Keywords

1 Introduction

Resources are what the organisation has (available resources) or may have (potential resources) as a result of the conducted economic operations. Examples of tangible resources of the organisation include buildings, locations, machines, tools, and real estate. The organisation can purchase these resources or sell them on the market. They have a price, and information about them is relatively well-known and available. Some resources, especially intangible ones, have specific properties – it is difficult to purchase them and sell them on the market, imitate or replace them. Such resources include know-how of employees, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, contracts and licenses, software, databases, personal and organisational networks, reputation of the organisation and its products, as well as organisational culture, cumulated knowledge (Hall 1993).

Apart from resources, the organisation also possesses capabilities with the nature of processes. They are linked to activities, thanks to which organisations can gather, use and renew their resources. The higher the capabilities of the organisation, the more actively and cleverly it can accumulate, exploit and renew all its resources. It can acquire new streams of resources in response to the situation prevailing on the market, e.g. emergence of new market opportunities, convergence or division of the existing market segments, growth or disappearance of market demand (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000).

The resource approach in managing the organization is a starting point to present in this article the issues concerning the practical understanding and use of intellectual resources in Polish enterprises of the SME sector. The aim of the work is to present the results of analyzes of both statistical data and own research carried out in a group of 32 domestic enterprises belonging to the small and medium-sized sector. The presented results constitute a fragment of research for several years carried out by the authors, concerning entrepreneurship, innovation, creativity and protection of intellectual resources in Polish enterprises of the SME sector.

2 Concept of Intellectual Resources

In the praxeological perspective, resources are items used to achieve an objective: people, materials, tools (equipment), electric energy, etc. In the extended definition, resources also include time and space. Before commencing action, the resources allocated on achievement of a given objective are usually calculated, leaving some provisions (reserve) to be used in the future.

In the economic perspective resources can be divided into: capital and labour - to their contemporary perception as a complex and diverse, due to its numerous features, set of tangible and intangible assets under the control of the organisation. According to another classification, the economic perception makes a distinction into tangible, human and intangible resources. Tangible resources are natural resources, constituting a gift of nature, as well as capital resources in the form of physical and financial resources. Human resources are the characteristics and competences of employees. Intangible resources, on the one hand, are realised by people – their competences and, on the other hand, by the company itself – in the form of e.g. licenses, patents, know-how. Due to the fuzzy adopted classification, some authors combine the notion of human resources with the notion of creations of the human mind, such as inventions, works, industrial designs, etc., and define them as intellectual and human resources (Dollinger 2008). It may seem that such a point of view was based on the belief that the human intellect (mind) is a man’s immanent feature that allows him for perform any work.

These are the resources we have adopted as the fundamental resources in the classification we propose, which covers distinction into: organic (primary) intellectual resources and acquisitive (secondary) intellectual resources (Dereń and Skonieczny 2016a, b).

Organic (primary) intellectual resources include: knowledge and experience of the founders, market contacts, talent and cognitive and behavioural skills of employees, trademark (logo, name), commercial mark, patents, trade secret, and organisational culture.

The aforementioned resources are the primary and main assets, which enable establishment of an organisation and commencement of its operations. These are the resources that may be used simultaneously in many places. They do not get devalued during their use, quite the contrary - usually they are enriched and strengthened in the process of the organisation’s development. The discussed resources are the foundation for organisation and coordination of any processes in the company, in accordance with the vision or mission adopted by the founders.

On the other hand, acquisitive (secondary) intellectual resources are the resources created as a result of the organisation’s operations in the process of transformation of primary resources into specific results, assuming the form of, e.g.: works (copyrights), performances (related rights), inventions (patents), utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, geographic indications, new varieties of plants, mask works, databases, and non-disclosed information (trade secrets, know-how, recipes, processes, technologies, organisational techniques, etc.).

These forms, as products of the human mind of intangible nature, constitute components of intellectual resources, determining the organisation’s potential and its competitive power.

It should be emphasised that inventions and trademarks take up a special position in the set of intellectual resources. These resources may appear both at the stage of creating the organisation, as well as in the course of its operation. An invention patent may be the direct decisive factor for establishment of business operations, or it may be a result of these operations. Therefore, innovativeness can be considered an intellectual resource of dual nature, i.e. as a both organic and acquisitive resource. Table 1 presents and defines organic and acquisitive intellectual resources in an organisation.

Table 1. Organic and acquired intellectual resources in the company
Full size table

In our opinion, the classification of intellectual resources in an organisation presented in such a way is of practical importance, since it allows for comprehensive identification and analysis of resources owned by the organisation. Identification of intellectual resources requires familiarity with the characteristics of intellectual resources such as: non-appropriability, non-divisibility, originality, commercialization ability, and ability to protect. All the above features affect the selection of appropriate actions in the process of transforming the intellectual resource into commercial intellectual products of the organization.

3 Intellectual Resources in Polish Enterprises of the SME Sector in the Light of European and Polish Statistical Surveys

The issues of creating and using intellectual resources treated as the basis for the development of innovative enterprises is a central point of interest for the European Commission. Research innovation is the key to research and analysis. The basic document in this respect is the European innovation scoreboard. The latest European Innovation Scoreboard report from 2017 presents the results of innovation systems in European countries. In order to create a European Innovation Scoreboard, four main types of indicators are distinguished (framework conditions, investments, innovation activities, impacts) and ten dimensions of innovation that together translate into 27 different indicators. Framework conditions are the main factors for innovation that are beyond the control of companies and cover three dimensions of innovation such as: Human resources (New doctorate graduates; Population aged 25–34 with tertiary education; Lifelong learning); Attractive research systems (International scientific co-publications; Top 10% most cited publications; Foreign doctorate students); Innovation-friendly environment (Broadband penetration; Opportunity-driven entrepreneurship). Investments mean public and private investment in research and innovation, and covers the two dimensions such like: Finance and support (R&D expenditure in the public sector; Venture capital expenditures); Firm investments (R&D expenditure in the business sector; Non-R&D innovation expenditures; Enterprises providing training to develop or upgrade ICT skills of their personnel).

Innovation activities are illustrated by innovation efforts at the enterprise level, included in the three dimensions of innovation such like: Innovators (SMEs with product or process innovations; SMEs with marketing or organizational innovations; SMEs innovating in-house), Linkages (Innovative SMEs collaborating with others; Public-private co-publications; Private co-funding of public R&D expenditures) and Intellectual assets (PCT patent applications; Trademark applications; Design applications).

The impacts include the impact of innovation activities in enterprises in two dimensions of innovation such like: Employment impacts (Employment in knowledge-intensive activities; Employment fast-growing enterprises of innovative sectors) and Sales impacts (Medium and high tech product exports; Knowledge-intensive services exports; Sales of new-to-market and new-to-firm product innovators).

Member States are classified on the basis of the average of results and classified into one of four groups. Based on the average of results calculated on the basis of the aggregate indicator - the total innovation indicator - Member States were divided into four groups.

The first group includes countries identified as Innovation Leaders whose innovation results are well above the EU average (Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom).

The second group is called Strong Innovators, i.e. countries with results above or near the EU average (Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Slovenia).

The third group includes the following countries: Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain. These are countries in which the level of innovation is below the EU average. These countries were therefore included in the group of Moderate Innovators.

The fourth group includes Bulgaria and Romania, which are referred to as the so-called Modest Innovators with results far below the EU average.

According to the data included in the European Innovation Scoreboard, Poland is in the so-called moderate innovators and taking the 25th place (Fig. 1). However, taking into account the index “Intellectual assets” our country occupies 18th place among EU countries (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard (2017, p. 6).

Performance of EU Member States’ innovation systems.

Full size image
Fig. 2.
figure 2

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard (2017, p. 24).

Intellectual assets.

Full size image

Coloured columns show Member States’ performance in 2016, using the most recent data for the indicators in this dimension, relative to that of the EU in 2010. The horizontal hyphens show performance in 2015, using the next most recent data for the indicators in this dimension, relative to that of the EU in 2010. Grey columns show performance in 2010 relative to that of the EU in 2010.

Coloured columns show Member States’ performance in 2016, using the most recent data for the indicators in this dimension, relative to that of the EU in 2010. The horizontal hyphens show performance in 2015, using the next most recent data for the indicators in this dimension, relative to that of the EU in 2010. Grey columns show performance in 2010 relative to that of the EU in 2010.

The analysis of Polish reports on the innovation of national startups was also focused on the issue of intellectual resources as the basis for the functioning of these organizations. Of key importance in this analysis was patent activity, which is an indicator of the level of innovation.

As far as patenting is concerned, the level of patent activity in total among Polish enterprises is very low compared to European and world leaders. Around the promise of Polish enterprises, he asks for reservations about his intellectual property or obtains them. In the group of 692 startups surveyed in 2016, only 14%, i.e. every seventh, have a patent or are in the process of patenting in the country (every third patenter) or abroad (2/3 patenting).

Patented startups are characterized by a shorter than the other surveyed internships on the market - more than half of them were established no earlier than in 2015. Every second defines its stage of development as a “Solution-Product Fit”, or rather an early level of development. Only every fifth earns regularly - but where these revenues are already present, their increase in the last six months in 70% of cases exceeded 50%. Half of the patents are exported, mainly to the EU and the USA.

The discussed research indicates that the product is the main carrier of innovation for the respondents. Over half of respondents claim that they are creating a completely new product, and 43% indicated that their innovation consists in improving existing solutions. Only 4% of startups declared directly copying other products or services. The respondents’ answers indicate the lack of in-depth knowledge about the essence and importance of intellectual resources in their business operations. What’s more, the respondents did not stress the need to secure these resources in the market space.

The same test scenario was repeated in 2017. The research covered a group of 621 startups. In this group, 61% of respondents do not patent their developed solutions, and every fifth respondent does not see value in patenting. It should be noted that relatively few solutions related to the digital industry in general are patented by Polish entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs say that they build their competitive advantage differently than by reserving intellectual property. At the same time, as in 2016, half of the respondents claim that they “create a completely new product” and a comparable percentage that “improves existing solutions”. The discussed report, although it shows the upward trend in the number of patenting startups, also confirms the constant lack of knowledge and awareness in the scope of the need to protect intellectual property.

4 Intellectual Resources in Polish SMEs in the Light of the Research

A.M. Dereń, J. Skonieczny, The Polish managers' perception of Intellectual resources in management of SMEs, Raporty Wydziału Informatyki i Zarządzania Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław 2017, Seria PRE, Nr 12.

As part of the classes conducted in March 2017 at the Polish-American School of Business (34th Edition) – the Executive MBA Programme at the Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, the legal and organisational module covered the issues of intellectual resources management, in particular their conversion into intellectual products, protection of these resources and their trade. A group of 32 enterprises belonging to the small and medium-sized sector, participants in the study programme representing Polish SMEs, were subjected to surveys. The applied research method consisted in the managers answering 27 multiple choice questions. The vast majority of the questions concerned the respondents’ understanding of the notion of intellectual resources, the methods of their protection, the procedures used to protect them, as well as the persons responsible for their management in the organisation. The questionnaire was supplemented by questions concerning the type of organisation, its size, as well as the scope and area of business activity. The survey was a pilot study, and the obtained results, in spite of their diversity, allow for formulating conclusions concerning the way Polish SMEs managers perceive intellectual resources and their management.

The majority of the surveyed managers (75%) represented limited liability companies. The business operations mainly focused on: production (28.12%), services (31.25%), trade (15.63%), multi-sector operations (25%). The majority of respondents represented organisations employing over 10 employees.

The survey was supposed to diagnose the managers’ knowledge of the types of intellectual resources, as well as knowledge of their specific characteristics, strategies of intellectual property management in organisations, and the forms of protection and security of intellectual resources used in market operations that are applied by these organisations.

The obtained results are also illustrated in the form of a map constituting Fig. 3. The respondents’ answers are grouped according to the preferences adopted thereby – beginning with the values most representative for them. The respondents could choose more than one answer.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Source: A.M. Dereń, J. Skonieczny, The Polish managers’ perception of Intellectual resources in management of SMEs, Raporty Wydziału Informatyki i Zarządzania Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław 2017, Seria PRE, Nr 12.

Map of results.

Full size image

In the opinion of the survey’s authors, managers of Polish SMEs have low and incomplete knowledge concerning intellectual resources and their management. Usually, the surveyed managers generally define intellectual resources as general knowledge, without a division into diverse categories, trademark and innovative projects. According to the survey’s authors, such limited understanding of intellectual resources as a basis for organisational development results from lack of education in this respect. Polish management and engineering study programmes have only for several years been teaching subjects covering intellectual property, its management and its protection. The authors of the article conduct such classes for students at the Wroclaw University of Technology and often encounter the environment’s opinions that these issues should be limited only to legal protection of intellectual resources. In our opinion, such a narrow approach should be rejected, since these issues, apart from significant legal themes, should include the broadly understood management of these resources, as factors enabling building of competitive advantage, preparation of an innovative strategy and further development of the organisation.

The narrow understanding of the notion of intellectual resources by the surveyed managers is reflected in their answers to the other survey questions. The authors present these conclusions below.

When identifying types of intellectual resources, the respondents, next to technology, indicated trademarks and inventions as intellectual resources dominant in their organisations. The preference for trademark does not raise any doubts and means that Polish managers understand the significance of this category for the process of building the brand and the market image of the organisation. However, the lack of interest in inventions as an intellectual resource that may be used in the company is alarming.

The respondents emphasise lack of activity regarding protection and security of intellectual resources. In our opinion, the reasons for such a state of affairs may be found, among others, in the lack of patenting tradition in the group of SMEs and the low level of awareness among managers with regard to the benefits of application of industrial property protection instruments.

The answers to the question concerning intellectual resources should be regarded as fairly accidental and based on association. Managers, from many proposals of the intellectual resources, have chosen the following features: the ability to protect, the ability to commercialize, indestructibility and non-divisibility. An indication the feature the ability to protect as the first, we can interpret as a result of their own experiences in the filed of trade mark protection, as well as the result of the participation in training meetings on which the widely discussed issues the protection of intellectual property. Similarly, we can interpret the indication by managers the next feature like characteristics of commercialization. However, the indication the characteristics like invulnerability as the next, due to the simple statement of the concept of tangible and intangible resources. Out of the many proposed characteristics of intellectual resources, managers selected only three characteristics: indestructibility, non-divisibility and protection capability. Indication of indestructibility as the leading feature probably resulted directly from a straightforward juxtaposition of the notions of tangible and intangible resources. The former are commonly perceived as destructible resources, used up during their utilisation.

As for protection or security of intellectual resources, the respondents indicated protection rights for trademarks and patents as a form of this protection.

With regard to management of intellectual resources, the surveyed managers present a standpoint that can be identified as focused on actions inside the organisation (protection of resources; source of income), rather than as a set of external actions focused on obtaining competitive advantage or an element of market competition of the organisation.

Considering such an understanding of management of intellectual resources in an organisation, it is not surprising that practically the only strategy indicated by the respondents was the reactive strategy, namely the strategy of protecting intellectual resources while sustaining low costs.

5 Conclusion

Intellectual resources are nowadays a decisive factor in gaining an advantage competitive by enterprises, as they account for as much as 80% of global business.

The intellectual property system is very extensive - it includes industrial property (inventions, industrial designs, trademarks, etc.), copyright and related rights, but also personal rights, the right to the company, the right to the database, the right to new plant varieties and the company’s secret (know-how). Very often, the accumulation of these rights occurs. In one product, technical solutions in the form of patented inventions can be found, whose market power is strengthened by a well-known and valued trademark among consumers, as well as the usability and aesthetics of the product achieved thanks to the use of modern industrial design.

In this situation, proper protection of intellectual property and effective management of exclusive rights simply seems a necessity. It is worth remembering that even if an enterprise does not use intangible assets in its activity and does not invest in it, it does not mean that it can operate freely on the market. There is a high risk that when introducing new products, it infringes the intellectual property rights of another company.