DATA ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
 4.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the analysis of data collected from respondents on the questions addressing the hypothetical statements drawn from the research questions which in turn are drawn from the research objectives. The presentation and analysis is done using tables, frequencies and other instruments of analysis like the Statistical Package for Social Science Software (SPSS) popularly used for social science research. The analysis is expected to show the relationships between the information collected through the questionnaires, the assemblage of the data on the variables, the outcome of splitting them into its part, and the various effect it may have on the variables that are being used to do the study. It is at this stage of the research that meaning and interpretation is given to the data which were collected. Proper analysis of the information collected is therefore necessary for a meaningful, purposeful and truthful discussion to be made which will lead to the findings, conclusions and recommendations that will generally represent the true picture of the situation at hand.



4.2       Data Presentation and Analysis 
Table 4.1 Distribution on the Response and Non Response Rate of the Instrument Administered.
SN
Organization
No distributed
Percentage
No returned
Percentage
No unreturned
Percentage
1
Jacobs Wine Ltd
75
11.65
72
11.20
3
0.47
2
General Cotton mill Ltd
109
16.92
104
16.15
5
0.78
3
Ofali Rural Industry Ltd
115
17.86
108
16.77
7
1.09
4
Hardis and Dromedas Ltd
128
19.88
119
18.51
9
1.40
5
Pittasson Industry Ltd
107
16.61
100
15.64
7
1.09
6
Alo Aluminium Manufacturing Coy Ltd
62
9.63
57
8.85
5
0.78
7
Ngo Bros and Coy Ltd
48
7.45
44
6.83
4
0.62
8
Total
644
100
604
94
40
6
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014
From table 4.1, 644(100%) Questionnaires were distributed and 604(94%) were returned and valid for usage. Out of the remaining, 15 were discarded because they were not properly filled while the remaining 25 were not returned making it a total of 40(6%) questionnaires not available for use.Figure 4.1 below is the chart repressing the distribution of the respondents. 

Figure 4.1     Bar Chart of Distribution Response
Sources Field Survey 2014

Table 4.2: Distribution of the Respondent’s Gender (Male/ Female)

Sex
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
A
Male
39
87
91
95
73
38
12
435
72.02
B
Female
33
17
17
24
27
19
32
169
27.98

Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014

The table, (4.2) shows the gender distribution of the respondents in each of the companies.  For 435 males, JW, GCM and ORI, the distribution was 39, 87 and 91,respectively while HD, PI, AAI and NBNL was 95,73, 38 and 12 respectively making it 72.02% of the total gender. On the other hand, the females consists of a total of 169,in the distribution of 33,17,17,and 24 for JW,GM,ORI, and HD while PI,AAI, and NBNL has 27,19, and 32 giving 27.89% of the total gender. This indicates that there are more of the male genders in the managerial positions than the female.  This can be seen in figure 4.2 as represented.

Figure 4.2 Bar Chart for Gender Distribution
Sources Field Survey 2014

 Table 4.3: Marital Status of Respondents

Marital Status
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
A
Married
44
60
60
58
45
30
15
312
51.66
B
Single
18
38
48
59
53
22
19
257
42.55
C
Widowed
3
4
0
2
1
5
8
23
3.81
D
Divorced
7
2
0
0
1
0
2
12
1.98

Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014

Table 4.3 above consists of the frequency distribution of the respondents as regards their marital status. Out of 604,312 are married with 44 in JW, 60 in GCM, 60 in ORI, 58 in HD, 45 in PI,30 in AAL and 15 in NBNL making it 51.66% of the total respondents. For the single ladies and men, they are 257 with the breakdown of 18 for JW, 38 GCM, 48 ORI, 59 HD, 53 PI, 22 AAL and 19 NBNL resulting to 42.55% while the widowed are 23 in number with a breakdown of 3 for JW, 4 for GCM, 0 for ORI, 2 for HD, 1 for PI, 5 for AAL and 8 for NBNL, thus 3.81%. The last of the status is the divorced which is made up of 7 for JW, 2 for GCM, 0 for ORI, 0 for HD, 1 for PI, 0 for AAL and 2 for NBNL, i.e. 12 in number which is 1.98% of the total. A representation of the above is shown in the figure 4.3.


Figure 4.3     Marital Statuses of Respondents
Sources Field Survey 2014

Table 4.4: Age Distribution Table

Age (yrs)
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
A
    ≤30
20
32
27
23
18
8
6
134
22.19
B
>30≤40
29
52
39
61
52
36
21
290
48.01
C
>40≤50
13
17
30
13
27
11
7
118
19.54
D
>50
10
3
12
22
3
2
10
62
10.26

Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014

The table above displays the age distribution of the respondents in the 7 firms under study. For less than 30years of age, 20 came from JW, 32 from GCM, 27 from ORI, 23 from HD, 18 from PI, 8 from AAL and 6 from NBNL totaling 134 and forming 22.19% of the total population. For greater than 30 but less or equal to 40 years, 29 goes for JW, 52 GCM, 39 ORI, 61 HD, 52 PI, 36 AAL, 221 NBNL giving a total of 290 and forming 48.01% of the respondents. Those employees that are greater than 40 but less or equal to 50 has 13 for JW, 17 GCM, 30 ORI, 13 HD, 27 PI, 11 AAL and 7 NBNL. This gives a total of 118 thus 19.45% while respondents that are greater than 50 are 10 in numbers with JW having 3 GCM,12 ORI,22 HD, 3 PI, 2 AAL, and 10 NBNL with total of 62 which is 10.26% of the total respondents. The indication here is that higher responsibilities are entrusted on the employees that are experienced and matured in age because the distribution shows that more employees in the managerial cadre are in the age bracket of 30 and above.
Table 4.5:  Educational Background of Respondents

Highest Educational Qualification
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respond
ents

%
A
HND/ B. Sc
35
43
47
51
43
25
29
273
45.20
B
MBA/M. Sc/ MA
37
60
58
65
52
31
15
318
52.65
C
Ph. D
0
1
3
3
5
1
0
13
2.15

Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014

The table 4.5 above shows the distribution of academic qualification of respondents. For the seven firms, a total of 273 personals have either HND or B. Sc in various fields of study. Out of this, 35 are in JW, 43 GCM, 47 ORI, 51 HD, 43 PI, 25 AAL, 29 NBNL which summed up to 45.20% of the total respondents. For persons in MBA/M.Sc/MA, we have 37 officers for JW, 60 GCM, 58 ORI, 65 HD, 52 PI, 31 AAL, and 15 NBNL resulting to 52.65% of the total population of respondents. Last but not the least is Ph.D which has 0 for JW,1 GCM, 3 ORI, 3 HD, 5 PI, 1 AAL, and 0 NBNL totaling 13 which comes up to 2.15% of the total respondents.  This is further shown in figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4  Bar Chart Representing the Educational Background of Respondents
Sources Field Survey 2014
Table 4.6: Duration of Service of Respondents in the Firms

