Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 1679–1697 | Cite as

A novel three-dimension perspective to explore technology evolution

  • Munan Li
Article

Abstract

In terms of technology evolution pathways, patents, articles and projects are the traditional analytical dimensions, particularly patent analysis. Analysis results based on traditional dimensions are used to present the evolutionary stage based on the theory of the technology life cycle (TLC). However, traditional TLC is insufficient to explain the inner driving force of technology evolution; instead, it just describes the process. Promoting ideality degree, one of evolutionary principles in the framework of Teoriya Resheniya Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch, is combined with patent and article analysis, and then a novel three-dimensional analytical method is introduced. In a case study with one curial material and novel technology, graphene attracted the attention of all types of organizations, but the development prospects of the graphene industry are not clear, and its potential abilities and applications should be deeply explored.

Keywords

Technology evolution Patent analysis Technology life cycle TRIZ Graphene 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is partly supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2013XMS03), the Soft Science Research Project (No. 2013B070206020); and Guangdong Province Key Laboratory Open Foundation (No. 2011A06090100101B).

References

  1. Allen, M. J., Tung, V. C., & Kaner, R. B. (2010). Honeycomb carbon: A review of graphene. Chemical Reviews, 110(1), 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Betancourt, Y., & Garcia-Silvente, M. (2014). An overview of iris recognition: A bibliometric analysis of the period 2000–2012. Scientometrics, 101(3), 2003–2033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur D. L. (1981). The strategic management of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Arundel, A., & Kabla, J. (1998). What percentage of innovation are patented? Experimental estimates in European firms. Research Policy, 27, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Ratha, A. (2008). S-curve at the industry level: Evidence from US–UK commodity trade. Empirical Economics, 35(1), 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, M. P. (2014). Grapping with graphene: The race to commercialization. Chemical Engineering, 121(6), 13–17.Google Scholar
  7. Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the documentation. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blau, J. (2013). Europe betting big on graphene. Research Technology Management, 56(4), 7–8.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, R. S. (1983). Patent trends as a technological forecasting tool. World Patent Information, 3, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carvalho, M. M., Fleury, A., & Lopes, A. P. (2013). An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 1418–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daim, T., Iskin, I., Li, X., et al. (2013). Patent analysis of wind energy technology using the patent alert system. World Patent Information, 34, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao, L., Porter, A. L., Wang, J., et al. (2013). Technology life cycle analysis method based on patent documents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 398–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geim, A. K. (2009). Graphene: Status and prospects. Science, 2009(324), 1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geum, Y., Lee, S., & Park, Y. (2014). Combining technology roadmap and system dynamics simulation to support scenario-planning: A case of car-sharing service. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 71(5), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W., & Zhou, P. (2011). Publication activity, citation impact and bi-links between publications and patents in biotechnology. Scientometrics, 86, 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gort, M., & Klepper, S. (1982). Time paths in the diffusion of product innovation. The Economic Journal, 92, 630–6531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haupt, R., Kloyer, M., & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang, C., Su, J., Xie, X., et al. (2015). A bibliometric study of China’s science and technology policies: 1949–2010. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1521–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang, L., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., et al. (2014). Four dimensional Science and Technology planning: A new approach based on bibliometrics and technology roadmapping. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 33, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Järvenpää, H. M., Mäkinen, S. J., & Seppänen, M. (2011). Patent and publishing activity sequence over a technology’s life cycle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeong, D.-H., & Song, M. (2014). Time gap analysis by the topic model-based temporal technique. Journal of informetrics, 8(3), 776–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, J., Kim, F., & Huang, J. (2010). Seeing graphene-based sheets. Master Today, 13(3), 28.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2013). The era of incremental change in the technology innovation life cycle: An analysis of the automotive emission control industry. Research Policy, 42, 1469–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, C., Jeon, J., & Park, Y. (2011). Monitoring trends of technological changes based on the dynamic patent lattice: A modified formal concept analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 690–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mochrle, M. G., & Lessing, H. (2004). Profiling technological competencies of companies: A case study based on the theory of inventive problem solving. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research Technology Management, 34, 43–49.Google Scholar
  28. Novoselov, K. S., Geim, A. K., Morozov, S. V., et al. (2004). Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science (Washington), 306(5696), 666–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park, Y., Lee, S., & Lee, S. (2012). Patent analysis for promoting technology transfer in multi-technology industries: The Korean aerospace industry case. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Park, H., Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2013). Using function-based patent analysis to identify potential application areas of technology for technology transfer. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 5260–5265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pei, R., & Porter, A. L. (2011). Profiling leading scientists in nanobiomedical science: Interdisciplinarity and potential leading indicators of research directions. R&D Management, 41(3), 288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Regazzoni, D., Rizzi, C., & Nani, R. (2011). A TRIZ-based approach to manage innovation and intellectual property. International Journal of Technology Management, 55(3–4), 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roessner, D., Porter, A. L., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013). Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs. Scientometrics, 94(2), 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sha, J., Zhao, Y., Luo, Y., & Zheng, J. (2013). Study on the trends of global graphene tech-innovation based on patent analysis. Materials Review, 27(8), 108–112.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, M., & Taylor, A. (2012). The technology life cycle: Conceptualization and managerial implications. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tenaglia, S., & Ventura, M. (2012). How to protect better intellectual property. European Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 393–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thatcher, M. E., & Oliver, J. R. (2001). The impact of technology investments on a firm’s production efficiency, product quality, and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(2), 17–45.Google Scholar
  38. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Zhang, F., & Xu, Y. (2007). Research on technical strategy for new product development based on TRIZ evolution theory. International Journal of Product Development, 4(1), 13–18.Google Scholar
  41. Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., & Porter, A. L. (2014). Triple Helix innovation in China’s dye-sensitized solar cell industry: Hybrid methods with semantic TRIZ and technology roadmapping. Scientometrics, 99(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhou, X., Zhang, Y., Porter, A. L., Guo, Y., et al. (2014). A patent analysis method to trace technology evolutionary pathways. Scientometrics, 100, 705–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations