Advertisement

Technology opportunity analysis based on recombinant search: patent landscape analysis for idea generation

  • Changyong LeeEmail author
  • Gyumin Lee
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

This research responds to the need for the use of quantitative data and scientific methods for technology opportunity analysis by focusing on idea generation. Interpreting innovation as a process of recombinant search, we propose a patent landscape analysis to generate ideas which are likely to have more novelty and value than others. For this, first, a patent landscape is constructed from patent classification information as a vector space model, where each position represents a configuration of technological components and corresponds to an idea and, if they exist, relevant patented inventions. Second, the novelty of ideas is assessed via the modified local outlier factor based on the distribution of existing patented inventions on the landscape. Finally, the value of ideas is estimated via naïve Bayes models based on the forward citations of existing patented inventions. In addition, this study also investigates the recombinant synergies between different technological components and the relationships between novelty and value of ideas. A case study of pharmaceutical technology shows that our approach can guide organisations towards setting up effective search strategies for new technology development.

Keywords

Technology opportunity analysis Recombinant search Patent landscape analysis Idea generation Novelty Value Synergy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grants funded by the Korea Government (MSIP) (No. 2017R1C1B2011434).

References

  1. Aharonson, B. S., & Schilling, M. A. (2016). Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution. Research Policy, 45(1), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcacer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flow: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 774–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arts, S., Cassiman, B., & Gomez, J. C. (2018). Text matching to measure patent similarity. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 62–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arts, S., & Fleming, L. (2018). Paradise of novelty: Or loss of human capital? Exploring new fields and inventive output. Organization Science.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1216.Google Scholar
  5. Arts, S., & Veugelers, R. (2015). Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(6), 1215–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basalla, G. (1998). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Benner, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2008). Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity. Research Policy, 37, 1556–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Breitzman, A., & Thomas, P. (2015). The emerging clusters model: A tool for identifying emerging technologies across multiple patent systems. Research Policy, 44(1), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breunig, M. M., Kriegel, H. P., Ng, R. T., & Sander, J. (2000). LOF: Identifying density-based local outliers. ACM SIGMOD Record, 29(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaudhuri, S. (2005). The WTO and India’s Pharmaceuticals Industry: Patent protection, TRIPS, and developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, Y. S., & Chang, K. C. (2010). The relationship between a firm’s patent quality and its market value: The case of US pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 20–33.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34(5), 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8), 981–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25(3), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerken, J. M., & Moehrle, M. G. (2012). A new instrument for technology monitoring: Novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis. Scientometrics, 91, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.Google Scholar
  20. Harhoff, D., & Wagner, S. (2009). The duration of patent examination at the European Patent Office. Management Science, 55(12), 1969–1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoberg, G., & Phillips, G. (2010). Product market synergies and competition in mergers and acquisitions: A text-based analysis. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(10), 3773–3811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kim, H., Hong, S., Kwon, O., & Lee, C. (2017). Concentric diversification based on technological capabilities: Link analysis of products and technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, J., Kim, S., & Lee, C. (2019). Anticipating technological convergence: Link prediction using Wikipedia hyperlink. Technovation, 79, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2015). Patent databases for innovation studies: A comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 332–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, J., & Lee, C. (2017). Novelty-focused weak signal detection in futuristic data: Assessing the rarity and paradigm unrelatedness of signals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazarevic, A., Ertoz, L., Kumar, V., Ozgur, A., Srivastava, J. (2003). A comparative study of anomaly detection schemes in network intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the 2003 SIAM international conference on data mining (pp. 25–36).Google Scholar
  28. Lee, C., Cho, Y., Seol, H., & Park, Y. (2012). A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(1), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, C., Jeon, J., & Park, Y. (2011a). Monitoring trends of technological changes based on the dynamic patent lattice: A modified formal concept analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4), 690–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, C., Kang, B., & Shin, J. (2015). Novelty-focused patent mapping for technology opportunity analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, C., Kim, J., Noh, M., Woo, H. G., & Gang, K. (2017a). Patterns of technology life cycles: Stochastic analysis based on patent citations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 29(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, Y., Kim, S. Y., Song, I., Park, Y., & Shin, J. (2014). Technology opportunity identification customized to the technological capability of SMEs through two-stage patent analysis. Scientometrics, 100(1), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2017b). Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, C., & Lee, H. (2015). Novelty-focussed document mapping to identify new service opportunities. Service Industries Journal, 35(6), 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, M., & Lee, S. (2017). Identifying new business opportunities from competitor intelligence: An integrated use of patent and trademark databases. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 170–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2018). Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, H. J., Lee, S., & Yoon, B. (2011b). Technology clustering based on evolutionary patterns: The case of information and communications technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(6), 953–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, C., Park, H., & Park, Y. (2013a). Keeping abreast of technology-driven business model evolution: A dynamic patent analysis approach. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(5), 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, C., Song, B., & Park, Y. (2009a). Generation of new service concepts: A morphology analysis and genetic algorithm approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(10), 12454–12460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, C., Song, B., & Park, Y. (2013b). How to assess patent infringement risks: A semantic patent claim analysis using dependency relationships. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee, S., Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2009b). An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation, 29(6), 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND Journal of Economics, 25, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis, D. D. (1998). Naive (Bayes) at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. In European conference on machine learning (pp. 4–15).Google Scholar
  44. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Park, Y., & Yoon, J. (2017). Application technology opportunity discovery from technology portfolios: Use of patent classification and collaborative filtering. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 170–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenberg, N. (1979). Technological interdependence in the American economy. Technology and Culture, 20(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schilling, M. A., & Green, E. (2011). Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences. Research Policy, 40(10), 1321–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business cycles. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Son, C., Suh, Y., Jeon, J., & Park, Y. (2012). Development of a GTM-based patent map for identifying patent vacuums. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2489–2500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strumsky, D., & Lobo, J. (2015). Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention. Research Policy, 44(8), 1445–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tan, P. N. (2006). Introduction to data mining. Delhi: Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
  53. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Usher, A. (1954). A history of mechanical invention. Cambridge, MA: Dover.Google Scholar
  55. USPTO. (2006). Overview of the US patent classification system (USPC), electronic document at http://www.uspto.gov.
  56. Wang, X., Ma, P., Huang, Y., Guo, J., Zhu, D., Porter, A. L., et al. (2017). Combining SAO semantic analysis and morphology analysis to identify technology opportunities. Scientometrics, 111(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang, H. G., Wu, Z., Meng, F. L., Ma, D. L., Huang, X. L., Wang, L. M., et al. (2013). Nitrogen-doped porous carbon nanosheets as low-cost, high-performance anode material for sodium-ion batteries. Chemsuschem, 6(1), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woo, H. G., Yeom, J., & Lee, C. (2018). Screening early stage ideas in technology development processes: A text mining and k-nearest neighbours approach using patent information. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1523386.Google Scholar
  59. Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2012). Detecting signals of new technological opportunities using semantic patent analysis and outlier detection. Scientometrics, 90(2), 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2005). A systematic approach for identifying technology opportunities: Keyword-based morphology analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2007). Development of new technology forecasting algorithm: Hybrid approach for morphology analysis and conjoint analysis of patent information. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(3), 588–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yoon, J., Park, H., & Kim, K. (2013). Identifying technological competition trends for R&D planning using dynamic patent maps: SAO-based content analysis. Scientometrics, 94(1), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yoon, B., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2008). Morphology analysis for technology roadmapping: Application of text mining. R&D Management, 38(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yoon, B., Yoon, C., & Park, Y. (2002). On the development and application of a self–organizing feature map–based patent map. R&D Management, 32(4), 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management EngineeringUlsan National Institute of Science and TechnologyUlsanRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations