Biblio

Firms collaborate with partners in research and development (R&D) of new technologies for many reasons such as to access complementary knowledge, know-how or skills, to seek new opportunities outside their traditional technology domain, to sustain their continuous flows of innovation, to reduce time to market, or to share risks and costs [1]. The adoption of collaborative research agreements (CRAs) or collaboration agreements (CAs) is rising rapidly as firms attempt to access innovation from various types of organizations to enhance their traditional in-house innovation [2], [3]. To achieve the objectives of their collaborations, firms need to share knowledge and jointly develop new knowledge. As more firms adopt open collaborative innovation strategies, intellectual property (IP) management has inevitably become important because clear and fair contractual IP terms and conditions such as IP ownership allocation, licensing arrangements and compensation for IP access are required for each collaborative project [4], [5]. Moreover, the firms need to adjust their IP management strategies to fit the unique characteristics and circumstances of each particular project [5].

There has been growing concern about privacy and security risks towards electronic-government (e-government) services adoption. Though there are positive results of e- government, there are still other contestable challenges that hamper success of e-government services. While many of the challenges have received considerable attention, there is still little to no firm research on others such as privacy and security risks, effects of infrastructure both in urban and rural settings. Other concerns that have received little consideration are how for instance; e-government serves as a function of perceived usefulness, ease of use, perceived benefit, as well as cultural dimensions and demographic constructs in South Africa. Guided by technology acceptance model, privacy calculus, Hofstede cultural theory and institutional logic theory, the current research sought to examine determinants of e- government use in developing countries. Anchored upon the aforementioned theories and background, the current study proposed three recommendations as potential value chain, derived from e-government service in response to citizens (end- user) support, government and community of stakeholders.

Traceability has grown from being a specialized need for certain safety critical segments of the industry, to now being a recognized value-add tool for the industry as a whole that can be utilized for manual to automated processes End to End throughout the supply chain. The perception of traceability data collection persists as being a burden that provides value only when the most rare and disastrous of events take place. Disparate standards have evolved in the industry, mainly dictated by large OEM companies in the market create confusion, as a multitude of requirements and definitions proliferate. The intent of the IPC-1782 project is to bring the whole principle of traceability up to date and enable business to move faster, increase revenue, increase productivity, and decrease costs as a result of increased trust. Traceability, as defined in this standard will represent the most effective quality tool available, becoming an intrinsic part of best practice operations, with the encouragement of automated data collection from existing manufacturing systems which works well with Industry 4.0, integrating quality, reliability, product safety, predictive (routine, preventative, and corrective) maintenance, throughput, manufacturing, engineering and supply-chain data, reducing cost of ownership as well as ensuring timeliness and accuracy all the way from a finished product back through to the initial materials and granular attributes about the processes along the way. The goal of this standard is to create a single expandable and extendable data structure that can be adopted for all levels of traceability and enable easily exchanged information, as appropriate, across many industries. The scope includes support for the most demanding instances for detail and integrity such as those required by critical safety systems, all the way through to situations where only basic traceability, such as for simple consumer products, are required. A key driver for the adoption of the standard is the ability to find a relevant and achievable level of traceability that exactly meets the requirement following risk assessment of the business. The wealth of data accessible from traceability for analysis (e.g.; Big Data, etc.) can easily and quickly yield information that can raise expectations of very significant quality and performance improvements, as well as providing the necessary protection against the costs of issues in the market and providing very timely information to regulatory bodies along with consumers/customers as appropriate. This information can also be used to quickly raise yields, drive product innovation that resonates with consumers, and help drive development tests & design requirements that are meaningful to the Marketplace. Leveraging IPC 1782 to create the best value of Component Traceability for your business.

Intellectual property is inextricably linked to the innovative development of mass innovation spaces. The synthetic development of intellectual property and mass innovation spaces will fundamentally support the new economic model of “mass entrepreneurship and innovation”. As such, it is critical to explore intellectual property service standards for mass innovation spaces and to steer mass innovation spaces to the creation of an intellectual property service system catering to “makers”. In addition, it is crucial to explore intellectual cluster management innovations for mass innovation spaces.