Duration (yrs)
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respond
ents
%
A
≤5
7
9
11
11
7
5
4
54
8.94
B
>5≤10
30
35
42
47
38
13
10
215
35.60
C
>10≤20
31
52
44
41
40
37
25
270
44.70
D
>20
4
8
11
20
15
2
5
65
10.76

Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014

Table 4.6 shows the length of service of the respondents in the various firms. For JW, 7 respondents have worked for less or equal to 5years, GCM 9, ORI 11, HD 11, PI 7, AAL 5, and NBNL 4 years. For the category of greater than 5 but less or equal to 10years, JW 30, GCM 35, ORI 42, HD 47, PI 38, AAL 13, and NBNL 10 totaling 215 and resulting to 35.60% of the respondents. The next category is that of those who have worked for greater than 10 years but less or equal to 20 years. This row has 31 for JW, 52 GCM, 44 ORI, 41 HD, 40 PI, 37 AAL, 25 NBNL which is 44.7% of the whole respondents. Lastly, the group who has worked for greater than 20 years has a total of 65 respondents making it 10.76% of the total respondents with JW having 4 out of the total, GCM 8, ORI 11, HD 20, PI 15, AAL 2, and NBNL 5.

Table 4.7:Management Cadre Distribution Table

Category of Management
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
A
Top Management
24
40
52
59
37
27
19
258
42.72
B
Middle Management
48
64
56
60
63
30
25
346
57.28

Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014
The managerial cadre is shown on table 4.7. It indicates the number of employees in the top and middle management level. The top management has 258 respondents consisting of 24 for JW, 40 GCM, 52 ORI, 59 HD, 37 PI, 27 AAL, 19 NBNL resulting to 42.72% of the total respondents. The next level of management is the middle level managers which consists of 57.28% of the total of 604 i.e. 346 in number. This is distributed as follows; 72 JW, 104 GCM, 108 ORI, 119 HD, 100 PI, 57 AAL, 44 NBNL. In furtherance to the above, figure 4.5 below represents the information in a bar chart.
Figure 4.5     Bar Chart for Management Cadre Distribution
Sources Field Survey 2014

Objective 1: To Determine the Extent to Which Protection of Intellectual Property through Trade Mark Affects the Market Share in Manufacturing Firms in the South East Nigeria

Table 4.8: Trade Mark, Copy Right, Patent / Market Change
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Response
%
SA
59
85
92
102
88
45
24
495
81.95
IA
12
17
14
12
6
11
13
85
14.0
N
1
2
0
4
2
1
5
14    15
2.48
ID
0
0
2
1
4
0
2
10     9
1.49
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Questionnaires from Field Survey 2014

Table 4.8 indicates the analysis of the responses related to the first objective which is to determine the extent to which protection of intellectual property through trademarks affects the mark share in manufacturing firms.
For the statement that trademarks to a large extent positively affects the market change of a firm overtime, the responses are; strongly agree, inclined to agree, neither agree nor disagree and strongly disagree. The responses from the seven firms have frequencies of 85, 92, 102, 88, 45, and 24 respectively totaling 495 which is 81.95% of the respondents going for strongly agree, while inclined to agree has the frequencies of 12, 17, 14, 12, 6, 11, and 13 with total 85 i.e. 14.0%.  On the other hand, the frequency for neither agree nor disagree is 1, 2, 0,4,2,1 and 5 i.e15 in number which makes up to 2.48%. The response for inclined to disagree is 0, 0, 2,1,4,0 and 2 total 9 i.e. 1.49% and for strongly disagree, there is no value showing that no respondents registered for that option.

Table 4.9: Brand Signature, Brand Name versus Market Strength
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
SA
64
98
92
99
88
40
39
520
86.09
IA
4
6
7
9
12
5
5
48
7.95
N
4
0
4
6
0
6
0
20
3.31
ID
0
0
5
5
0
2
0
12
1.99
SD
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0.66
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The statement on the use of brand signs and brand names increasing the market strength of a company generated the following response; for strongly agree, the frequency is 64, 98, 92,99,88,40 and 39 for the 7 firms respectively. This gives a total of 520 which is 86.09%. For inclined to agree, it is 4,6,7,9,12,5 and 5 total 48 with 7.95% while neither agree nor disagree is 4,0,4,6,0,6,0 leading to 3.31% of total of 20. Inclined to disagree and strongly disagree are both 12 and 4 in totality with 1.99% and 0.66% being distributed as follows, 0,0,5,5,0,2,0 and 0,0,0,0,0,4,0.

Table 4.10 Performance Track and Intellectual Property
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
SA
42
48
53
65
37
40
30
315
52.15
IA
15
19
29
11
30
9
12
125
20.69
N
12
25
0
16
25
2
0
80
13.25
ID
3
12
35
4
1
6
2
63
10.43
SD
0
0
0
23
7
0
0
21
3.48
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The hypothetical statements on performance track of a firm having an increase with protection of their intellectual properties, the response is as follows, SA= 315 (52.15%) distributed as 42, 48, 53, 65, 37, 40, and 30. IA=125 (20.69%) of 15, 19, 29, 11,30,9 and 12, N= 80(13.25%) of 12,25,0,16,25,2,0. ID=63(10.43%) i.e. 3, 12, 35, 4, 1, 6, 2, and SD =21(3.48%) of 0, 0,0,23, 7, 0, 0.

Table 4.11: Trade Mark, Copyrights, Trade Secret and Imitation
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
SA
15
17
18
21
13
15
9
108
17.88
IA
14
21
19
28
14
6
11
113
18.71
N
14
35
18
2
0
9
1
79
13.08
ID
0
0
8
28
38
14
14
102
16.89
SD
29
31
45
40
35
13
9
202
33.44
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Table 4.11 addresses the statements that trademarks copyrights and trade secrets are powerful tools used by firms to fight against imitations of their products and processes. The response  rates and percentage totals for SA,IA,N,ID,SD are as follows: 15,17,18,21,13,15,9 of 108 (17.88%); 14, 21,19,28,14,6,11 of 113 (18.71%); 14, 35,18,2,0,9,1 of 79 (13.08%); 0, 0, 8, 28, 38, 14, 14 of 102 (16.89%); and 29,31,45,40,35,13,9 of 202 (33.44%)

Table 4.12: IPR versus Market Index
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
SA
25
15
32
30
36
10
10
158
26.16
IA
18
42
25
40
30
28
14
197
32.62
N
27
41
36
29
34
15
20
202
33.44
ID
1
4
0
20
0
2
0
27
4.47
SD
1
2
15
0
0
2
0
20
3.31
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Another statement that the market index of the firm increases with the acquisition of IP rights over their intangible assets results to the following frequency for SA,IA,N,ID, and SD respectively 25,15,32,30,36,10,10 (158) (26.16%). 18,42,25,40,30,28 and 14 of 197 (32.62%). 27,41,36,29,34,15, 202 (33.44%). 1,4,0,2,0,2,0,0,2,7 (4.47%) and 1,2,5,0,0,2,0,0,2,0 (3.31%).


Table: 4.13: Industrial Designs, Non-Disclosure and Market Share
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
Respondents
%
SA
22
25
64
33
39
25
22
230
38.08
IA
36
38
28
26
38
18
12
196
32.45
N
9
20
16
19
18
12
8
102
16.89
ID
1
8
0
10
2
2
0
23
3.81
SD
4
13
0
31
3
0
2
53
8.77
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014
 Table 4.13 addresses the statement that exclusive rights, industrial designs and non disclosure keep away competitors thus increasing market shares of your firm. From the table, out of 604 respondents, 230(38.08%) opted for strongly agree in the form of 22,25,64,33,39,25 and 22 for the seven different firms. 196 (32.45%)responded in the frequency of 36,38,28,26,38,18 and 12 to inclined to agree. 102 (16.89%) seems undecided on neither agree nor disagree in the form of 9,20,16,19,18,12, 8, 23. Inclined to disagree, 23(3.81%) while 53(8.77%) strongly disagrees in the distribution of 1,8,0,1,0,2,2,0 and 4,13,0,31,3,0,2 respectively. This goes to show that market share is actually increased through the use of these property rights. However, in some cases, competitors are still dauntless.

Objective 2: To Ascertain the Degree to Which Patents Induce Creativity in                                  Manufacturing Firms.

Table 4.14: Patent Law Enforcements and Technology Innovations.
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
26
62
48
54
44
`19
13
266
44.05
IA
33
32
50
43
35
17
10
220
36.42
N
10
10
10
9
13
12
14
78
12.91
ID
3
0
0
8
5
7
4
27
4.47
SD
2
0
0
5
3
2
1
13
2.15
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

In table 4.14,the analyses the statement addressing objective 2, which is to ascertain the degree to which patent induce creativity in manufacturing firm is shown. The statement enforcements of patent laws promote technology innovation in manufacturing firms got respondents distributed as follows; SA 266(44.05%) in 26, 62, 48, 54, 4, 19 and 13 for the seven firms under study. IA =220 (36.42%) of 33, 32, 50, 43, 35, 17, and 10. N=78(12.91%) of 10, 10, 10, 9, 13, 12, 14.  ID = 27(4.47%)of 3,0,0,8,5,7,4 and SD=13(2.15%) of 2,0,0,5,3,2,1. This has the proxy that when patents laws are enforced, technology innovation is promoted. The number of personals that strongly agreed and inclined to agree totaled 486 which is 80.47% of the total respondents showing agreement with the statement.

Table 4.15: Patent Rights, Imitation, and Performance
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
4
18
26
40
37
14
17
156
25.83
IA
18
10
42
38
35
15
20
178
29.47
N
29
19
39
20
14
9
5
135
22.35
ID
6
38
1
15
3
14
1
78
12.91
SD
17
19
0
6
9
5
1
57
9.44
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The second statement under objective 2 says that the use of patents rights significantly prevents imitation leading to improved performance. The rate of response to the statement shows that those who strongly agree and inclined to agree are (156+178) (25.83%+29.47%) = 334 (55.03%) out of 604. 135 (22.35%) are undecided while 78+57=135 (22.35%) either strongly disagree or inclined to disagree. This result indicates that even though property rights prevent imitations to a significance level, hackers and imitators still operate. Factors that contribute to this are many and there are lots of imitations going on in the country today despite these tools.

Table 4.16: Research and Development Departments and Creation
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
29
90
97
20
81
47
28
435
72.02
IA
30
5
7
6
14
5
5
115
19.04
N
7
2
1
5
3
2
8
28
4.64
ID
5
7
1
2
2
2
3
22
3.64
SD
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
4
0.66
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Another statement, the establishments of research and development department enhances creation of new products and processes. The reaction of respondents is very strong in agreeing with the statement. Out of 604 respondents 435(72.02%) agreed strongly, 115(19.04%) are inclined to agree, 22(4.64%) inclined to disagree and 4(0.66%) strongly disagree. The need for R/D department is fully indicated by these responses.

Table 4.17:  IPR Acquisition, Invention Versus Improved Performances
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
39
69
61
79
59
22
7
336
55.62
IA
7
31
32
34
30
3
4
141
23.34
N
0
1
12
14
10
27
31
97
16.06
ID
11
2
1
1
1
3
2
21
3.48
SD
1
1
2
1
0
2
0
9
1.50
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Table4.17 addresses the statement that says that acquisition of IP enhances the invention of new products thus improving performances. Out of a total of 604, 477 are in strong agreement and inclined to agree to the alternate hypotheses. This makes up 78.96% of the total which is indicative of the fact that the statement is in the affirmative. 16.06% i.e. 97 are unsure, 3.48% i.e. 21 inclined to disagree while only 1.5% 7 of 604 strongly disagreed.

Objective 3: To Establish the Level to which Intellectual Property Fulfils its Mission in Manufacturing Firms.

Table 4.18: IPR Mission and Positive Impact
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
68
73
95
116
75
43
31
501
82.95
IA
2
29
11
3
22
12
13
92
15.23
N
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
5
0.83
ID
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
0.66
SD
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0.33
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The statement analysed under table 4.18 is to address the objective which is to find out the extent to which the mission of IP in companies impact on its success. 501 (82.95%) responded under SA, with distribution of values of 68, 73, 95, 116, 75, 43, and 31 for the companies. Again 92(15.23%) are IA while only5 (0.83%), 4(0.66%) and 2(0.33%) all tend to be undecided or inclined to disagree or totally disagreed. The indication is that majority of the respondents are in conformity with the fact that IP fulfills its mission in manufacturing firms to a large extent.
Table 4.19:  Intangible Assets versus Exclusive Rights
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
35
66
36
56
50
22
10
275
45.53
IA
29
25
62
58
45
28
34
281
46.52
N
2
5
8
5
5
4
0
29
4.80
ID
3
8
0
0
0
0
0
11
1.82
SD
3
0
2
0
0
3
0
8
1.33
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The second statement under this objective is that having exclusive rights significantly protects your intangible assets to which respondents numbered 556 (92.05%) are either SA or IA.  29 (4.80%) were not decided while only 19(3.15%) strongly disagreed or inclined to disagree. The frequency distributions of these results are 35, 66, 36, 56, 50, 22, and 10 for SA. 29, 25, 62,58,45,28 and 34 for IA for the seven firms respectively.

Table 4.20: Profit Maximization increased Market Share and Organizational             Sustainability versus IP Tools
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
24
25
45
41
26
10
14
185
30.63
IA
5
40
32
38
22
28
30
195
32.28
N
30
36
24
32
28
19
0
169
27.98
ID
13
0
7
7
10
0
0
37
6.13
SD
0
3
0
1
14
0
0
18
2.98
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The table shows the frequency distribution and the % data for the responses given for the statement that profit maximization, increased market share and organisational sustainability can be achieved through the use of IP tools. Again out of the 604 sample 185(30.63%) SA with 24 of them from JW, 25 GCM, 45 ORI, 41 HD, 26 PI, 10 AAL, and 14 NBNL. On the other hand 195(32.28%) seem to be IA with distribution numbers of 5 for JW, 40 GCM, 32 ORI, 38 HD, 22 PI, 28 AAL, and 30 for NB. A good number of 169(27.98%) didn’t seem to be sure whether to go for agree or disagree while only 55(9.11%) went for  SD and ID indication.

Table 4.21:  Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Brand Signature and Success of                            Firms
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
8
48
44
51
33
17
28
229
37.91
IA
20
41
38
46
19
21
13
199
32.95
N
26
5
26
12
20
14
0
103
17.05
ID
12
10
0
2
20
5
2
51
8.45
SD
6
0
0
8
8
0
1
22
3.64
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
 Source; Field Survey 2014
For the statement trademark, trade secrets and brand signature to a larger extent determines the success of your manufacturing company, 229(37.91%) went for SA, 199(32.95%) IA while 103(17.05%) could not decide. On the other hand 51(8.45%) ID while 22(3.64%) SD. The indication is that even though these IPRs are strong in determining success, there are other factors that should come into play for success to be achieved.

Table 4.22: Profit Maximization versus Copyright plus other Form of Protection.
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
20
13
19
18
9
4
13
96
15.89
IA
20
22
20
36
3
7
0
108
17.88
N
13
14
29
20
36
14
4
130
21.52
ID
9
12
38
32
40
29
27
187
30.96
SD
10
43
2
13
12
3
0
83
13.75
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Profit maximization can be achieved through copyright and other forms of protection. This is the last statement of test made for objective 3. To this, they responded with only 96(15.89) for strongly agree, 108(17.88) for IA while up to 130(21.52%) could not agree nor disagree. Again, 187(30.96%) actually ID while 83(13.75%) SD.

Objective 4: To Analyze the Various Risks involved in Intellectual Property Registration to see if they are higher than Expected Benefits.

Table 4.23: Registration Risks versus Benefits.
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
33
52
61
59
43
27
13
288
47.68
IA
19
25
8
46
57
19
29
203
33.61
N
10
20
26
10
0
9
2
77
12.75
ID
0
6
13
4
0
1
0
24
3.97
SD
10
1
0
0
0
1
0
12
1.99
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The first statement that the risks involved in IP registration is higher than expected benefits got the following frequency distribution; out of 604, 288(47.68%)affirmed with SA while 203(33.61%) were IA, with the number of respondents from each firm showing 33,52,61,59,43,27,13 and 19, 25, 8, 46, 57, 19, 29 for both strongly agree and inclined to agree for the seven firms under study.  77(12.75%) could not decide while of 36(5.96%) all SD or ID.

Table 4.24: Creativity, Innovation, Inventions and Protection of Intangible                              Assets
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
60
78
84
75
57
29
32
415
68.71
IA
12
25
24
40
38
21
7
167
27.65
N
0
0
0
2
3
5
3
13
2.15
ID

1
0
1
2
1
1
6
0.99
SD
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
0.5
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Table 4.24 addresses the statement that creativity, innovation and invention are some of the benefits of protecting your intangible assets. A whooping 415(68.71%) out of 604 affirmed with SA, 167(27.65%) IA while only 13(2.15%), 6(0.99%) and 3(0.5%) went with inclined to disagree, strongly disagree or neither agree nor disagree.

Table 4.25: Creativity, Innovations, and Inventions versus Organisation                                   Performances
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
42
43
78
65
45
19
23
315
52.15
IA
10
24
20
39
36
15
11
155
25.66
N
5
30
7
13
10
13
10
88
14.57
ID
8
7
3
2
9
7
0
36
5.96
SD
7
0
0
0
0
3
0
10
1.66
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

For the statement creativity, innovation and invention are some of the vital elements for promoting organizational performances, 315(52.15%) SA, 155(25.66%) IA. Therefore 470 out of 604 affirmed it. However, 88(14.57%) could not decide while only 36(5.96%) and 10 (1.66%) strongly disagreed and inclined to disagree.  Only in firm 1 and 6 did any respondent come up with strongly disagree. This indicates that indeed, these factors promote organizational performance.

Table 4.26: Cost of Registration and Yield
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
12
24
18
15
18
12
16
115
19.04
IA
4
5
34
30
25
7
2
107
17.71
N
20
30
26
29
25
13
10
153
25.33
ID
19
21
16
30
17
19
16
138
22.85
SD
17
24
14
15
5 15
6
0
91
15.07
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

For table 4.26, the statement that the cost of registration of intellectual property rights is recovered by the usage of these rights got the following response;12 for JW, 24 GCM, 18 ORI, 15 HD, 18 PI, 12 AAL and 16 for NB given a total of 115(19.04%) for SA while ID got 4 for JW,5 GCM, 34 ORI, 30 HD, 25 PI,7 AAL, and 2 for NB making it 107(17.71%) of the total sample size. Notably for those who couldn’t decide, it is 20 for JW, 30 GCM, 26 ORI, 29 HD, 25 PI, 13 AAL, and 10 for NB which is 153(25.33%).  Up to 138(22.85%) were inclined to disagree while 91(15.07%) SD. The distribution of the respondents for the last two are 17,24,14,15,6,and 0 for SD while 19,21,16,30,17,19 and 16 for ID.
Objective 5:To Find Out the Extent to Which Corporate Managers Are Involved In the Management of IP Portfolio and the Implication of Their Involvement

Table 4.27: Corporate Managers and IP Management.
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
51
70
65
70
51
23
18
348
57.62
IA
17
34
29
26
28
15
13
162
26.82
N
4
0
0
13
12
10
6
45
7.45
ID
0
0
14
3
3
5
4
29
4.80
SD
0
0
0
7
6
4
3
20
3.31
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

For the 5th objective, we have a statement that corporate managers rarely get involved in the management of IP port folio and got the following responses. 348 (57.62%) for SA, 162(26.82%) for IA, 45(7.45%) for neither agree nor disagree, 29(4.80%) for ID and 20 (3.31%) for SD. The indication is that the respondents quite agree that managers actually did rarely get involved in IP port folio management.

Table 4.28: IP Portfolio Management versus Legal Practitioners
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
21
79
70
61
51
41
32
355
58.77
IA
14
16
28
16
32
10
10
126
20.86
N
11
3
3
24
11
3
0
55
9.11
ID
25
3
5
10
3
0
2
48
7.95
SD
1
3
2
8
3
3
0
20
3.31
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014
For the statement that often times, IP port folios management is left in the hands of legal practitioners, the responses are SA, IA, neither agrees nor disagree, ID and SD. They have numbers 355(58.77%), 126(20.86%), 55(9.11%), 48(7.95%), and 20(3.31%) respectively giving a total of 604(100%).
Table 4.29 IP Portfolio versus Strategic Management
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
60
94
88
95
78
49
28
492
81.46
IA
6
7
15
14
20
5
11
78
12.91
N
6
2
4
4
0
3
4
23
3.81
ID
0
1
1
6
2
0
1
11
1.82
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

Strategic management of IP port folios is essential in other to achieve desired   results is the statement generating the responses in table 4.29. A total of 492(81.46%) out of 604(100%) SA, 78(12.91%) were inclined to agree while only 23(3.81%) and 11(1.82%) tended to disagree and undecided. In fact, no one responded with SD, indicating a strong positive affirmative statement.

Table 4.30: Creating and Recreating of Products and Process and Poor                          Management of IP Portfolio.
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
5
20
33
49
41
28
9
185
30.62
IA
30
51
26
32
28
18
14
199
32.95
N
5
30
20
15
21
9
16
116
19.21
ID
27
1
28
10
7
0
3
76
12.58
SD
5
2
1
13
3
2
2
28
4.64
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

For the statement, creating and recreating of products and processes is a result of poor management of intellectual property; 185(30.62%) agreed strongly, 199(32.95%) inclined to agree, 116(19.21%) did not decide 76(12.58%) neither agree nor disagree, and finally 28(4.64%) SD.  384(63.57%) out of 604 are therefore in agreement with the statement which shows that poor management of IP port folios actually has a role to play in increasing rate of imitation.

Table 4.31: Business Goals, Mission and Vision, Strategy and Legal Requirement        of IP versus Firm Performance.
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
13
20
31
19
24
14
16
137
22.68
IA
20
40
38
33
46
30
24
231
38.25
N
4
11
26
13
25
13
1
93
15.40
ID
11
30
7
34
3
0
2
87
14.40
SD
24
3
6
20
2
0
1
56
9.27
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

The hypothetical statement aligning businesses goals, strategic management and legal requirements extensively contributes positively to the firms performances generated the following responses: 137(22.68%) for SA consisting of 13 for JW, 20 GCM, 31 ORI, 19 HD, 24 PI, 14 AAL, 16 NB. While 231(38.25%) went for IA thus 20 for JW, 40GCM, 38 ORI, 33 HD, 46 PI, 30 AAL and 24 NBNL respectively. For those who SD or ID, they are 56(9.27%) and 87(14.40%) each giving a total of 143(23.67%) of the 604(100%) valid sample size. However, up to 93(16%) could not decide.

Table 4.32: Absence of Research and Development and Firm’s Growth
Options
JW
GCM
ORI
HD
PI
AAL
NBNL
No of respondents
%
SA
44
53
49
60
40
32
21
299
49.50
IA
27
50
55
29
35
14
16
226
37.42
N
1
0
3
25
18
10
6
63
10.43
ID
0
1
0
3
6
0
0
10
1.66
SD
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
6
0.99
Total
72
104
108
119
100
57
44
604
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

This last table, 4.32 of likert statement of respondents generates questions from the respondents on the statement that lack of management commitment to research and development department negatively affects the firm’s growth. For this, 299(49.5%) responded to SA, 226 (37.42%) were inclined to agree, while 63(10.43%) could not decide whether to agree or disagree. Only 6(0.99%) out of 604(100%) actually strongly disagreed while 10(1.66%) were inclined to disagree. This shows that the management of every firm needs to show more commitment to the inclusion of research and development department in our manufacturing companies.
4.3: Oral Interview Analysis.

Table 4.33: Distribution of Oral Interview of Participants
SN
Firms under study
Frequency
Percentages
1
Jacobs Wine Ltd
5
11.90
2
General Cotton Mill Ltd
5
11.90
3
Ofali Rural Industries Ltd
5
11.90
4
Pitasson Industries Ltd
5
11.90
5
Alo aluminium ManufacturingLtd
5
11.90
6
Ngo Bros Nig. Ltd
5
11.90
7
Hardis and Dromedas Ltd
12
28.60
Total

42
100
Source; Field Survey 2014

 42 people were interviewed, 5 each from 6 firms and 12 from the last firm. The location of the last firm which is Enugu made it possible for the researcher to have the opportunity to visit severally in order to have up to 12 employees to be interviewed. The firm is Hardis and Dromedas Limited. The questions and the responses are as follows;

Question 1; Are you aware of the intangible assets in form of Intellectual Property possessed by your firm?

The interviewees strongly responded to the above question by saying that they are aware of these assets. Some are not sure if their firms are in possession of these assets.
Majority of them were of the opinion that these assets should be more valued than the physical assets. They pointed out that even though they know of the existence of the assets, they know little or nothing about the management and control because issues of IP are only discussed under closed doors and not in management meetings.

Question 2: Do you have any kind of protection of these properties in terms of legal instruments and or any other firm’s activities?
Some answered that they are aware of such protection while others are not. Those in the administrative department are of the opinion that such issues do not concern them rather it is the concern of the chief executive of the company with the company secretary who apparently are mostly lawyers.

Question 3: What are these instruments and how are they being managed?
Majority mentioned Trade Mark, and Patents Rights. Others mentioned Trade Secret. Others could not say anything about how these instruments are being managed or controlled. Management does not make it open. Moreover, they don’t think that they should meddle into the business of properties owned by their firm whether it is tangible or intangible property. A few talked about how they enforce rights when there is an infringement. Majority opined that the ability to acquire and manage IP using this will not end there but will lead to achievement of organizational objective which will thus improve the performance of the industry.

Question 4: Who are involved in the management of these properties?
In the pharmaceutical sector, the professionals like the pharmacist and scientists in the field handle it especially when it is a trade secret. This is because they are the ones who know the proportion of each element or item of the inert materials made up of the regiment and the innocuous mixture that need to be added in order to arrive at the final product that is offered to the market.

Question 5: In your opinion, do you think that protection contributes to the improved performance and general success of your firm, if yes, then how do you think that is done.
Almost all the respondents agreed that IP strategic management and acquisition and RD can improve the dynamic capabilities of an organization thus improved performance. Most respondents answered in the affirmative and believe that more has to be done on management and control in order to extract maximum value from these properties.  They concluded that IP is considered to a large extent a strategic resource in achieving improved performance in organizations. However, a lot depends on how it is being put to use by the organizations and the people that drives the process. They also believe that sound management practice will not only allow a company to engage in business opportunities but also will go a long way in protecting it from unwanted and often avoidable liability of IP infringement. However, some interviewees also added a voice by saying that there are other environmental factors that could lead to either a drop or an improvement in performance despite the intellectual property protection. Such other factors like staff retention cost of production which includes energy cost, and change in market strategy of competitors.

Question 6: Do you have a research and development department?
No we do not have a research and development department. What we have is a quality control department. However for respondents from two firms; yes we have a research and development department.

Table 4.34Data Analysis of Oral Interview Response;
Question
Response
Total No of Respondents
Affirmative
Apathetic/
Passive
1.Are you aware of any intangible assets by way of IP owned by your organisation
1.Yes I am aware
2.No we don’t know how it is controlled
3.It is mostly kept secret
42
30(71.43%)
12(28.57%)
2. Do you have any kind of protection of these properties in terms of legal instruments
1.Yes I do
2.IPR are used to protect them

42
36(85.71%)
6(14.29%)
3. What are these instruments and how are they being managed
1.patents
Trademark
Trade secret
2.I have no idea how   they are being managed
42
37(88.10%)
5(11.90%)
4. Who are involved in the management of these properties
1. The chief executive.
2. The company secretary.
 3. The legal department.
42
40(95.24%)
2(4.76%)
5.In your opinion, do you think that IP protection contributes to the improved performance of your industry
1.Of course it does contribute to the improved performance of the organization
42
41(97.68%)
1(2.38%)
6. do u have a research and development department
1. No we do not have.
2. yes we have
42
3(7.14%)
39(92.86%)
7.Do you think that protection of intellectual properties prevents imitation
1. To some extent yes it does prevent imitation but not to a large extent. This is because even though we have it, our products are still not inimitable
42
22(52.38%)
20(47.62%)
Source; Field Survey 2014
4.4: Test of Hypotheses

Hypothesis one
Ho:    protection of intellectual property through trade mark does not positively    affect the market share to a very high extent in manufacturing firms

Hi:     protection of intellectual property through trade mark positively affects the            market share to a very high extent in manufacturing firms

Table 4.35Descriptive Statistics

Mean
Std. Deviation
N
market share
2.0538
1.33138
1208
protection of intellectual property
1.5803
.98632
1208


Table 4.36 Correlations


market share
protection of intellectual property
Pearson Correlation
market share
1.000
.551
protection of intellectual property
.551
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
market share
.
.000
protection of intellectual property
.000
.
N
market share
1208
1208
protection of intellectual property
1208
1208


Table  4.37….Model Summaryb
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
Durbin-Watson
1
.551a
.304
.303
1.11154
.013
a. Predictors: (Constant), protection of intellectual property

b. Dependent Variable: market share



Table 4.38……ANOVAb
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
649.474
1
649.474
525.671
.000a
Residual
1490.029
1206
1.236


Total
2139.502
1207



a. Predictors: (Constant), protection of intellectual property


b. Dependent Variable: market share




Table 4.39 ….Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
1
(Constant)
.879
.060

14.540
.000
protection of intellectual property
.744
.032
.551
22.928
.000
a. Dependent Variable: market share





R         = 0.551
R2        = 0.304
F          = 525.671
DW     = .013

Interpretation:
The regression sum of squares (649.474) is less than the residual sum of squares (1490.029), which indicates that more of the variation in the dependent variable is not explained by the model.  The significance value of the F statistics (0.000) is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance.

R, the correlation coefficient which has a value of 0.551, indicates that there is a positive relationship between the protection of intellectual property and market share.  R square, the coefficient of determination, shows that 30.4% of the variation in the market share is explained by the model.

With the linear regression model, the error of estimate is high, with a value of about 1.11154.  The Durbin Watson statistics of .013, which is not tends to 2 indicates there no is autocorrelation.

The protection of intellectual property coefficient of 0.551 indicates a positive significance between protection of intellectual property and market share, which is statistically significant (with t = 14.540).  Therefore, the null hypothesis should be rejected and the alternative hypothesis accordingly accepted.

Hypothesis two 
Ho: patent rights do not induce creativity in manufacturing firms to a very high degree 
Hi: patent rights induce creativity in manufacturing firms to a very high degree 
Table 4.40.--- Descriptive Statistics

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
patent right induce creativity in manufacturing firms to a very high degree
1208
1.5803
.98632
1.00
5.00

Table  4.41-----one-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


patent right induce creativity in manufacturing firms to a very high degree
N
1208
Normal Parametersa
Mean
1.5803
Std. Deviation
.98632
Most Extreme Differences
Absolute
.392
Positive
.392
Negative
-.278
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
13.638
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
a. Test distribution is Normal.
Table 4.42 is the output of the computed One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, the response options of agree and disagree based on the responses of the research subjects from the selected manufacturing firms.  Z- Calculated Value (Zc= 9.513) is less than the Z tabulated value (Z= 1.96)

Decision Rule
The decision rule is to accept the alternate hypothesis if the computed Z value is greater than tabulated Z value otherwise reject the null hypothesis. 

Decision
 Since the Z= 9.513is greater than Zt = 1.96, the null hypothesis is accepted and alternate hypothesis is rejected. Thus, we conclude that  patent rights induce creativity in manufacturing firms to a very high degree 

Hypothesis three
HO: Intellectual property protection does not significantly fulfills its mission in manufacturing firm
 Hi:  Intellectual property protection significantly fulfills its mission in manufacturing firm

Table 4.43--- Chi-Square Tests

Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
311.246
16
.000
Likelihood Ratio
111.058
16
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
116.400
1
.000
N of Valid Cases
1208


a. 4 cells (16.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.72.
Table 4.43 is the output of the computed Chi-Square values from the cross tabulation statistics of observed and expected frequencies with the response options of agree and disagree based on the responses of the research subjects from the selected manufacturing firms. Pearson Chi-Square computed value (X2c= 311.246) is greater than the Chi –Square tabulated value (X2=26.30) with 16 degrees of freedom (df) at 0.05 level of alpha (X2= 311.246, p,< .05)


Decision Rule
The decision rule is to accept the alternate hypothesis if the computed Chi- Square value is greater than the tabulated Chi-Square value otherwise accept the null hypothesis. 

Decision
Since the Pearson Chi- Square computed X2c= 311.246is greater than the Chi- Square table value X2t =26.30, the null hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted. Thus, we conclude that intellectual property protection significantly fulfills its mission in manufacturing firm.

Hypothesis four

Ho: the expected benefits of intellectual property registration are lower than the risks involved

Hi: the expected benefits of intellectual property registration are higher than the risks involved to a very high degree





Table 4.44 ----Descriptive Statistics

N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
the expected benefits of intellectual property registration are higher than the risk involved
1208
1.9263
1.27185
1.00
5.00

Table  4.45---One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test


the expected benefits of intellectual property registration are higher than the risk involved
N
1208
Normal Parametersa
Mean
1.9263
Std. Deviation
1.27185
Most Extreme Differences
Absolute
.331
Positive
.331
Negative
-.233
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
11.517
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
a. Test distribution is Normal.

