Employee Invention Disclosures serve as a leading indicator of innovation within an organization, reflecting the effectiveness of R&D efforts and employee engagement.
High disclosure rates often correlate with improved financial health and operational efficiency, driving competitive positioning in the market.
By fostering a culture of creativity, companies can harness employee insights to develop new products and services, ultimately enhancing ROI metrics.
Tracking this KPI enables management to make data-driven decisions that align with strategic goals, ensuring resources are allocated effectively to maximize business outcomes.
High values in Employee Invention Disclosures indicate a vibrant culture of innovation, suggesting employees feel empowered to contribute ideas. Conversely, low values may signal disengagement or barriers to idea-sharing, which can stifle growth. Ideal targets should align with industry benchmarks and reflect a commitment to fostering creativity.
We have 17 relevant benchmarks in our benchmarks database.
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per US$100 million ATRE | range | mixed | university technology transfer offices | higher education technology transfer | cross-country |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per office FTE | average | mixed | FY2020 | institutions responding to the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activ | higher education technology transfer | Canada | 30 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per $10 million CAD research expenditures | average | mixed | FY2020 | institutions responding to the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activ | higher education technology transfer | Canada | 30 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | mixed | FY2020 | institutions responding to the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activ | higher education technology transfer | Canada | 30 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | HERD Group 6 ($150,000–$25,138,000 research expenditures) | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 8 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | HERD Group 5 ($25,138,000–$50,408,000 research expenditures) | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 14 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | HERD Group 4 ($50,408,000–$126,477,000 research expenditures | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 25 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | HERD Group 3 ($126,477,000–$264,216,000 research expenditure | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 44 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | HERD Group 2 ($264,216,000–$553,876,000 research expenditure | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 39 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | HERD Group 1 (>$553,876,000 research expenditures) | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 64 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures | average and median | mixed | 2022 | institutions (AUTM peer group comparison) | higher education technology transfer | United States | 194 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per $10 million research expenditures | average | mixed | FY2020 | institutions responding to the AUTM Licensing Survey | higher education technology transfer | United States | 197 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per office staff FTE | average | mixed | FY2020 | institutions responding to the AUTM Licensing Survey | higher education technology transfer | United States | 197 institutions |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per $10 million research funding | benchmark | mixed | last five years (through 2019) | institutions responding to the AUTM Licensing Survey | higher education technology transfer | United States |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per office staff FTE | benchmark | mixed | last five years (through 2019) | institutions responding to the AUTM Licensing Survey | higher education technology transfer | United States |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per $10 million research expenditures | benchmark | mixed | past five years | institutions responding to the AUTM Licensing Survey | higher education technology transfer | United States |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | disclosures per office staff FTE | benchmark | mixed | past five years | institutions responding to the AUTM Licensing Survey | higher education technology transfer | United States |
Many organizations overlook the importance of a structured process for submitting and evaluating invention disclosures, leading to missed opportunities for innovation.
Enhancing Employee Invention Disclosures requires a proactive approach to cultivate an innovative environment.
A mid-sized tech firm faced stagnation in its product pipeline, with Employee Invention Disclosures dropping to an all-time low. Recognizing the need for change, leadership initiated a campaign called "Innovate Together," aimed at revitalizing employee engagement in the innovation process. The campaign included workshops, brainstorming sessions, and an easy-to-navigate online portal for submissions.
Within 6 months, the number of disclosures surged by 150%, with several ideas progressing to prototype stages. Employees reported feeling more valued and connected to the company's mission, leading to a renewed sense of purpose. The firm also established a review panel to evaluate submissions, ensuring that promising ideas received the attention they deserved.
As a result, the company launched two new products within a year, generating an additional $5MM in revenue. The success of "Innovate Together" not only improved the disclosure rate but also enhanced overall employee morale and retention. This initiative demonstrated the tangible benefits of fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration.
This KPI is associated with the following categories and industries in our KPI database:
KPI Depot takes you from KPI intelligence to finished deliverable. Consultants, strategy teams, FP&A leaders, and analytics teams use it to answer the two hardest questions in performance management, what to measure and what the target should be, and then to produce the scorecard itself.
The difference is intelligence, not just data. Anyone can list metrics. Every KPI in KPI Depot carries 13 practical attributes, from formula and measurement approach to diagnostic questions, risk warnings, and Balanced Scorecard perspective, across 15 corporate functions and 153 industries. And every target you set is grounded in our database of 34,304 source-attributed benchmarks, each detailing metric value, company size, time period, industry, geography, sample size, and source. Benchmark data at this scale is otherwise the domain of research services costing thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
When your metrics are selected, KPI Depot finishes the job: export an interactive Strategy Map, a Balanced Scorecard with formulas and tracking columns, or a CSV KPI pack, and go from research to working deliverable in hours instead of weeks.
Formerly the Flevy KPI Library, KPI Depot is trusted by teams at organizations including Accenture, EY, IBM, PepsiCo, Samsung, and Vodafone.
Got a question? Email us at [email protected].
An Employee Invention Disclosure is a formal submission by an employee detailing a novel idea or invention. It serves as a mechanism for organizations to capture and evaluate innovative concepts that can drive business growth.
Encouraging disclosures can be achieved through clear communication about their importance and potential rewards. Implementing recognition programs and simplifying the submission process can significantly boost participation.
Once submitted, disclosures are typically reviewed by a designated panel or committee. This team evaluates the idea's feasibility, potential impact, and alignment with strategic goals before deciding on further development.
Yes, legal considerations such as intellectual property rights must be addressed. Organizations should have clear policies in place to protect both the employee's rights and the company's interests in any inventions.
Regular reviews of the disclosure process are essential, ideally on an annual basis. This ensures that the system remains efficient, relevant, and aligned with evolving business goals and employee needs.
Yes, many disclosures can lead to patent applications if the ideas meet the necessary criteria. Organizations often have processes in place to evaluate and pursue patents for viable inventions.
Each KPI in our knowledge base includes 13 attributes.
A clear explanation of what the KPI measures
The typical business insights we expect to gain through the tracking of this KPI
An outline of the approach or process followed to measure this KPI
The standard formula organizations use to calculate this KPI
Insights into how the KPI tends to evolve over time and what trends could indicate positive or negative performance shifts
Questions to ask to better understand your current position is for the KPI and how it can improve
Practical, actionable tips for improving the KPI, which might involve operational changes, strategic shifts, or tactical actions
Recommended charts or graphs that best represent the trends and patterns around the KPI for more effective reporting and decision-making
Potential risks or warnings signs that could indicate underlying issues that require immediate attention
Suggested tools, technologies, and software that can help in tracking and analyzing the KPI more effectively
How the KPI can be integrated with other business systems and processes for holistic strategic performance management
Explanation of how changes in the KPI can impact other KPIs and what kind of changes can be expected
NEW Mapping to a Balanced Scorecard perspective (financial, customer, internal process, learning & growth)