P ROPOSITIONS

Table 6.1 Design Evaluation Methods(Hevneret al. 2004)

1. Observational Case Study: Study artifact in depth in business environment Field Study: Monitor use of artifact in multiple projects 2. Analytical Static Analysis: Examine structure of artifact for static

qualities (e.g., complexity)

Architecture Analysis: Study fit of artifact into technical IS architecture

Optimization: Demonstrate inherent optimal properties of artifact or provide optimality bounds on artifact behavior Dynamic Analysis: Study artifact in use for dynamic qualities (e.g., performance)

3. Experimental Controlled Experiment: Study artifact in controlled environment for qualities (e.g., usability)

Simulation œ Execute artifact with artificial data

4. Testing Functional (Black Box) Testing: Execute artifact interfaces to discover failures and identify defects

Structural (White Box) Testing: Perform coverage testing of some metric (e.g., execution paths) in the artifact

implementation

5. Descriptive Informed Argument: Use information from the knowledge base (e.g., relevant research) to build a convincing argument for the artifact‘s utility

Scenarios: Construct detailed scenarios around the artifact to demonstrate its utility

6.1 Propositions

The goal of the research is to provide a system that could reduce the time and period of decision-making, facilitate to formulate business strategy, so this should be examined to see if the system could reach the research goal and contribute or not.

Therefore, here we proposed some propositions which should be confirmed, and prove IP+ could bring such contribution.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

56

Figure 6.1 propositions related enterprise’s sections

The whole framework of the proposition would follow the Figure 6.1. First, we would bring forward the proposition that focus on IP team in the company, to investigate the importance of them. Second, how patent strategy affects corporate strategy is the objective that we want to know, and we want to survey from the view of managers. Third, how the connection between patent strategy and business influences the future development is what we are curious about; this includes some factors provided by IP+ are going to be examined. The last proposition would focus on IP+, what kind of benefit it could bring, and how it gives its help.

Today, we could divide Taiwanese enterprise into two groups, one has their own professional IP team in their company, and the other one has no similar team in the firm.

So Proposition 1 here, we want to understand the difference between these two types of enterprises, and to verify the significance of IP team.

 Proposition 1: Enterprise’s IP team could provide professional considerations of patent strategy for business.

We will follow the Proposition 1, and then want to know that would patent strategy affect business strategy. After all, the business strategy is the most important astuteness and resourcefulness for the enterprise and it is related to the profit structure and potential development. Besides, we will do the justification from manager’s point of view. Thus, Proposition 2 is proposed to explain the importance of patent strategy.

 Proposition 2: Good and complete patent strategy could strengthen business

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

57

strategy.

After inspect two sides from IP team and manager, the following proposition would focus on the connection of two sides. A lot of enterprises who are the leaders of specific markets build their patent strategies and own their original business strategies.

Consequently, whether the success comes from the good connection of patent and business strategy or not, and if the better connection between two different sides would create better and potential future development, this is the point what we want to test in this part.

 Proposition 3: Better connection between patent strategy and business strategy will facilitate the development of enterprise.

The following three propositions want to prove factors provided and used by IP+

are valuable. Additionally, these three propositions would be a bridge connecting the proposition 4to the earlier propositions, because it contains the elements offered by IP+

and these factors could affect not only IP team but also management, and they get involved in the procedure of formulating patent and business strategy. The targets to testify these propositions are as same as proposition 3, they might be a member of IP team, or members come from the management.

The factors could separate into three parts- novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial application and these three features are derived from the characteristic of patent. In this study, we associate novelty with patent date and patent quantity. Novelty familiarly refers to technical features have never been known or use to the public, and not found in publications, too. The date of patent, especially applying date, would determine the novel level of a patent. The patent quantity could represent part of corporate image, and this could manifest the extent of never exposed novel technologies in corporate; on the other hand, a company with a lot of exposure patent documents

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

58

shall be regard of novel company.

We also associate non-obviousness with the element of validity and patent issuing country. Non-obviousness generally means the applying patent should hold outstanding technical features and significant progress, and it could create unexpected results-most people are not likely to have in mind. So validity of the patent is on behalf of high degree of agreement, could be easier to judge its non-obviousness. And the patent issuing country would affect the validity when encountering litigation because of the feature of patent’s territoriality. Current national patent system is territorialism, patent is only valid in the country patent approved. If the product is going to be exported to foreign countries, the applicant must apply the local patent, and then they can claim the right in the country after patenting. For example, Taiwan's patent cannot claim patent rights in the United States.

Industrial application here considers enterprise rank and quantity of litigation.

Industrial application usually signifies the technical characteristics of application can be used in production. Hence, the higher enterprise rank would have higher probability of industrial application. Most patent litigation would occur when the patent could profit, and the profit range should be the larger the better. Thereupon, if company has litigation, the company has higher industrial application, since most profit would come from patent commercialization. For example, unlocking a device is one of Apple’s patent, and Apple used it to sue Samsung, Motorola, and HTC. Here are two reasons: first, we could see unlocking a device as a part of the commercialized product, it matches the definition of industrial application, Second, why Samsung, Motorola, and HTC?

Because the sales scale and profit is large enough to charge, and they are the main competitors to Apple, as a part of business, Apple chose to bring a lawsuit. Certainly, Apple must have some other reasons, but these two reasons match the perspectives of

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

59

industrial application and enterprise rank.

The following are three propositions which are designed to justify the main factors of IP+.

 Proposition3-1: The novelty of an enterprise could be an index to understand this company. (Novelty – Date and Quantity)

 Proposition3-2: Non-Obviousness of an enterprise could be an index to understand this company. (Non-Obviousness – Validity and Country)

 Proposition3-3: Industrial application of an enterprise could be an index to understand this company. (Industrial application - Enterprise Rank, Litigation Quantity)

The way of information displayed would change the efficiency in many layers; for instance, many times a simple picture could impress people more than a detailed text description. The final proposition is planned to confirm the value of IP+, and affirm if IP+ could reach the research goal of reduce time and complexity of decision-making process and generate the contributions. And this part would be tested by IP team and managers, too. The target of IP+ is to help enterprises in strategy making; therefore, whether IP+ could provide help for IP team and managers, facilitate the connections, and assist for making complete strategy which might be planned much earlier than research and design process would be verified with Proposition 4.

 Proposition 4: Visualizing tool of value analysis could reduce the complexity of decision-making process.

Through the evaluation (section 6.3) of methodology (Chapter 4) proposed by this research, we expect all propositions could be verified, the system could furnish its assistant to enterprises.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

60