on the two tests are essential for purposes of

comparison.

The IP qualification distribution of respondents is as shown in Table 3.2.1 below.

Certified IP management specialists are categorized by the highest grade of

certification they obtained.

- 15 -

Table 3.2.1: Respondents‘ IP qualification distribution

With patent

attorney

certification

Without patent

attorney

certification

Total

IPMST Grade 1 16 62 78

Patent only 14 58 72

Content only 1 1 2

Patent and content 1 3 4

IPMST Grade 2 9 230 239

IPMST Grade 3 9 204 213

Total 34 496 530

3.2.2.2. Job distribution

A large proportion of respondents are from IP departments, which accounts for 22%.

R&D and other IP-related employees account for 14% and 15%, respectively. The job

distribution of respondents is as shown in Figure 3.2.1 below.

Figure 3.2.1: Job distribution of respondents

Job Distribution of Respondents

patent attorney

5%

IP-related

15%

IP-unrelated

15%

student-IP

2%

others

18%

business

9%

R&D

14%

IP

22%

3.2.3 Data Analysis

The questionnaires included ten questions related to the knowledge of IPSS, use of IP

skill evaluation standards, and comparison between PAE and IPMST Grade 1.

3.2.3.1 Knowledge of IPSS

- 16 -

The survey results showed that 36.2% (192/530) of respondents knew about IPSS as a

national skill standard and a tool of IP skills evaluation. 78.6% (151/192) of them

knew about the fact that IPMST was designed based on IPSS.

3.2.3.2 Use of IP Skill Evaluation Standards

The question was as follows: What kind of standard has been used to evaluate IP

management skills of employees in your company/organization? Answers from

respondents were varied. As it is shown in Figure 3.2.2, Most companies/

organizations had no evaluation or standard, with only 15.3% (81/530) of respondents

saying that evaluation standards were used in their companies. Among such

companies, 43.2% (35/81) had their own company evaluation standards, while 25.9%

(20/81) admitted that they adopted evaluation standards based on or reference to IPSS,

while the rest 30.0% (25/81) used other standards.

Figure 3.2.2: IP skill evaluation standard contribution

As mentioned above, 20 respondents said that their companies/organizations adopted

IPSS as an IP skill evaluation standard. 18 of them provided their companies‘ names,

which are listed in Table 3.2.2 below.

Table 3.2.2: Name list of companies/organizations that refer to the IPSS

DENSO CORPORATION

Fujitsu System Solutions

Hitachi, Ltd.

ISEKI & CO,. LTD.

Japan Science and Technology Agency

- 17 -

KOYO SANGYO Co., Ltd.

NTT-ME Corporation

Patent Drawing Service

SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.

Sharp Corporation

Sony Corporation

Takagi Co., Ltd.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Incorporated

Toshiba Solutions Corporation

Yamagata University

Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd.

YKK Corporation

ZENRIN CO., LTD.

3.2.3.3 Comparison Between PAE and IPMST Grade 1

With respect to the difficulty and coverage of examination, IPMST Grade 1 is

considered to be comparable with PAE. Since IPMST was designed for IP staff in

companies, it might have the advantage of PAE in terms of company‘s IP practice.

This survey intended to prove as such.

In response to the question, ―Which is better in terms of the company‘s IP practice:

PAE or IPMST Grade 1?‖, half of the respondents answered that it was hard to say,

while 39.4% (209/530) of respondents believed that IPMST Grade 1 was better or

closer to the company‘s IP practice. Among those respondents who passed both of the

two tests, 75% (12/16) expressed the same opinion. The reason that respondents are in

favor of IPMST Grade 1 is as shown in Figure 3.2.3. This was mainly because the

knowledge covered by IPMST Grade 1 was broader, and the skills that IPMST

required were more practical to the company‘s IP management.

Figure 3.2.3: Comparison between PAE and IPMST-1 in terms of company IP practice

- 18 -

Comparision Between PAE and IPMST-1, in terms

of the Company's IP Practice

Others, 14

More practical

, 79

Broader

knowledge, 86

IPMST-1

better, 39.4%

Hard to say,

52.1%

PAE better,

4.3%

No answer,

4.2%

Foreign issues

are more

involved , 20

Strategy is

involved, 17

3.3 Survey on the IPSS Utilization in SMEs

3.3.1 Introduction

This research included a questionnaire survey on IPSS utilization among SMEs in

order to investigate the current situation of IP human resources, utilization of IPMST,

and knowledge of IPSS among Japanese SMEs.

The target group of this survey was comprised of companies included on the list of

300 Vibrant Small and Medium Manufacturing Enterprises of 2009. 300

questionnaires were sent via postal mail on Aug. 16th

, 2011. 127 valid responses were

received prior to Aug. 30th 2011, with a response rate of 42.3%.

3.3.2 Summary of Data

The survey consisted of ten questions that were divided into three parts. The first four

questions intended to assess the current IP human resource situation in these

companies, mainly the number of qualified IP specialists. The second part aimed to

know whether the IPMST of any other kind of in-house qualification would be

supported by SMEs. The third part focused on the popularity of IPSS.

The summary of questions and answers is as shown in Table 3.3.1 below.

Table 3.3.1: Summary data of the survey on IPSS utilization in SMEs

Answers

(Yes) %

Current IP human resource situation

Number of patent attorneys in the company 1 0.8%

- 19 -

Answers

(Yes) %

Have heard about IPMST 32 25.2%

Someone passed IPMST in the company 6 4.7%

Number of people who passed IPMST in the

company 8

IPMST grade-1 0

IPMST grade-2 5

IPMST grade-3 3

Utilization of IPMST

Supporting IPMST 10 7.9%

Means of supporting IPMST (multiple choice)

Reward when passed the

test 2 1.6%

Allowance for those

who passed the test 3 2.4%

Test fee 4 3.1%

Textbook fee 6 4.7%

No support 15 11.8%

Encouraging in-house qualification 11 8.7%

Knowledge of IPSS

Have heard about IPSS 7 5.5%

Have heard that the IPMST is based on IPSS 4 3.1%

Taking IPSS as reference 3 2.4%

3.4 IPSES in Leading Companies: Case Study of Panasonic Corporation

3.4.1 Interview

The case study was mainly based on literature research and interviews with managers

of IP Department in Panasonic. The summary information of the interview is as

below.

Date: Sep. 5th

2011

Place: Headquarters of Panasonic Corporation, Osaka

Interviewee 1: The General Manager of Personnel Corporate Intellectual Property

Division, Panasonic Corporation

Interviewee 2: The Manager of Human Resources Group, Intellectual Property Rights

Operations Company (IPOC), Panasonic Corporation

3.4.2 IP Activities and IP Human Resources in the Panasonic

Corporation

3.4.2.1 Global-scale IP activities

As an international leading company, Panasonic Corporation promotes global-scale IP

activities. As of March 31, 2011, Panasonic held 41,630 patents in Japan and 59,002

- 20 -

patents overseas. It was ranked first in the world for international patent filings under

PCT in both 2009 and 2010.

3.4.2.2 Large numbers of IP personnel

IP personnel in Panasonic notable for their large numbers, fine division of labor and

high quality. The composition of IP personnel in Panasonic is as shown in Figure

3.4.1 below.

Figure 3.4.1: Composition of IP personnel in Panasonic

As for the professional qualification, 160 IP staff has obtained patent attorney

certification in Japan, while 20 have obtained such certification overseas. There were

also several people who obtained lawyer certification in Japan or other countries. A

total of ten employees passed the IPMST.

3.4.2.3 Changing business environment

The business environment of Panasonic has been changing dramatically, as fierce

global competition has forced companies to cooperate with each other. IP activities to

reinforce cooperation with external organizations is also showing a remarkable

increase, with the range and scope of IP activities in companies expanding globally.

To promptly and accurately respond to such rapid business changes, Panasonic

requires six types of IP specialists. Accordingly, new skills such as those relating to IP

strategizing are also required. The requirements are shown in the table below.

IP Personnel in

Panasonic

More than 1300

persons

Corporate

Intellectual Property

Division

250 persons

IPOC

750 persons

IP Strategy

20 persons

Executive Team

230 persons

SANYO Electric and oversees

branches More than 300

persons

- 21 -

Table 3.4.1: Requirements of human resources in company IP departments

Six types of human resources required

in company IP departments

IP skills required of human resources in

company IP departments

Specialist in invention development and

rights acquisition

Specialist in IP investigation and

analysis

Specialist in the use of rights and

licenses

Specialist in design and trademarks

Specialist in IP strategy and planning

Specialist in IP management

Skills in basic knowledge of IP system

and relevant law and regulation

Skills in IP development and rights

acquisition

Skills in IP investigation and business

investigation

Skills in IP strategy and utilization

Skills in information/system

management

Skills in knowledge of technology and

merchandise

Due to various requirements of IP personnel skills and types, the issue of accurately

understanding the current situation of IP human resources in the company has became

important.

3.4.3 The process of introducing IPSES

3.4.3.1 Introduction of Company-wide Skill Evaluation System

Panasonic introduced a Skill Evaluation System throughout the company in FY2006.

This system is intended to accelerate employees‘ skills development and the learning

of new skills, starting by visualizing the skills of each employee based on objective

evaluation criteria by job type and operation department. The aim is to encourage

individuals to achieve personal transformation and fully exercise their talents by

visualizing individuals‘ skills and making a united effort between both employees and

the company.

From 2004 to 2006, Panasonic spent two years establishing its own IP skill standard

and evaluation system. More than 20 people, including managers, human resource

experts and IP staff were involved in this effort.

3.4.3.2 Formulation and Publication of IPSS

The IP Departments of Panasonic were invited by METI to join the project of IPSS

formulation while they were establishing their own Skill Evaluation System.

Panasonic actively participated in and played a leading role in the process of IPSS

formulation.

IPSS was highly appraised by the HR Manager of Panasonic Corporation who

believes that IPSS specializes in intellectual property and covers all fields of IP in

detail. In particular, the description of the assessment index and segmentation of IP

- 22 -

business are useful and helpful for companies.

3.4.4 The Framework of IPSES

As is shown in Figure 3.4.2, the framework of IPSES consists of two parts. One is

common skills that are shared throughout entire company, such as interpersonal

relationship skills. The other part is comprised of skills that differ by job function.

This consists of technical skills and process skills. Each part includes several skills,

and each skill has its own index of 8 levels.

Figure 3.4.2: Panasonic IPSES framework

3.4.5 Implementation of IPSES

The process of using IPSES includes four steps.

Step 1: Plan

This step is divided into three sub-steps: self-evaluation, communication, and target

setting.

IPSES provided an external evaluation index for each level of skills in order for

employees to easily self-evaluate their current skill level (for example, level 7 for

prior art searches and level 5 for national patent rights acquisition) .

Panasonic established a ―Communication Program‖ system whereby all employees

meet with their managers once a year to consider how to develop their individual

careers and set target goals for their work. (For example, ―at the end of this year, I will

achieve level 6 of the national patent rights acquisition skill). Usually, employees are

encouraged to challenge themselves to achieve a higher skill level. When both the

manager and employee agree with the target skill level, they discuss how to achieve

Skills

Skills by Job

Function

Technical Skills Process Skills

Common Skills

Interpersonal

Relationships

Other

- 23 -

and measure it.

Step 2: Do

On the Job Training (OJT) in the workplace plays an important role in human

resources development at Panasonic, wherein managers arrange employees to take

training course or provide other opportunities to enhance their skill to target levels.

