Advertisement

What motivates the engineers to patent? A study at the Chinese R&D laboratories of a European MNC

  • Anna Potekhina
  • Knut Blind
Article

Abstract

Corporate R&D engineers, being usually the initiators of a patent, are important contributors to the patenting performance of their employers. Hence, patenting motives of R&D engineers encompass an interesting and promising research field. However, the literature on patenting motivation of the engineers in the corporate context is scarce. We apply self-determination theory on human motivation to investigate patenting motives of a sample of local R&D engineers in China employed by a European-based multi-national corporation. Factor analysis reveals four groups of motives: “reward and recognition”, “reputation and promotion”, “making a contribution” and “interest and sense of achievement”. The results of multiple hierarchical regression show the influence of working climate on “making a contribution” and “interest and sense of achievement” motivation factors. Implications for patent management are discussed.

Keywords

Patenting motivation R&D management Self-determination theory 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O34 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arundel, A., van de Paal, G., & Soete, L. (1995). Innovation strategies of Europe’s largest industrial firms. Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations and government programmes. Final report. Maastricht, Limburg: Merit.Google Scholar
  4. Baldini, N. (2011). University patenting: Patterns of faculty motivations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(2), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong. Desire for interpersonal attachments as fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change and the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blind, K., Cremers, K., & Mueller, E. (2009). The influence of strategic patenting on companies’ patent portfolios. Research Policy, 38(2), 428–436.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655–672.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blind, K., Pohlisch, J., & Zi, A. (2018). Publishing, patenting and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists. Research Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, S. B., & Chang, S. M. (2010). Exploring the perception and behavior of software engineers about computer software patent. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 11(7), 1358–1367.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31(8), 1349–1367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00068-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Countinho, M., Balbachevky, E., Holzhacker, D., Patrao, D., Vencio, R., Silva, R., et al. (2003). Intellectual property and public research in biotechnology: The scientists opinion. Scientometrics, 58, 641–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deci, E., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 23–40.Google Scholar
  17. Duguet, E., & Kabla, I., (1998). Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use the patent system: An econometric analysis at the firm level in French manufacturing. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49/50, 289–327. Retrieved from: http://www.insee.fr/fr/publications-et-services/docs_doc_travail/g9717.pdf.
  18. Figueiredo Moutinho, P. S., Fontes, M., & Godinho, M. (2007). Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations. Scientometrics, 70(2), 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, A. G., Zhang, P., & Zhao, L. (2017). China as number one? Evidence from China’s most recent patenting surge. Journal of Development Economics, 124, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hussler, C., & Penin, J. (2012). Proactive versus reactive motivations for patenting and their impact on patent production at universities. International Journal of Technology Management, 58(3–4), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathew, M., & Chakraborty, N. B. (2012). Aspiration of Indian inventors moderated by patenting experience, age and sector. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 23, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norusis, M. (2004). SPSS 13.0. Statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle-River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. OECD, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy. (2003). Preliminary results of OECD/BIAC survey on the use and perception of patents in the business community (Ed.). Working Party on Innovation and Policy, 19–20 June, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. Olander, H., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Heilmann, P. (2015). Human resources—strength and weakness in protection of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4), 742–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., & Haddad, N. K. (1997). Client motivation for therapy scale: A measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation for therapy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pitkethly, R. H. (2001). Intellectual property in Japanese and UK companies: Patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy, 30(3), 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahn, G. (1994). Patentstrategien japanischer Unternehmen. Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 5, 377.Google Scholar
  36. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan, R., & Connell, J. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schalk, H. J., Täger, U. C., & Brander, S. (1999). Wissensverbreitung und Diffusionsdynamik im Spannungsfeld zwischen innovierenden und imitierenden Unternehmen (Eds.). Ifo-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, München.Google Scholar
  41. Shane, S. (2001). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science, 47(9), 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegel, D. S., Waldmann, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organisational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decision not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(1), 17–38.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Somaya, D., Williamson, I. O., & Zhang, X. (2007). Combining patent law expertise with R&D for patenting performance. Organization Science, 18, 922–937.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling to the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tolmie, A., Muijs, D., & McAteer, E. (2011). Quantitative methods in educational and social research using SPSS. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. Torrisi, S., Gambardella, A., Giuria, P., Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., & Mariani, M. (2016). Used, blocking and sleeping patents: Empirical evidence from a large-scale inventor survey. Research Policy, 45(7), 1374–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vallerand, R. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. Veer, T., & Jell, F. (2012). Contributing to markets for technology? A comparison of patent filing motives of individual inventors, small companies and universities. Technovation, 32, 513–522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robert Bosch GmbHStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Management, Chair of Innovation EconomicsTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Fraunhofer Institute of Open Communication SystemsBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations