Improving the efficiency of patent
search —the role of inter-personal communication.—

Magister Ltd.

Stephen Adams

Mr. Adams is the managing director of Magister Ltd., a consultancy specialising in the
education of patent searchers and assisting in the development of high quality patent
information tools. He is the author of“Information Sources in Patents”, (ISBN 978-3-11023511-1) and many articles in the field of patent information. He is currently the Vice-Chairof PIUG, Inc., the International Society for Patent Information, and also serves on the editorialadvisory board of the journal“World Patent Information.”stephen.adams@magister.co.uk

1 INTRODUCTION

situation etc.) with one which is similar, andThe concept of “efficiency” has been defined

may be sold a “very efficient” car on the basis

in various ways, at different points in industrialthat it has a very good fuel consumption. Thisand social history. Engineers in the 18th andshould mean that we can achieve high outputs

19th century began to recognise efficiency as a(numbers of road journeys completed) for ameasurable quantity, which could be expressedcomparatively small input (the amount of petrol

as the ratio of ‘useful work performed’ to ‘total

we have to put into the car). But if this sameenergy expended’ (or the ratio of useful output

car costs us a great deal of money to insure,

to total input). In the field of economics, theand needs to have its tyres replaced every year,

definition of an efficient working economy is one

then the overall running costs are higher thanin which every resource is optimally allocated.

we anticipated. When we measure the overall

A manufacturing business may define its

performance, we may conclude that this is notefficiency by measuring the lowest amount of

the most efficient vehicle for our needs, despite

inputs required to create the greatest amount of

the fact that one aspect of its performance is

outputs. In everyday usage, the word “efficient”

very good.

comparing the outcomes.

For example, we

may simply mean that we have succeeded inminimizing wasted effort or wasted time.

When we come to consider the business ofpatent searching, the same questions must

One factor is very clear from all of thesebe faced. How should we measure our current

different definitions of “efficient” . In order toefficiency, and what steps can we take tograsp the true meaning of what is efficient, andimprove the efficiency of our searching? It is

to be able to work towards increasing efficiency,

a mistake to think that efficient searching can

we have to consider the entire system in which

be measured by a simple parameter such aseach individual process or step takes place. In“number of searches completed every month”

other words, we can only discuss efficiency by(tangible outputs) or “total budget for online

comparing our environment (process, social

systems usage per year” (financial inputs).

100

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

100

2016/10/26

19:59:34

These factors will not give us a complete or

Each search is unique, both in defining what

fully accurate measure of efficiency. In orderresources are to be used (inputs) and how theto understand the total resources (inputs) andresults are to be delivered (outputs).

results (outputs) of the patent search process,search has its own built-in quality standard,

we must be careful to consider not only theand also presents its own challenges to being

time and effort spent on conducting a specificcompleted in an efficient manner.

Eachsearch task, but all the linked activities which
post-search analysis and reporting as well.

3 UNDERSTANDING INEFFICIENCY
It is relatively easy to understand some of the

EFFICIENCY IS NOT THE SAME

2 AS QUALITY

factors which contribute to decreased efficiency.

It is easy to fall into the trap of trying

delivery. If search results arrive too late for theto measure quality, and think that we arecustomer to take any form of action in response

measuring efficiency. The two parameters areto them, then clearly all the work expended onrelated but they are not the same. Confusion

obtaining the search results has been wasted.

is particularly easy if the process which we

It is no longer relevant whether or not theare examining is one which produces tangible

results were of a high quality from the technicalgoods. Quality – in the modern industrialised

viewpoint – they cannot be used for the originalcontext – can be measured as a function of

intended purpose, and so the search process

variance from an agreed norm or standard. On

has been inefficient.

One of the most obvious is timeliness of2

検索の高効率化と精度向上

happen before searching starts, and all thea high-quality production line, every output item
should match as closely as possible to theSome other factors which impact our efficiency

defined ‘prototype’ . If the customer is told what

have to do with our choice of resources, and ourto expect (that is, what are the properties which

method of deploying them, during the courseshould be available in the intended end product),of a single piece of search work. The following

then they are able to judge whether theare examples of some of the danger signs, of

production line has succeeded in matching theinefficient practices becoming more dominant inspecification, and produced a quality product.

our searching processes:

However, if every item coming off a production
line is hand-built for a specific customer to aa)		 Making an inappropriate choice of search

unique specification, it is impossible to define

sources.

a fixed standard. Without a fixed standard (ordatabases and other technical information

objective, target, aim), it is meaningless to try

which may have an impact upon the subject

to measure variance from the standard, andmatter is a fundamental skill for the patentso our model for understanding quality breaks

information specialist.

down.

the same database for every search, simply

Knowledge of the full range ofAttempting to use

because it is the searcher’ s favourite andPatent searching is not like a factory
production line, turning out identical replicas
as quickly as possible to satisfy a mass need.

best-known source, can lead to significant
loss of efficiency.
b)		 Adhering to rigid protocols for search

YEAR BOOK 2O16 101

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

101

2016/10/26

19:59:34

procedure.

Whilst some types of search

the search enquiry, and possible alternative

can be assisted by the use of a defined

approaches, the searcher is totally reliant

standard operating procedure (SOP) or similar,

upon the requestor to fill in these gaps. One

these should never be applied so rigidly thatof the key skills of the searcher is to establish

the searcher is afraid to depart from thea clear understanding of the question; theguidelines and investigate the subject using

corresponding responsibility of the requestor

less well-known sources or techniques.

is to be willing to offer as much time and effortc)		 Lack of flexibility during the conduct ofas the searcher needs, in order to establish

the search. One of the great advantages ofclear objectives and intermediate goals forinteractive searching (from the 1970s when

the conduct of the search.

time-shared computer systems becamee)		 Inability to express the unfelt need foravailable) is the ability of the searcher toinformation. Point (d) above addresses theinteract with their initial results. The searcher

need for both requestor and searcher toreads and absorbs the information from theircommunicate fully. However, there are times

initial results, and uses the insight which

when the requestor genuinely has no idea how

they give to re-focus their search strategy

to express their need for more information.

and refine the search question. An inefficient

Typically, this can happen early in the life of

searcher is one who insists on pursuing thea research project, when information retrieval

question as originally defined, and will ignore

requests arise out of the feeling that “I don’ t

any related results as if they are a distraction

know what I don’ t know” . Some academic

away from that line of enquiry. It is efficientmodels of information-seeking behaviour are

to avoid unhelpful distractions, but if thebuilt upon this (uncomfortable) starting state

searcher carefully avoids all interaction with[1], which is referred to as an “Anomalousinterim results, they run the risk of missing

State of Knowledge” or ASK.

the bigger picture.
d)		 Poor initial briefing.

f)		 Incomplete delegation of authority. Some
One of the biggest

requestors find it difficult to attain the rightfactors leading to inefficient search is whenbalance of relationship in the course of athe requestor of the search fails to instructsearch request project. This is a common

the person doing the search in a complete

problem in all types of team work – theand clear manner. This often happens when

individual team members can struggle to

the requestor (examiner, attorney, inventor)

identify their own place within the team andtries to communicate a complex subject

to hand over tasks to other team memberswith the minimum amount of description.

whose skills may be more appropriate to the

The requestor will often have taken days ortask in hand. Early in a relationship between

weeks to understand the invention, and theira search requestor and a searcher, there is amind will be full of alternative developments

common tendency to either micro-manage (notand an awareness of how the research hasgive the searcher the authority and freedom

developed to its present state. By contrast,

to follow their own skills and experience) or

the searcher is generally unaware of all thisto fail to maintain any level of interaction

background information when the enquiry(a total “hands-off” approach).

first arrives. In understanding the context of

extreme is helpful, since they represent a

Neither

102

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

102

2016/10/26

19:59:34

misunderstanding of the complementary

effort made to review the wider world of

nature of the roles of the team members, andinformation, and to invest the time and effort

can lead to conflict at worst, or inefficiencies

needed in order to establish whether new

in searching at best.

tools can – or should – be incorporated into
existing working practices. After a period, if

Information retrieval teams, especially withina searcher persists in using only the familiar

industry, may be administered as part of thepractices from 5-10 years ago, their efficiency

common services departments, supplying day-in delivering appropriate results will drop.

to-day consumables to assist the smoothrunning of the organisation. This can lead

COMMUNICATION AS A KEY

to the mentality amongst the searchers that

4 TO IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

they are not entitled to any freedom to vary

If we start to recognise any of the signs

their function – they exist in a wholly re-active

outlined above, they can act as a warning that

relationship to their customers, and never takeour search operation is becoming less efficient.

a pro-active stance in providing information.

In order to tackle this problem, we need to ask

This can inhibit even the best searcher

ourselves – “Is there any common factor leadingfrom trying out alternative approaches to a

to the development of these problems?”

search, even when their past experience iswould suggest that there is a major common

strongly indicating to them that there may

factor, which can be summed up in one word

be a better (more efficient) way of getting to– communication. In my experience, a search

the desired results. This is related to points

department (or an individual searcher) will be at(b) and (f) above; it is important for the overall

their most efficient when they can perform theirefficiency of searching within the enterprise,

job in an atmosphere where there isthat the professional searchers feel that they

• a set of common and mutually understood

have sufficient authority within the working
relationship to undertake autonomous actions(try out alternative methods). The searcher
should not have to refer back constantly tothe requestor and seek permission to modify

I2

検索の高効率化と精度向上

g) The ‘customer is always right’ syndrome.

objectives, both long- and short-term,• a clear definition of the role of each person in
the search process, and• mutual respect for the complementary skill
sets across the team members.

the approach to the task.
wider

Let us consider how the application of thesedevelopments in information science. In theprinciples can work out in practice, in threepresent era, there can be little excuse for the

hypothetical situations:professional searcher to be unaware of newa)		 an industrial information unit conducting

tools or techniques being launched. However,patent searches in support of in-house patent

it is also easy to become over-comfortable

attorneys,h)		 L a c kofawarenessofthewith established working methods, and useb)		 a private-sector search firm conducting

administrative or budgetary excuses to

outsourced searches on behalf of a range

prevent change in working practices. One ofof inventor clients (both corporate andthe major sources of inefficiency developing

individual), andwithin a search group is that there is noc)		 dedicated staff within a national patent

YEAR BOOK 2O16 103

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

103

2016/10/26

19:59:35

office or authorised agency, conducting

is to establish an agreed set of objectives forstatutory searches on newly-filed patent

overall information services. These objectives

applications.

then provide the basis for all parties to agree
on the tasks and the persons.

In order to

How does good communication contributedefine the objectives, there must be constant

to high efficiency in each of these different

and detailed communication between all parts

environments?

of the organisation.

If a combined group of

researchers, attorneys and searchers have a

THREE SHORT EXAMPLES OF

5 COMMUNICATION

common understanding of the overall objectives,

In the first example, we commonly findappropriate task is in fact not to conduct athat industrial search specialists are undersearch at all, or to conduct a different search topressure from the increasing popularity ofthe one which was originally under discussion.

‘end-user searches’ .

The end result is less waste of resources, which

As search engines

have become more ‘friendly’ and accessible

it may result in a decision that the mostequals greater efficiency!

directly to researchers rather than throughintermediaries, it has often triggered a debate

In our second example, the searchers working

within the organisation about whether there isin the private sector, the biggest challenge isa role for the search specialist. Management

often being able to communicate in anything

may feel that the processes of search withinlike a direct fashion. Information specialists

the enterprise will be more ‘efficient’ if greater

working in this situation are the most vulnerable

numbers of search results are obtained forto mis-communication. Their work instructions

the same – or reduced – cost. If this situation

are the most open to suffering from “Chinesearises, it is necessary for all the parties

whispers” [2]. This is because the request may

concerned to have a detailed debate about

have passed through a long chain; from juniorstrategic objectives. Decisions which affectinventor to technical team leader, to patentindividual job roles should not be made purely on

liaison, to patent attorney, to outsourcing

the basis of tactical targets. Efficient operationaccount executive, to searcher.

of the search function consists in defining thehouse searchers, it can be very difficult for themost appropriate tasks (and corresponding

person who is going to conduct the search tomethods for completing them) which will

speak directly to the person who has made theenable the customer to make progress in theirinvention. The searcher is reliant upon what

research, and in allocating those tasks to thehas been transmitted to them, though multiple

most appropriate person(s) to carry them out.

mouths, and is hindered from taking any steps

Notice that this approach does not exclude

to clarify areas of ambiguity. In fact, some out-

the possibility of work-sharing (more than one

sourcing firms have a policy of preventing theperson being involved in the search process),

individual searcher from making contact withnor does it prohibit the possibility that thethe client, and ensuring that all communication

customer themselves may sometimes be theis directed through an account executive.

most appropriate person (or one of them). The

This may be an arrangement of administrative

key to good decisions about end-user searching

convenience (and arguably can improve some

Unlike in-

104

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

104

2016/10/26

19:59:35

of IP rights which are a fair and reasonable

service), but it can have a disastrous impact

recognition of the work of the inventor. The

on the efficiency of the conduct of an individual

search process should not be a bottle-neck insearch. In these circumstances, efficiency has

the course of prosecution, but neither should

been lost because there has been insufficient

it be an open door. Sometimes a patentability

understanding of the role of each person in the

search must be allowed to occupy more time

search process, and hence the needs whichthan ‘average’ . The patent office is under aneach person has, in order to carry out their

obligation to ensure that each new application

part in the process. The searcher has been

is fairly and rigorously examined against therelegated to the role of a machine, turning out

prior art. The search results are designed tosearch results to order like a production line, andhelp the examiner to take an informed andtheir inter-personal need – to interact with theequitable decision as to whether an invention

client – has been ignored. In this environment,

is worthy of the grant of a patent.

it is hardly surprising that the search process

invention is different. “Small” inventions are not

becomes inefficient; the most common output

necessarily quick to search; neither are “block-is a set of results which addresses an entirely

buster” inventions always more time-consuming.

different question to the one which the

The controlling factors in search should berequestor intended.

primarily based upon how far the new invention

Each

2

検索の高効率化と精度向上

aspects of the efficiency of the overall search/ technology diverges from any existing prior
The third example, searchers in an intellectual

art, and how obscure or difficult it is to identify

property office or dedicated search agency, canthe closest previous disclosures. Under these

illustrate the effects of poor communication

circumstances, I believe that the searcher mustupon the mutual respect within the enterprise.

be given the freedom to operate in the light

No-one disputes that most patent offices areof their experience, and not be constrained by

now operating under serious pressure, with ever-artificial time-based guidelines. If that freedom

increasing numbers of applications filed andis not granted, it implies that the enterprisewith industry demanding faster processing anddoes not actually regard the searcher as aearlier confirmation of their IP rights. A number

professional, nor trust them to conduct theirof patent offices have time-based guidelines forpart in the wider process to the best of their

their search examiners, limiting the number ofability. Once again, poor communication andhours which they can spend on searching eachpoor understanding of the role of search cancase.

lead to inefficient work practices.

If such guidelines are imposed rigidly

upon the searcher, it may lead to increased
throughput but it certainly leads ultimately todecreased efficiency. This is because a time-

6 SUMMARY

based approach to searching ignores theI have tried to illustrate in this article thatfact that an efficient search is one which isthe business of improving search efficiency

designed to ensure that the wider objectives

should not concentrate exclusively on theof the enterprise can be met, as well as the‘hard’ skill set of the searcher (knowledge ofimmediate request.

In the case of a patent

databases, understanding search techniques

office, that wider objective is the grantingetc.) but should also give attention to the ‘soft’

YEAR BOOK 2O16 105

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

105

2016/10/26

19:59:35

skills, notably the role of communication and

REFERENCES and NOTES:

relationships in the workplace. Many different[1] Belkin, Nicholas J. (1980). “Anomalous

industries and enterprises now wish to use

states of knowledge as a basis for information

patent information, for many different purposes.

retrieval.” The Canadian Journal of Information

An experienced patent searcher can make a

Science.” 5, 133-43.

valuable contribution in many of these work

[2] “Chinese whispers” is an English idiomatic

environments, but they will only be able toexpression, meaning that the content of aoperate at maximum efficiency if their function

message gets distorted as it passes from one

is recognised, and they in turn work alongsideperson to another, so that the final personcolleagues with complementary roles to play.

receives an entirely different instruction tothat sent out by the first person in the chain.

特許調査の効率向上─対人コミュニケーションの役割（抄録）Stephen Adams
１．はじめに場合である。顧客の必要期限に間に合わなければ、無駄「効率性」の概念は、産業や社会の歴史の中で異なるとなりうる。

点で、様々な方法で定義されている。特許検索プロセス

もう一つは、リソースの選択と検索履行の方法においの総資源（インプット）と結果（出力）を理解するためて不適切というリスクがあり非効率になりうる。以下に、には、我々は時間と労力だけでなく、特定の検索タスク

非効率の場合を示す。

を行うために費やされた予備検索と関連する全ての活a)		 データべ―スの選択が不適切な場合の非効率。

代動、例えば検索開始前におこなったこと、検索後の検索

行検索者が最も使い慣れてお気に入りのデータベース

結果分析とその報告まで含めて、全ての効率を考慮するだからという単なる理由で選んで履行する非効率。

必要がある。

b)		 既知の検索手順基準（SOP）を厳密に守り過ぎ、良く知っていないリソースと技術を調査するためのガ

２．効率は品質と同じではない
各検索はそれぞれにユニークであり、どのリソースを使い入力するか、結果の出力をどのように配信するかの両方の定義において、それぞれ異なっていて良い。

イドラインを学んでから調査することを回避する非効率。
c)		 検索の行為中の柔軟性の欠如。定義された依頼事項に関して問い合わせを慎重に行ってから検索するとい

各検索は、独自の組み込みの品質基準を有しており、うコミュニケーション対話を回避した場合の非効率。

また、効率的な方法で履行されることに独自の挑戦を提d)		 悪い初期のブリーフィング説明。簡単な説明では背示しても良い。

景情報の一般認識が不可能で、依頼者の発明内容を理解するのに数日または数週間もかかる非効率。

３．非効率の理解
非効率の明白な一つは、結果の配信の適時性を失ったe)		 必要な情報で依頼者が気づかないことは依頼時に表現されていない場合。依頼者が「何が必要情報か解かっ

106

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

106

2016/10/26

19:59:35

ていない状態」で依頼する非効率。

５．コミュニケーションのための３つの事例
事例１）エンドユーザー検索の人気が高まり、企業の検人のプロセスで行う過程で、連鎖のチームメンバーが索専門家が圧力を受けて自信を失いかけているケース

自分の役割を誤解して次のチームメンバーに伝え、全である。企業の組織内でのコミュニケーションは頻繁

体のチーム達成業務が落とし穴に導かれる非効率。

に行われるが、検索のプロセスよりも管理的な効率性g) 「顧客は常に正しい」症候群。代行検索者は日常的を強く感じ求められる場合に起こりうる。目的を定義に業務を繰り返すことに専念し、代替案も考えてみよするために組織内の全ての部分との間に一定かつ詳細

うという積極的な姿勢で情報提供に踏み込まない非効なコミュニケーションと同意が求められる。研究者・率。

弁理士・検索者の間では同意された検索しか全く行わh)		 情報科学の広義の発展のための気づきの欠如。新しれなくなる。また、最初に討議した内容とは全く別のいツールや新しい情報技術に平素から注目し、試し、検索を（同意したからといって）行うような結果にな慣れることが必要である。新しいツールと新しい情報

りうる場合が起きる。

技術を使って検索・分析しない非効率。
事例２）発明者・技術チームリーダー・特許リエゾン・

４．効率向上のためのキーとしてのコミュニ
ケーション

弁理士・予算管理執行者・検索者の連鎖業務において、管理上の便宜に配慮をし過ぎた場合である。最も一般

筆者の経験では、検索部門（または個々の検索者）が的な陥りやすい出力結果は、要求者が意図したものと最も効率的になったのは次の３つの原則ケースであっ全く別の質問に対処したような結果の解答セットになた。

りうることである。

2

検索の高効率化と精度向上

f)		 不完全な権限の委任。検索要求プロジェクトを複数

・長期と短期のプロジェクトの両方において、共通目標の相互理解が良い。
・連鎖する検索処理中の一人一人が、自分の役割の定義を明確に理解して履行している。
・チームメンバー間で補完的なスキルをお互いに蓄積するための相互尊重が守られている。

事例３）コミュニケーション不足と相互信頼の欠如の場合である。
		 知的財産事務所と専用の検索代理店の連携において、特許件数がかってないほど増加しており、処理を急がせ、特許権の早期確認確定を求めるあまりに、検索側に深刻な圧力が掛かる場合に起こる。そうすると、

前述の３つの原則がうまく適用されて、コミュニケー

１案件当たりの処理目標時間を設定するようになるとションが効率向上につながる３つの仮想的な状況を挙げ

か、目標処理時間内しか案件を調査しないようになる。

る。

検索の効率向上化の理想からすれば反対の行為で、極a)		 社内弁理士を支援して特許検索を行う企業内情報部

めて良くないことである。

b)		 発明のクライアントに代わりに、外部委託検索を行う民間サーチ会社

６．まとめc)		 新たに出願された特許出願の法定の検索を実施すべ

検索効率を向上させるビジネスは検索者の「ハード」

く、国内認定特許事務所または認定機関の中のスタッ

スキルセット（例えば、データベースの知識、検索技術

フの理解など）だけに集中するべきではない。むしろ、職場でのコミュニケーションとその相関関係の顕著な役割

これらの異なる環境のもとでの効率化に対して、良という「ソフト」に注意を払う必要があると指摘したい。

好なコミュニケーションはどの様に貢献しているだろう

経験豊富な特許検索者は、彼らのその機能役割が認められた場合には、これらの作業環境の下で多くの貴重なか。

貢献を同僚と補完しながら達成することができる。

YEAR BOOK 2O16 107

2016イヤーブック寄稿集-2.indb

107

2016/10/26

19:59:35