Vol.6 No.3 2014

Research paper : Measurement of input resources for standardization activities in basic research and applied and development research, and the difference of the measuring results between the research types (S. TAMURA)−171−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.6 No.3 (2013) number of standardization activity personnel in IP activities was lowest at 6.4 % in 2011, the percentage was highest at 9.7 % in 2010.5.2.3 Information and communication industryThe lowest number was 34 persons in 2011, and highest number was 73 persons in 2009. For the percentage in IP activity personnel, it was lowest at 6.2 % in 2008, and highest at 10.6 % in 2009.6 Discussion6.1 Verification of the hypothesesFrom the above results, the Hypotheses 1a and 1b were evaluated. In verifying the hypotheses, we looked at: 1) the recovery rate of the questionnaire, 2) the response rate to the number under investigation among the recovered data, and 3) the changes observed when the data were compared by year. Currently, since the statistical index that may serve as precedent data is not internationally available for the number of standardization activity personnel, adequacy cannot be verified by international comparison. Therefore, the investigation of the data usability was based on the stability of collection.For Hypothesis 1a, it was observed that the number of standardization personnel among IP activities fell in a certain range each year. Also, the recovery rate of the questionnaire for each year was approximately 50 %. Of the recovered questionnaires, it was found that there was about 90 % response for the item under investigation, and it was determined that the data collection was stable and could be used for secondary analysis. For Hypothesis 1b, based on the results of Hypothesis 1a, it was indicated as possible to collect data that captured the wide range of standardization activities that included back office work and planning, as well as the negotiation for establishing the standard. Combining the results of Hypotheses 1a and 1b, it could be determined that there was low probability for the collected data to be subject to sampling bias, and the data could be used for various analyses (Fig. 1).Considering both the inside and outside of an organization, there was ambiguity in how to understand the range of the standardization activities related to the innovation activities. The reason is because in establishing the international standard, the involvement in the committee that is the ultimate place for decision-making and vote execution was considered most important. Therefore, the standardization activities meant the activities in the standardization bodies that actually drafted the standards outside the organization. The concept was formed where the standardization activities represented the number of people who participated in the committee for standard establishment, and as a reflection, there was a recognition that it was difficult to survey and count the standardization activities in places other than in the negotiation activities such as participation in the committees. On the other hand, the standardization activities within the organization assumed the developmental strategy of new products accompanying the development of the new technological standards, in addition to the negotiations. The definition of the survey pertaining to the patent activities that may serve as the subject of comparison is not limited to the conventional negotiations including those of patent disputes and licensing, but includes a wide range of activities as in the expanded definition for standardization activities in this research.[3]-[6]The standardization activities that were the subject of this study was the standardization activities related to the IP activities within the organizations, but it could be construed as the general trend of the data for standardization activities. Therefore, the obtained data are expected to be a meaningful finding in the discussion of whether to position the data for resource investments related to the standardization activities as part of science and technology data. Also, it may allow evaluation of the effect of the expanded standardization activities including the negotiation work on the innovation activities.6.2 Comparison among research fieldsThe hypothesis was formed that the standardization activities in IP activities for basic research activities may be conducted at the same percentage as the applied and development research. The category, “education, TLO, public research institution, and public service,” was set as a representative field of basic research, and “electric machinery industry” and others were set as representatives of applied and development research. When the two were compared to see which was higher in degree of standardization activities in IP activities, the result showed that the basic research disciplines were higher. On the other hand, in total, both fields were higher than average, and showed approximately the same figures.Figure 3 shows the changes of the average percentage of standardization activities related to IP activities during the four years from 2008 to 2011 in basic research of “education, TLO, public research institution, and public service” and in applied and development research of “electric machinery industry” and “information and communication industry” to see the trend of standardization activities by types of research.Looking at the ratio of basic and applied and development researches, the average percentage was higher for basic research, at approximately 20 %. On the other hand, the results showed that applied and development research was around 10 %. One reason for the higher percentage of basic research than applied and development research can be that the percentage shifted due to the change in the number of


page 38