Step 3: Check

At the end of the year, the manager checks whether an employee has achieved his/her

target skill level, and makes assessments or gives comments for each employee. The

evaluation results are not directly related to the payment system in Panasonic.

Step 4: Act

Managers and employees take measures to improve their work the following year.

3.4.6 Brief Summary

From the process introduced above, it may be concluded that the objective of using

IPSES is mainly to grasp the current situation of IP personnel. Together with other

measures, such as OJT, this might then accelerate the human resources development

in IP departments.

Although IPSES has been utilized at Panasonic for five years, the interviewees said

that it is still too early to say whether it has had an effect on IP human resource

development in the company.

3.5 IPMST in SMEs: Case Study on Engineer Inc.

3.5.1 Interview

The case study was mainly based on literature research and the interview with the

president of Engineer Inc. The summary information of the interview is as below.

Date: Sep. 7th

2011

Place: Shinagawa

Interviewee: Mr. Mitsuhiro TAKASAKI, President of Engineer Inc.

3.5.2 Profile of Engineer Inc.

Engineer Inc. is belongs to the group of small and medium-sized manufacturing

enterprises. The company was established in 1972 in Osaka. It now has 30 employees

and registered capital of 20,000,000 yen.

Engineer Inc. attaches importance to innovation and IP management. For example, its

so-called ―Nejisaurus‖ product (specially designed pliers for removing screws with

broken heads) has been granted 11 patents, designs, and trademarks in Japan and

abroad. It has won many awards, including the Osaka Governor‘s Award at the Kinki

- 24 -

Region Commendations for Invention in 2010, and the iF Product Design Award in

2011.

3.5.3 IPMST in Engineer Inc.

Mr. Takasaki summarized four key elements for SMEs to survive amidst fierce global

competition: marketing, patents, design and promotion. This requires a large number

of IP personnel in SMEs

In the beginning, Mr. Takasaki spent a significant amount of money on consulting

patent attorneys. It was very hard to communicate with his patent attorney, however,

because he lacked basic knowledge about IP. He therefore decided to study it, and

passed the IPT in 2005. He found that IPT was practical for IP management in his

company, so he encouraged employees to take the IPT and subsequently the IPMST.

Now, two persons in his company have passed the IPMST Grade 2, and three have

passed Grade 3. They are able to discuss IP issues amongst each other frequently, and

feel more confident when communicating with patent attorneys.

Ms. Takasaki believes that IPMST is an effective way for SMEs to foster their own IP

personnel, and suggested arranging seminars to promote it.

- 25 -

CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Terms and Definitions

4.1.1 Stakeholders

Groups that have a role and interest in the objectives and implementation of a

program or project, including target groups, direct beneficiaries, those responsible for

ensuring that the results are produced as planned, and those that are accountable for

the resources that they provide to that program or project.

4.1.2 Target groups

The main stakeholders of a program or project that are expected to gain from the

results of that program or project.

4.2 Direct Beneficiaries

Usually, institutions and/or individuals who are the direct recipients of technical

cooperation aimed at strengthening their capacity to undertake development tasks that

are directed at specific target groups. In micro-level interventions, the direct

beneficiaries and the target groups are the same.

4.3 Input

A means mobilized for the conduct of program or project activities, i.e., financial,

human and physical resources.

4.4 Results

A broad term used to refer to the effects of a program or project. The terms "outputs",

"outcomes" and "impact" describe more precisely the different types of results.

4.5 Outputs

Tangible products (including services) of a program or project that are necessary to

achieve its objectives.

4.6 Outcomes

Results of a program or project relative to its immediate objectives that are generated

by the program or project outputs.

4.7 Impact

Results of a program or project that are assessed with reference to the development

objectives or long-term goals of that program or project; changes in a situation,

whether planned or unplanned, positive or negative, that a program or project helps to

bring about.

4.8 Stakeholders on IPSS Issue

4.8.1 Roles of Stakeholders

- 26 -

Possible IPSS stakeholders include government institutions, enterprises, individuals,

certain non-government organizations in the IP field, and some private sectors that

provide IP training services, such as LEC and TAC.

The roles of IPSS stakeholders are s shown in Table 4.2.1 below.

Table 4.2.1: Roles of IPSS Stakeholders

Roles Stakeholders

Target Groups Enterprises, Individuals,

Society-at-large

Direct Beneficiaries AIPE

Direct Managers METI

Resources Providers METI, MHLW, MEXT

External Consultants, Suppliers and Supporters LEC, TAC etc. WIPO

Others who may be affected or interested JPAA, JIPA, INPIT etc.

4.8.2 Stakeholder importance and influence matrix

There are four parts divided by the different importance and influence of each

stakeholder with regard to the implementation of IPSS.

Group 1：High importance/low influence stakeholders

This group has a key relationship with the implementation of IPSS, but has little

influence on policy, such as SMEs, students and IP staff.

Group 2：High importance/high influence stakeholders

This group plays a very important and influential role with regard to implementation,

such as large companies and government agencies.

Group 3：Low importance/low influence stakeholders.

This group has little influence and cannot make any changes regarding

implementation, such as international organizations.

Group 4：Low importance/high influence stakeholders

Although this group has little relationship with the implementation, it still has great

influence—especially on the group of people that will have conflicts of interest after

implementing the policy, such as JIPA and JPAA.

The analysis results above are shown in Figure 4.2.1 below.

Figure 4.2.1: The importance and influence matrix of IPSS stakeholders

- 27 -

4.8.3 Responsibilities and Activities of Stakeholders

The responsibilities and activities of IPSS stakeholders are shown in Table 4.2.2

below.

Table 4.2.2: Responsibilities and Activities of IPSS Stakeholders

Stakeholders Responsibilities Activities

Enterprises

Individuals

To study and make full use of

IPSS

Individuals are more

enthusiastic

METI-IP policy

maker

To establish IPSS;

To designate an executive body

for its maintenance

Established and

published

METI-IP policy

executive body

To promote and improve the use

of IPSS

Has not been

designated

MHLW To set up a skill test based on

IPSS

Hold IPMST

successfully

MEXT To educate students according to

IPSS

The IP education

curriculum is

developing, but not in

accordance with IPSS.

AIPE To help those above Organized IPMST well

4.9 Effectiveness Analysis

4.9.1 General Effectiveness

Effectiveness assessments are based on analyses of targets, input, output and

outcomes. The results are shown in Table 4.3.1 below.

Table 4.3.1: Effectiveness Assessment of IPSS

METI Large Companies

s SMEs

AIPE

IP Staff

staff Univ.

.

MLHW Training

Ins.

Ins. JPAA

JIPA

PA WIPO

Students

- 28 -

Target Input Output Outcome Assessment

Target 1:

IP specialist

skill standard

data base for

companies,

cost reduction

Government-

organized

research for

establishing

IPSS was

conducted

from 2005 to

2007.

The content

of IPSS was

published

on the

METI

website in

2007.

Some leading

companies in Japan

use IPSS as a

reference for IP HRD,

but more companies

keep using their own

standard without

seeing IPSS.

Needs

improvement

-Most SMEs do not

know about IPSS.

Target 2:

Nationwide

unified

standard

measuring

individual IP

specialist

skill level A national

test of IP

management

skill

(IPMST)

was

introduced in

2007.

The number

of IPMST

examinees

increased

rapidly.

-Some companies

encourage their staff

to take the IPMST test

by offering a

qualification

allowance. Initial results

have been

achieved -Some people who

work in the IP field

believe that the

certificate of IPMST

will help them in

job-searching.

Target 3:

Promoting IP

human

resource

development

throughout

society

The number

of people

who passed

the IPMST

is more than

the total

amount of

IP

employees

in

companies

throughout

Japan.

-Some examinees

have enhanced their

IP knowledge and

skills by studying and

preparing for the

IPMST. Better than

expected

-More and more

people are attracted to

the IP field by taking

the IPMST.

4.9.2 Positive Effects

It is obvious that IPSS has brought about positive effects, such as the development of

IP human resources throughout society, promotion of IP awareness among the general

public, and so on.

4.9.3 Negative Effects

There are also some negative effects caused by the implementation of IPSS, such as

- 29 -

the duplication of PAE and IPMST. The areas covered by the two tests overlaps in

some areas, such as knowledge regarding national patent rights acquisition. Besides

being a burden for examinees who prepare for both tests, it is not economical for the

test organizers.

4.9.4 Anticipated Effectiveness

METI published IPSS as a common standard in order to reduce the workload for

developing IP skill standards in companies. Its anticipated effectiveness is proven by

the words of an interviewee:

It must highly provide business enterprises which have no IPSS with immense

advantages, for instance, a reduction of the enormous workload to develop it.

- the HR Manager of Panasonic Corporation

4.9.5 Unexpected Effectiveness

The implementation of IPSS might produce some unexpected effects, such as

unexpected popularity with non-target groups. Regarding IPMST, for example, the

target group of the test was IP staff in companies, but as survey results showed, 30%

of IPMST examinees are not IP-related employees. More and more people other than

IP staff joined the IPMST.

- 30 -

CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSION AND PROSPECT

5.1 Conclusion

5.1.1 The World’s First IP Skill Standard

There is no such skill standard in the IP field that has been found prior to the

publication date of IPSS. Therefore, IPSS is the first skill standard for the HRD in the

IP field in the world.

5.1.2 Preliminary Effects Observed

As a public policy project, its preliminary effects have been observed. The targets of

publishing IPSS and introducing IPMST, such as providing a common database of IP

skills for enterprises and nationwide unified standards measuring IP specialist skill

level for individuals, have been achieved.

5.1.3 Insufficient Engagement of Stakeholders

The engagement of stakeholders of this project is not sufficient. There is room for

improvement of its implementation, particularly with regard to the fact that some

stakeholders in high influence groups hardly participated.

5.2 Suggestions

5.2.1 Full Engagement of All Stakeholders

It would be helpful to designate a promotion authority for IPSS.

To give full play to the role of the JPO might accelerate the promotion of IPSS.

More valuable advice would be brought by consulting with the JPO.

5.2.2 A Simple Version for SMEs

It is suggested to develop a simple version of IPSS, especially for SMEs.

SMEs would then benefit from IPMST promotion activities. "One company, one IP

specialist!‖ is a suggested target and slogan.

5.2.3 Exemption Between PAE and IPMST

This is suggested in order to solve the problem of duplicating the two tests.

5.2.4 IP Education Curricula in Accordance with IPSS

It is also recommended to design IP education curricula in accordance with IPSS.

5.3 Future Prospects

5.3.1 Development of Skill Standards

Experiences and methodology gained from the process of IPSS formulation are

valuable for future research. In Aug. 2011, MEXT started to construct a new skill

standard for research administrators to refer to IPSS. As one of the founders of IPSS,

Professor Sugimitsu was invited to join the project.

- 31 -

5.3.2 Possible Methods of Utilizing IPSS in Other Countries

IPT was adopted in China in 2005 by a private sector entity called the Intellectual

Property Management Professional Certificate Examination Center. The test is

classified into three grades and held twice a year throughout the country. The

difficulty and level of the test corresponds to that of IPMST Grades 2 and 3. People

who pass the test will be given ae Intellectual Property Management Professional

Certificate (CIPM).

There is also another government qualification system known as the Intellectual

Property Engineer in China.

China attaches great importance to human resource development, especially in the

field of intellectual property. Japan‘s experiences in formulating and implementing

Intellectual Property Specialist Skill Standards are valuable and worthy to learn.

- 32 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Brian L. Hawkins, Julia A. Rudy, and William H. Wallace, Jr., Editors Neil Evans.

(2002).Technology Everywhere A Campus Agenda for Educating and Managing

Workers in the Digital Age, Chapter 2: Information Technology Jobs and Skill

Standards. USA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

2. Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Development of systems to secure

training and a research administrator: application guidelines (create skill standards).

Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/boshu/detail/1305625.htm at 16

May 2011.

3. Hiroki Naito. (2007, November 14). Development of human resources and our

efforts in corporate intellectual property. Retrieved from

http://www.tokugikon.jp/gikonshi/247tokusyu3.pdf.

4. Intellectual Property Policy Office of Economy, Trade and Industry Policy Bureau,

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (September 2007). Strategic intellectual

property management practices - Skill Standards Guidebook IP personnel. JAPAN:

Nikkei Publishing Inc.

5. Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2005.

6. Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2006.

7. ITSS Center, IPA, METI. (March 2010). Skill Standards for IT Professionals,

Version 3 2008. Retrieved from

http://events.grace-center.jp/symposium/2010/sites/default/files/ITSSOverviewan

dWorldwidePromotion_20100316.pdf

8. Sugimitsu, Kazunari and Koichiro, Kato. (August 2008). Handbook & Strategic

Intellectual Property Management. Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation.

9. Japan Patent Office (JPO). (2009). Annual Report 2009.

10. Kanazawa Institute of Technology. (February 2007). Report: Research on the

clarification of the skills of human resources intellectual property, a project

commissioned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Retrieved from

http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/economy/chizai/ipss/index.html

11. Kazunari Sugimitsu. (2008-6-16). Outline of New National Examination:

Intellectual Property Management Skills Test. Handout: My IPO on JICA training.

12. Mitsuhiro Takasaki. (2011). Obtained from the development of "screw Zaurus

GT" to activate the secret of the four manufacturing SMEs. Retrieved from

http://www.engineer.jp/uploads/image/info/mpdp1.pdf.

13. Panasonic Corporation (2011). Annual Report 2011.

14. SFIA Foundation. Framework reference SFIA version 3. Retrieved from

www.sfia.org.uk at October 2005.

15. Sugimitsu, Kazunari and Koichiro, Kato. (August 2008). Handbook & Strategic

Intellectual Property Management. Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation.

16. Takasaki, Mitsuhiro. (2011-9-30). The four secret to activate the small business

manufacturing M_P_D_P. Handout: Intellectual property management skills and

interact meeting.

- 33 -

17. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2010). World Intellectual

Property Report 2010.

18. United Nations Development Programme. Results-oriented Monitoring and

Evaluation : A Handbook For Programme Managers. Retrieved from

http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/mae-toc.htm.

19. YUAN JUAN. (2009). Japanese intellectual property management engineer

professional qualification certification system. No.4 Science and Technology and

the Law. Retrieved from

http://www.rky.org.cn/c/cn/news/2009-08/07/news_7610.html

- 34 -

ABBREVIATIONS

AIPE Association of Intellectual Property Education

AOTS The Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (AOTS)

APIC Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center

EPO European Patent Office

INPIT National Center for Industrial Property Information and Training

IPA Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan

IPMST Intellectual Property Management Skills Test

IPSES Intellectual Property Skill Evaluation System

IPSS Intellectual Property Specialist Skill Standard

IPT Intellectual Property Test

ITSS Skill Standards for IT Professionals

JIII Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation

JIPA Japan Intellectual Property Association

JPAA Japan Patent Attorneys Association

JPO Japan Patent Office

KIT Kanazawa Institute of Technology

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

MHLW Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

PAE Patent Attorney Examination

SFIA The Skills Framework for the Information Age

SIPO The State Intellectual Property Office

SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprise

USPTO United States Patent and Trademark Office

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization