Patent Data for Monitoring S&T Portfolios

  • Koenraad Debackere
  • Marc Luwel


This chapter deals with the use of patent data to monitor science and technology (S&T) portfolios. S&T portfolios have become central tools for examining and for monitoring the vitality of institutions, innovative clusters, and regions in the innovation game that underpins their respective economic growth and development. Those portfolios have to be monitored not only at the intra-organisational level, but also at the inter-organizational level, as well as at other appropriate levels of analysis for designated systems of innovation (e.g., specific technology clusters). To this end, the development of appropriate, easy to use and transparent, benchmark indicators to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of S&T portfolios is important. In this chapter the construction of a particular type of benchmark indicator, based on relative specialization indices, is reported and its usefulness is assessed by its application to the European Patent Database.


Portfolio Management European Patent Office Patent Data Regional Innovation System Target Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abernathy, W.J., Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelis, D.I. (2000). Capturing the option value of R&D. Research Technology Management, 43, No. 4: 31–34.Google Scholar
  3. Antonelli, C. (1995). The economics of localized technological change and industrial dynamics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Balassa (1961). An empirical demonstration of classical comparative cost theory. Review of Economics and Statistics, 4.Google Scholar
  5. Boer, F.P. (2000). Valuation of technology using real options. Research Technology Management, 43 (4), 26–30.Google Scholar
  6. Bone, S., Saxon, T. (2000). Developing effective technology strategies. Research Technology Management, 43, (4), 50–58.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995). Product development: past research, present findings and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343–378.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1997a). Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders — part I. Research Technology Management, 40 (5), 16–28.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1997b). Portfolio management in new product development: lessons from the leaders — part II. Research Technology Management, 40 (6), 43–52.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2000). New problems, new solutions: making portfolio management more effective. Research Technology Management, 43 (2), 18–33.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, R.G. (2001). Winning at New Products. Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Veugelers, R. (1999). Can technology lead to a competitive advantage? A case study of Flanders using European Patent data. Scientometrics, 44 (3), 379–400.Google Scholar
  13. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Soete, L. (1989). The economics of technological change. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Floyd, C. (1997). Managing technology for corporate success. Gower Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  15. Foster, R. (1986). Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. New York: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  16. Girifalco, L.A. (1991). Dynamics of technological change. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  17. Griliches, Z. (Ed.). (1984). R&D, patents and productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  19. Jägle, A. (1999). Shareholder value, real options, and innovation in technology-intensive companies. R&D Management, 29 (3), 271–287.Google Scholar
  20. Luwel, M., Noyons, E.C., Moed, H. F. (1999). Bibliometric assessment of research performance in Flanders: policy background and implications. R&D Management, 29 (2), 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martino, J.P. (1983). Technological forecasting for decision making. North Holland.Google Scholar
  22. McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C. (2000). Assessing technology projects using real options reasoning. Research Technology Management, 43 (4), 35–49.Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, M.H., Lehnerd, A.P. (1997). The power of product platform. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Narin, F., Noma, E., Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Narin, F., Rozek, R.P. (1988). Bibliometric analysis of US pharmaceutical industry research performance. Research Policy, 17, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Narin, F. (1997). Linkage between patents and papers: an interim EPO/US comparison. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  27. Nauwelaers, C. (2000). Towards a more interactive approach. Innovation & technology transfer. EC Publications, September: 12.Google Scholar
  28. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, A.L., Roper, A.T., Mason, T.W., Rossini, F.A., Banks, J. (1991). Forecasting and technology management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Perlitz, M., Peske, T., Schrank, R. (1999). Real options valuation: the new frontier in R&D project evaluation? R&D Management, 29 (3), 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roussel, P., Saad, K., Erickson, T. (1991). Third generation R&D — managing the link to corporate strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  32. Schmoch, U., Hinze, S., Kirsch, N. (1992). Analysis of the dynamic relationship between technical and economic performances in information and telecommunications sectors. Fraunhofer Institute, ISI-Report Series.Google Scholar
  33. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21 (1).Google Scholar
  34. Vlaams Indicatorenboek Wetenschap, Technologie en Innovatie (2003). Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U.Leuven.Google Scholar
  35. Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koenraad Debackere
    • 1
  • Marc Luwel
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculteit Economische en Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen, Steunpunt O&O StatistiekenK.U. LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Ministerie van de Vlaamse GemeenschapAWIBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations