IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v184y2022ics0040162522005352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Inchae
  • Triulzi, Giorgio
  • Magee, Christopher L.

Abstract

The emergence of new technologies is an important and highly researched field. This paper identifies characteristics of the early stage of technology emergence by analyzing the initial patents in five different technologies (Optical information storage, optical information transmission, genome sequencing, 3D printing and magnetic resonance imaging). From the science and technology push perspective, the characteristics such as influence of initial technological knowledge, linkage to scientific knowledge, and actors of technological activity are identified in the emerging stage of the new technology. The main findings of the research are firstly that technological and scientific knowledge are strongly linked in the emerging stage as the initial patents in all five technologies cite scientific papers more highly than do patents that support the ongoing development of the technologies. Second, the initial patents during the emerging stage do not play a significant role in the overall technological knowledge flow over time. Finally, the proportion of patents held by non-firm entities in the early stage of technology emergence is relatively larger than that in the other stages in four out of five technological domains. The results provide some important hypotheses about the interaction of scientific results and technological invention that have not previously been offered and that can be further researched as data sources improve.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:184:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522005352
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522005352
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2015. "Technology structural implications from the extension of a patent search method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 1965-1985, March.
    2. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    3. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    4. Taylor, Margaret, 2008. "Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California's solar policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2829-2854, November.
    5. Walsh, Vivien, 1984. "Invention and innovation in the chemical industry: Demand-pull or discovery-push?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 211-234, August.
    6. Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari & Bart Verspagen, 2009. "Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 311-336.
    7. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    8. Magee, C.L. & Basnet, S. & Funk, J.L. & Benson, C.L., 2016. "Quantitative empirical trends in technical performance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 237-246.
    9. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    10. Keith Pavitt, 1998. "Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 105-111, August.
    11. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    12. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel & Petra Andries & Edwin Zimmermann & Filip Deleus, 2002. "Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 399-420, July.
    13. Joung, Junegak & Kim, Kwangsoo, 2017. "Monitoring emerging technologies for technology planning using technical keyword based analysis from patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 281-292.
    14. Ying Huang & Donghua Zhu & Yue Qian & Yi Zhang & Alan L. Porter & Yuqin Liu & Ying Guo, 2017. "A hybrid method to trace technology evolution pathways: a case study of 3D printing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 185-204, April.
    15. Porter, Alan L. & Garner, Jon & Carley, Stephen F. & Newman, Nils C., 2019. "Emergence scoring to identify frontier R&D topics and key players," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 628-643.
    16. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    17. Cantner, Uwe & Graf, Holger & Herrmann, Johannes & Kalthaus, Martin, 2016. "Inventor networks in renewable energies: The influence of the policy mix in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1165-1184.
    18. Giada Di Stefano & Alfonso Gambardella & Gianmario Verona, 2012. "Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions," Post-Print hal-00696607, HAL.
    19. Ardito, Lorenzo & D'Adda, Diego & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2018. "Mapping innovation dynamics in the Internet of Things domain: Evidence from patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 317-330.
    20. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    21. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    22. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    23. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    24. Martinelli, Arianna, 2012. "An emerging paradigm or just another trajectory? Understanding the nature of technological changes using engineering heuristics in the telecommunications switching industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 414-429.
    25. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    26. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    27. Breitzman, Anthony & Thomas, Patrick, 2015. "The Emerging Clusters Model: A tool for identifying emerging technologies across multiple patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 195-205.
    28. Bhaven Sampat & Heidi L. Williams, 2019. "How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 203-236, January.
    29. Anita Elberse & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2003. "Demand and Supply Dynamics for Sequentially Released Products in International Markets: The Case of Motion Pictures," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 329-354.
    30. Frondel, Manuel & Ritter, Nolan & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Vance, Colin, 2010. "Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: The German experience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4048-4056, August.
    31. Bart Verspagen, 2007. "Mapping Technological Trajectories As Patent Citation Networks: A Study On The History Of Fuel Cell Research," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 93-115.
    32. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    33. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    34. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    35. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    36. Kleinknecht, Alfred & Verspagen, Bart, 1990. "Demand and innovation: Schmookler re-examined," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 387-394, August.
    37. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2013. "Erratum to: A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 83-83, July.
    38. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    39. Moehrle, Martin G. & Caferoglu, Hüseyin, 2019. "Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 776-784.
    40. Wang, Zhinan & Porter, Alan L. & Wang, Xuefeng & Carley, Stephen, 2019. "An approach to identify emergent topics of technological convergence: A case study for 3D printing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 723-732.
    41. Namgyoo K. Park & Uisung D. Park & Jeonghwan Lee, 2012. "Do the Performances of Innovative Firms Differ Depending on Market-oriented or Technology-oriented Strategies?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 391-414, July.
    42. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    43. Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
    44. Scherer, F M, 1982. "Demand-Pull and Technological Invention: Schmookler Revisited," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 225-237, March.
    45. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    46. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    47. Triulzi, Giorgio & Alstott, Jeff & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    48. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    49. Hyundo Choi, 2018. "Technology-push and demand-pull factors in emerging sectors: evidence from the electric vehicle market," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(7), pages 655-674, August.
    50. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2013. "A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 69-82, July.
    51. Stephen F. Carley & Nils C. Newman & Alan L. Porter & Jon G. Garner, 2018. "An indicator of technical emergence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 35-49, April.
    52. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Martini, Chiara & Pennacchio, Luca, 2015. "Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 577-595.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    2. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    3. Antonelli, Cristiano & Gehringer, Agnieszka, 2015. "Knowledge externalities and demand pull: The European evidence," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 608-631.
    4. Rogge, Karoline S. & Schleich, Joachim, 2018. "Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon innovation? A survey-based exploration of renewable power generation technologies in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1639-1654.
    5. Samant, Shantala & Thakur-Wernz, Pooja & Hatfield, Donald E., 2020. "Does the focus of renewable energy policy impact the nature of innovation? Evidence from emerging economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Antonelli Cristiano & Gehringer Agnieszka, 2013. "Demand pull and technological flows within innovation systems: the intra-European evidence," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201303, University of Turin.
    7. Huenteler, Joern & Ossenbrink, Jan & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "How a product’s design hierarchy shapes the evolution of technological knowledge—Evidence from patent-citation networks in wind power," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1195-1217.
    8. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    9. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    10. Nuñez-Jimenez, Alejandro & Knoeri, Christof & Hoppmann, Joern & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2022. "Beyond innovation and deployment: Modeling the impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies in Germany's solar policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    11. Wei Jin & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2014. "Explaining the Slow Pace of Energy Technological Innovation: Why Market Conditions Matter," CCEP Working Papers 1401, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    12. Xu, Haiyun & Winnink, Jos & Yue, Zenghui & Zhang, Huiling & Pang, Hongshen, 2021. "Multidimensional Scientometric indicators for the detection of emerging research topics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    13. Gnekpe, Christian & Plantec, Quentin, 2023. "Regulatory push-pull and technological knowledge dynamics of circular economy innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    15. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    16. Hoppmann, Joern & Wu, Geng & Johnson, Jillian, 2021. "The impact of demand-pull and technology-push policies on firms’ knowledge search," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Triulzi, Giorgio & Alstott, Jeff & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    19. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    20. Migliori, Stefania & De Massis, Alfredo & Maturo, Fabrizio & Paolone, Francesco, 2020. "How does family management affect innovation investment propensity? The key role of innovation impulses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 243-256.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:184:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522005352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.