IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v80y2013i3p398-407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology life cycle analysis method based on patent documents

Author

Listed:
  • Gao, Lidan
  • Porter, Alan L.
  • Wang, Jing
  • Fang, Shu
  • Zhang, Xian
  • Ma, Tingting
  • Wang, Wenping
  • Huang, Lu

Abstract

To estimate the future development of one technology and make decisions whether to invest in it or not, one needs to know the current stage of its technology life cycle (TLC). The dominant approach to analysing TLC uses the S-curve to observe patent applications over time. But using the patent application counts alone to represent the development of technology oversimplifies the situation. In this paper, we build a model to calculate the TLC for an object technology based on multiple patent-related indicators. The model includes the following steps: first, we focus on devising and assessing patent-based TLC indicators. Then we choose some technologies (training technologies) with identified life cycle stages, and finally compare the indicator features in training technologies with the indicator values in an object technology (test technology) using a nearest neighbour classifier, which is widely used in pattern recognition to measure the technology life cycle stage of the object technology. Such study can be used in management practice to enable technology observers to determine the current life cycle stage of a particular technology of interest and make their R&D strategy accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Gao, Lidan & Porter, Alan L. & Wang, Jing & Fang, Shu & Zhang, Xian & Ma, Tingting & Wang, Wenping & Huang, Lu, 2013. "Technology life cycle analysis method based on patent documents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 398-407.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:80:y:2013:i:3:p:398-407
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162512002478
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.003?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. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    3. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    4. M. Rader & A. L. Porter, 2008. "Fitting Future-Oriented Technology Analysis Methods to Study Types," Springer Books, in: Cristiano Cagnin & Michael Keenan & Ron Johnston & Fabiana Scapolo & Rémi Barré (ed.), Future-Oriented Technology Analysis, chapter 3, pages 25-40, Springer.
    5. Diana Hicks & Anthony Breitzman & Kimberly Hamilton & Francis Narin, 2000. "Research excellence and patented innovation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 310-320, October.
    6. Lee, Changyong & Cho, Yangrae & Seol, Hyeonju & Park, Yongtae, 2012. "A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 16-29.
    7. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    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. Yuan Zhou & Fang Dong & Yufei Liu & Liang Ran, 2021. "A deep learning framework to early identify emerging technologies in large-scale outlier patents: an empirical study of CNC machine tool," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 969-994, February.
    2. Lee, Changyong & Kwon, Ohjin & Kim, Myeongjung & Kwon, Daeil, 2018. "Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 291-303.
    3. Chung, Park & Sohn, So Young, 2020. "Early detection of valuable patents using a deep learning model: Case of semiconductor industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Serkan Altuntas & Zulfiye Erdogan & Turkay Dereli, 2020. "A clustering-based approach for the evaluation of candidate emerging technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1157-1177, August.
    5. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    6. Jang, Hyun Jin & Woo, Han-Gyun & Lee, Changyong, 2017. "Hawkes process-based technology impact analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 511-529.
    7. Ackermann, Malte & Brenner, Thomas & Lorenz, Steffi & Stephan, Michael, 2011. "Die Entwicklung der technologischen Wissensbasis in technologiegetriebenen Industrien am Beispiel der deutschen Solarindustrie: Eine empirische Analyse der Akteure und ihrer Herkunft," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 11-05, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    8. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    9. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    10. Changyong Lee & Gyumin Lee, 2019. "Technology opportunity analysis based on recombinant search: patent landscape analysis for idea generation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 603-632, November.
    11. Fischer, Timo & Leidinger, Jan, 2014. "Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 519-529.
    12. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    13. Yu-Shan Chen & Ke-Chiun Chang, 2009. "Using neural network to analyze the influence of the patent performance upon the market value of the US pharmaceutical companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 637-655, September.
    14. Lee, Changyong & Cho, Yangrae & Seol, Hyeonju & Park, Yongtae, 2012. "A stochastic patent citation analysis approach to assessing future technological impacts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 16-29.
    15. Lee, Changyong & Jeon, Daeseong & Ahn, Joon Mo & Kwon, Ohjin, 2020. "Navigating a product landscape for technology opportunity analysis: A word2vec approach using an integrated patent-product database," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    16. Bronwyn H. Hall & Grid Thoma & Salvatore Torrisi, 2009. "Financial Patenting in Europe," NBER Working Papers 14714, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Altuntas, Serkan & Dereli, Turkay & Kusiak, Andrew, 2015. "Analysis of patent documents with weighted association rules," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 249-262.
    18. Eun Han & So Sohn, 2015. "Patent valuation based on text mining and survival analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 821-839, October.
    19. Song, Kisik & Kim, Kyuwoong & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "Identifying promising technologies using patents: A retrospective feature analysis and a prospective needs analysis on outlier patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 118-132.
    20. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.

    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:80:y:2013:i:3:p:398-407. 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.