Table 4.45---- is the outputs of the computed One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, the response options of agree and disagree based on the responses of the research subjects from the selected manufacturing firms.  Z- Calculated Value (Zc= 11.517) is less than the Z tabulated value (Z= 1.96)

Decision Rule
The decision rule is to accept the alternate hypothesis if the computed Z value is greater than tabulated Z value otherwise reject the null hypothesis. 

Decision
 Since the Z= 11.517is greater than Zt = 1.96, the null hypothesis is accepted and alternate hypothesis is rejected. Thus, we conclude that the expected benefits of intellectual property registration are higher than the risks involved


Hypothesis five

Ho:    Corporate manager often significantly get involved in the management of    intellectual property portfolios and this result to negative implication
Hi:     Corporate manager do not often significantly get involved in the management         of intellectual property portfolios and this result to negative implication



Table  4.46…..Chi-Square Tests

Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
213.932
16
.000
Likelihood Ratio
138.952
16
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
104.234
1
.000
N of Valid Cases
1208



Table 4.46 is the output of the computed Chi-Square values from the cross tabulation statistics of observed and expected frequencies with the response options of agree and disagree based on the responses of the research subjects from the selected manufacturing firms. Pearson Chi-Square computed value (X2c= 213.932) is greater than the Chi –Square tabulated value (X2= 26.30) with 16 degrees of freedom (df) at 0.05 level of alpha (X2= 213.932, p,< .05)

Decision Rule
The decision rule is to accept the alternate hypothesis if the computed Chi- Square value is greater than the tabulated Chi-Square value otherwise accept the null hypothesis. 

Decision
Since the Pearson Chi- Square computed X2c= 213.932is greater than the Chi- Square table value X2t = 26.30, the null hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted. Thus, we conclude that corporate manager do not often get involved in the management of intellectual property portfolios and this result to negative implication

4.5: Discussion of Findings
4.5.1: MaritalStatus:
In the personal data of respondents, out of a total of 604 people, 312(51.66%) are married while 257(42.45%) are single. Again, a total of 23(3.8%) are widowed while 12(1.98%) are divorced. The distribution shows that a little bit above half of the population of the management staff in these firms are married. This indicates that more responsible people are being moved up to management position of the firm probably because marriage has the tendency of shaping one’s personality into a more dedicated, disciplined and loyal individual. This in the opinion of the researcher is a good indicator. However, the number of single people in the management cadre is quite high having taken up to 42.55%. This reflects the trendy style in the banking industry where young people are being used to occupy very sensitive positions as against what is obtainable before now. This may nonetheless tend to create a negative effect on the manufacturing firms.

4.5.2: Sex of Respondents.
For the distribution of the sex of the respondents, males are 435(72.02%) while females are 169(27.98%) given rise to a proxy that the female gender is still being relegated to the background. This could be as a result of other societal factors which may need to be studied further. This notwithstanding could have no significant implication on the management of these firms. It is noteworthy to mention here that despite the federal government policy on gender affair which recommends 35% of females in all employment sectors, the proportion of women in our industries is still at the low ebb.

4.5.3: Age Distribution of Respondents
The table for age distribution shows that people within the age group of 31 to 40 are the highest in number taken up to 48.01% of the total. For those less than 30years and between 41years and 50 years, they make up 22.19% and 19.54% respectively while above 50years is just 10.26%. This seems to be meaningful as the managerial cadre workforce is mainly drawn from the middle age. Accordingly, people in the managerial cadre are people who must have served the company for a long time.

4.5.4: Educational Qualification
The educational qualification of respondents with MBA/M.Sc and MA rates the highest with 318(52.65%) out of 604 acquiring a second degree. PhD is only 13 in number which is 2.15% while first degree or its equivalent ranks 45.20%, that is, 273 in number. It was observed that the PhD holders are in very sensitive positions in the firms occupying positions of trust and confidence which expose them to a good knowledge of what intellectual property the company possess or the tools that may need to be acquired to use in managing them.

4.5.5: Experience: Length of Service
The proportions of people who have worked in the firms for a number of years of between 10 to 20 years are 270 making up 44.70% of the total respondents. Between 5 and 10 years are 215, which is 35.60% while others are less or equal to 5years and greater than 20years taken 8.94% and 10.76% relatively. This portrays a low staff mobility which again is the opposite of what is obtainable in the financial sector.

4.5.6: Managerial Cadre
The management cadre is made up of top and middle management. Naturally, the middle management has 57.28% of respondents while top management is made up of 48.72% with numbers 346 and 258 in a relative manner. The top management echelons are the ones concerned with the knowledge of the properties possessed by these firms, the dynamics and the technicalities to be used in controlling and managing these properties.

4.6: Discussion of Findings Relating to the Objectives
4.6.1: Objective 1; To determine the extent to which protection of intellectual property through trademark affects the market share in manufacturing firms in south east Nigeria:
After careful analysis, it was discovered that intellectual property protection through trademark significantly and positively affects market share. This is captured in the response rate of the personnel with a major part of the total population agreeing strongly while no one strongly disagreed. Secondly, positive responses were given to other questions on this objective. No wonder writers like Mmouto and Ezeilo (2007) conclude that firms that use IPR has the potential to experience higher market growth, more profit and increased market value.  Greenhalge and Rogers (2007) also identified protection through trade mark as one of the strongest tools that can be used especially in manufacturing of products. Trade mark gives an identity to a product more especially in pharmaceutical industries. In fact, consumers who are class conscious uses trade mark to select or make a choice of purchase of items. They would not associate themselves with a product known to be inferior so they go for branded names. This is mostly found in such sectors like the fashion industries, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. A company with branded goods that has been known to have good quality usually captures the market while they grow in strength, appreciate in value, and increase in market index leading to overall positive change in their performance track. This seems to be in agreement with the findings and assertion of Jorgenson and Fraumeni, (2011) who has the opinion that intellectual property has important productivity benefits which leads to improved performance. Greenhalge and Rogers, (2010) also discovered that trademark strongly correlates with performance even though it affects profit margin in the short run. 

 Accordingly, for each of the selected firms under investigation, the percentage precision was a proxy indicator in terms of the degree of accuracy as regards the assumption that the market index of the firm increases with the acquisition of IP tools and that exclusive rights, industrial design and non-disclosure keeps away competitors thus increasing market share. This is indicated in the frequency of the positive response which gave rise to 96.02% for trademark, 94.04% for brand signature/names and 72.84% for performance track in the relative manner of strongly agreed and inclined to agree.

4.6.2: Objective 2:To ascertain the degree to which patents induce creativity in manufacturing companies in the south east Nigeria:
 The responses that followed the questions asked under this objective showed that indeed patents registration induces creativity to a very high degree. With patent protection, creators are assured of the fact that they will reap the benefits of their creation to the fullest without suffering from unwanted or undue infringement by intruders. This will not only encourage them but also encourage others who may have ideas that they ordinarily would not want to put to use. However, a lot depends on the type of industry.  This is again in agreement with Greenhalgh and Rogers (2007) who conclude that the patent system provide clear incentive for innovation in certain key knowledge intensive sectors.  In respect of this objective, the degree to which patents induce creativity was measured. For each of the selected companies, higher number of respondents strongly affirmed to that. Nevertheless, a good number of 97(16.06%) are indifferent to the question that acquisition improves performance. They conclude that mere acquisition is not adequate. This was clarified in the oral interview where a number of them responded that acquisition must be supported with efficient and effective management and control before it can significantly improve performance.  The result also reveals that even though patents induce creativity, yet a lot of talented people do not go into creation. This could be due to certain other circumstances militating against it. Such factors like the societal values, poverty, lack of awareness, and other environmental influences. The lack of awareness emanates mainly from the fact that most firms do not have a Research and Development department. The frequency table of 4.16 where almost all the respondents, 550(91%) agree that Research and Development dept enhances creation which will in turn enhance performance as is also shown in table 4.17 of this work depicts that assumption.   This could account for the few respondents who disagreed strongly on that statement. Table 4.15 also enhances this in that the respondents distribution is almost even between strongly agree and inclined to disagree. In the oral interview, most respondents again testified that imitation is still in the increase despite the use of patents. Bresnahan and Hitt (1999) portrays this when they found after their empirical study that when the use of trade mark, trade secret and patents is combined with other organizational practices, it leads to significant increase in performance.

4.6.3: Objective 3: To establish the level to which intellectual property protection fulfills its mission in manufacturing firms. In this objective the first table i.e. (4.18), 98.18% of respondents strongly affirmed that the use of IPR has a positive impact on firms thus fulfilling the purpose for which it is acquired. Those who are in disagreement are less than one percent of the total population. This status is reflected in all the company’s studied. Zang (2010)emphasizes that having exclusive rights to one’s intangible assets contributes to the achievement of the purpose for which these rights are acquired. This result also seems to agree with that of Zang who concludes that it promotes maximum extraction of values from these properties thereby improving performance through increase in productivity, profitability, market share, organizational sustainability and other indices of performance. The result also agrees with the report by Grant (2010) who believes that there is a strong positive relationship between IP protection and corporate success. Success have been recorded in industries growth, profitability, shareholders return and market control. Furthermore, Rogers et al (2011) also indicate that firms loose such benefits as long term viability of an organization, increase in market share and increase in innovative activities due to non-usage of intellectual property rights.  Table 4.20 however indicates that up to 169 and 103 were undecided as to whether it actually leads to success of an organization because if not, then the mission is not being fulfilled. This indication could nonetheless be attributed to the ignorance of the employees as regards their IP and the way it is being managed and again the fact that despite all the efforts, there is still a high level of copyright on works of artists and authors which greatly depletes the profit that would have been accruable to these artists. In fact in table 4.22, respondents from these firms who were inclined to disagree that IPR leads to profit increase are up to 187. The deduction when analyzed along with the oral interview further shows that there is copyright all over especially in the movie/music industry despite protection with copyright tools as IPR. This affects their profit negatively. In other words, the type of industry also plays a role as to the extent of extraction.

4.6.4: Objective 4:To analyze the various risks involved in IP registration to see if they are higher than expected benefits. This objective seeks to extract and analyze the problems and challenges encountered by operators and drivers of these processes and to know if they cause more harm than good. Table 4.23 addresses the registration risks and up to 81.29% of the total respondents agree that there is more merits than demerits in registration of properties. Only 18.71% either disagreed or are not sure what to answer. Furthermore, 93.36% for table 4.24 and 77.81% for table 4.25 also strongly confirmed that creativity, innovation, and invention can be enhanced all leading to improved organizational benefit when intellectual properties are effectively managed through protection by use of IPR. Relatively, only 1.4% for table 4.24 and 7.62% for table 4.25 tend to incline towards disagreeing. This simple means that a major finding emanated from this study which is in line with the findings of Araba (2010) that concludes that when there is no protection and effective management, there would be little incentive to invent and/or innovate.  Again Nwokocha (2003) reveals that the challenges encountered by these firms pose enormous risks to the firms which eventually deters them from getting the maximum benefits In spite of this though, a whole lot of employees still believe that the cost of registration of IPR is too high compared to the yield or expected benefits. This is indicative in table 4.26 which in addressing that issue with a hypothetical statement, got almost an even distribution of respondents spreading over the likert scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree with 36.76% for SA,IA and 37.92% for SD,ID while 25.33% could not decide. This assertion points out that the firms really map out a huge part of their income to be able to register and engage in the use of these properties. This could also explain why small and medium term firms avoid the use except when the nature of their product compels them to do so. That again could account for the reason why Nnabuike (2000) on studying the Economics of IP Management and its effect on Research and Development of Manufacturing Firms gave it as a reason why most firms do not have research and development departments.

4.6.5: Objective 5: To find out the extent to which corporate managers are involved in the management of intellectual property portfolio in their firms and the implications of their involvement especially in the south east Nigeria.
 This objective centers on the stakeholders and other individuals involved in IP rights portfolio management. More than 84.44% of employees agreed that these properties are better put in the hands of corporate managers for strategic management only a few 8.11% tend to disagree with this position. This is reflected in table 4.27 while tables 4.28 and 4.29 with 79.63% and 94.37% in a relative manner indicates strongly that strategic management is required especially with firms that have a portfolio of intellectual property and since this is only practiced by experienced, trained and well qualified managers with skill and excellent capabilities, it is better placed in their domain than to be left in the hands of legal practitioners who know little or nothing about strategic management. The whooping 86.92% of respondents in table 4.32 posits that research and development department is essential in any manufacturing firm notwithstanding the fact that most firms do not have it. Their position therefore is in tandem with the hypothetical statement that said that corporate managers rarely get involved in the management of intellectual property portfolio.

Table 4.31 points out the responses on company’s attitude to intellectual property while designing their mission statements. This again is indicative of the fact that the right level of importance is not placed on the concept. Nevertheless, 23.67% tend to disagree with that. Belle (2004) share the same idea when he observes that one major step to use in achieving growth in our industries is to develop the micro economic reasoning underlying the legal protection of intellectual property in general and the patent system in particular.   Secondly, Smith (2000) agrees that there is need for manufacturing companies to look into their intellectual property policy in relation to their business models. This will enable them to set overall IP strategies that will optimize the benefits that can be gained from that use.  

EFFECT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN SOUTH EAST NIGERIA
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - MARTINS LIBRARY

NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin