Property Scoreboard Property Scoreboard

Innovation and Innovation and Innovation and The R&D and Intellectual The R&D and Intellectual

Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation WhyWhy ValueValue IntellectualIntellectual CapitalCapital

„ becausebecause ICIC isis oftenoften moremore valuablevaluable thanthan thethe tangibletangible assetsassets „ enableenable managersmanagers toto understandunderstand wherewhere valuevalue lieslies inin thethe companycompany „ havehave aa metricmetric forfor assessingassessing successsuccess andand growthgrowth „ asas aa basisbasis forfor raisingraising financefinance oror loansloans [Brooking, 1997, p. 177]

www.melbourneinstitute.com BorrowingBorrowing AgainstAgainst IntangiblesIntangibles

Borrower Intellectual Transaction Value Date Property Borden Trade marks $480m 1991 Disney Copyright portfolio $400m 1992 Liggett Trade marks $150m 1992 Chemical Company Patent portfolio $l00m 1994 Calvin Klein Trade marks $58m 1993 GE Capital Trade marks n/a 1995 Fashion Company Trade marks $l00m 1996 News Corporation Copyright $260m 1996 Nestle Trade marks n/a 1996

www.melbourneinstitute.com IPIP asas aa ComponentComponent ofof ICIC

Intellectual Capital

Human Relational Organisational Capital Capital Capital

Technological “Sociological” Intellectual Infrastructure Skills Skills and Property Capital and Capital Competencies

www.melbourneinstitute.com IntellectualIntellectual PropertyProperty IndicatorsIndicators i.i. R&DR&D expenditureexpenditure ii.ii.“Count”“Count” indicatorsindicators -- cancan bebe constructedconstructed forfor allall registeredregistered formsforms ofof IP,IP, including:including: ‹ patents ‹ designs ‹ trade marks ‹ innovation patents ‹ plant and seed varieties

www.melbourneinstitute.com RationalRational forfor thethe ScoreboardScoreboard

„ ToTo focusfocus companycompany attentionattention on:on:

‹ role of intellectual capital in success and growth ‹ value of IC ‹ need to manage IC ‹ their relative performance vis a vis competitor companies with respect to IC ‹ international comparisons of the generation of IC

www.melbourneinstitute.com TheThe GeneralGeneral ApproachApproach „ ratioratio ofof marketmarket valuevalue toto bookbook valuevalue ofof assetsassets reflectsreflects thethe importanceimportance ofof intangibleintangible assetsassets „ MV/BVMV/BV isis higherhigher thethe greatergreater thethe (unaccounted)(unaccounted) valuevalue ofof intangibleintangible assetsassets „ somesome authors,authors, suchsuch asas LevLev andand Webster,Webster, adjustadjust thethe bookbook valuevalue toto includeinclude “knowledge“knowledge capital”capital” „ generalgeneral approachapproach adoptedadopted inin statisticalstatistical studiesstudies isis toto relaterelate MV/BVMV/BV toto measuresmeasures ofof thethe intangiblesintangibles

www.melbourneinstitute.com R&DR&D andand IPIP RankingsRankings

„ R&D spend „ R&D intensity (i.e. per „ patenting activity unit sales) „ trade mark activity „ patent intensity „ registered design „ trade mark intensity activity „ registered design intensity

plusplus correspondingcorresponding trendstrends overover timetime inin eacheach levellevel oror intensityintensity ratioratio

www.melbourneinstitute.com R&DR&D ExpenditureExpenditure andand IntensityIntensity

R&D R&D Company name 2001/02 Company name intensity (balance date) ($'000s) (balance date) 2001/02 AMRAD Corporation 1. Ltd (12/01) 190,464 1. 127.7% Limited (6/02) Ford Motor Company of Australian Wool Services 2. 124,398 2. 20.7% Limited (12/01) Limited (6/02) Bishop Technology 3. CSL Limited (6/02) 93,277 3. 19.6% Group Limited (6/02) Plc - Rio Tinto Technology One Limited 4. 75,000 4. 17.2% Limited (12/01) (6/02) Vodafone Australia 5. 73,300 5. (6/02) 16.8% Limited (3/02)

www.melbourneinstitute.com PatentPatent ActivityActivity andand PatentPatent IntensityIntensity Patent Patents Company name intensity Company name 2002 (balance date) 2002 1. Unisearch Limited 27 1. Chemeq Limited (6/02) 8.772

2. Cochlear Limited 17 2. Intec Ltd (6/02) 5.618

3. NV 17 3. Bionomics Limited (6/02) 3.400

4. ResMed Holdings Limited 17 4. Gradipore Limited (6/02) 1.105

5. BHP Billiton Limited 15 5. Ventracor Limited (6/02) 0.607

www.melbourneinstitute.com InnovationInnovation IndexIndex

Based on an estimated relationship between:

MV ← f (tangible assets; R&D; patents; trade marks; designs) Innovation Score ← weighted sum of R&D, patents, trade marks and designs Innovation Index ← 100*IS (company ranked j) 100*IS (company ranked 1)

www.melbourneinstitute.com InnovationInnovation Index,Index, 20032003 R&D Trade Patents Designs Company name Index 2001/02 marks 2002 2002 ($'000s) 2002 Cochlear 1. 100 42977 17 1 0 Limited Schefenacker 2. Vision Systems 93 10589 14 0 0 Australia Pty Ltd ResMed 3. Holdings 60 27810 17 1 1 Limited Australian Wool 4. 50 21880 0 3 0 Services Limited AMRAD 5. Corporation 39 16577 0 6 0 Limited

www.melbourneinstitute.com ChangesChanges inin InnovationInnovation PerformancePerformance

19991999 6 3 CochlearCochlear 20002000 10 1

20012001 2 1 ResmedResmed 20022002 2 1

20032003 1 3

www.melbourneinstitute.com