IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6153-d392346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multi-Class Classification Model for Technology Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Juhyun Lee

    (Department of Industrial Management Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Jiho Kang

    (Machine Learning Big Data Institute, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Sangsung Park

    (Department of Big Data and Statistics, Cheongju University, Chungbuk 28503, Korea)

  • Dongsik Jang

    (Department of Industrial Management Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Junseok Lee

    (MICUBE Solution, Seoul 06719, Korea)

Abstract

This paper proposes a multi-class classification model for technology evaluation (TE) using patent documents. TE is defined as converting technology quality to its present value; it supports efficient research and development using intellectual property rights–research & development (IP–R&D) and decision-making by companies. Through IP–R&D, companies create their patent portfolios and develop technology management strategies. They protect core patents and use those patents to cooperate with other companies. In modern society, as conversion technology has been rapidly developed, previous TE methods became difficult to apply to technology. This is because they relied on expert-based qualitative methods. Qualitative results are difficult to use to guarantee objectivity. Many previous studies have proposed models for evaluating technology based on patent data to address these limitations. However, those models can lose contextual information during the preprocessing of bibliographic information and require a lexical analyzer suitable for processing terminology in patents. This study uses a lexical analyzer produced using a deep learning structure to overcome this limitation. Furthermore, the proposed method uses quantitative information and bibliographic information of patents as explanatory variables and classifies the technology into multiple classes. The multi-class classification is conducted by sequentially evaluating the value of a technology. This method returns multiple classes in order, enabling class comparison. Moreover, it is model-agnostic, enabling diverse algorithms to be used. We conducted experiments using actual patent data to examine the practical applicability of the proposed methodology. Based on the experiment results, the proposed method was able to classify actual patents into an ordered multi-class. In addition, it was possible to guarantee the objectivity of the results. This is because our model used the information in the patent specification. Furthermore, the model using both quantitative and bibliographic information exhibited higher classification performance than the model using only quantitative information. Therefore, the proposed model can contribute to the sustainable growth of companies by classifying the value of technology into more detailed categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Juhyun Lee & Jiho Kang & Sangsung Park & Dongsik Jang & Junseok Lee, 2020. "A Multi-Class Classification Model for Technology Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6153-:d:392346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6153/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6153/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noh, Heeyong & Seo, Ju-Hwan & Sun Yoo, Hyoung & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "How to improve a technology evaluation model: A data-driven approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 72, pages 1-12.
    2. Daiho Uhm & Jea-Bok Ryu & Sunghae Jun, 2017. "An Interval Estimation Method of Patent Keyword Data for Sustainable Technology Forecasting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Jiho Kang & Junseok Lee & Dongsik Jang & Sangsung Park, 2019. "A Methodology of Partner Selection for Sustainable Industry-University Cooperation Based on LDA Topic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Kwon, Seokbeom & Drev, Matej, 2020. "Defensive Patent Aggregators as Shields against Patent Assertion Entities? Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Jacky Akoka & Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau, 2017. "A method for emerging technology evaluation. Application to Blockchain and smart data discovery," Post-Print hal-02374089, HAL.
    6. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    7. Jongchan Kim & Joonhyuck Lee & Gabjo Kim & Sangsung Park & Dongsik Jang, 2016. "A Hybrid Method of Analyzing Patents for Sustainable Technology Management in Humanoid Robot Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Scott Shane, 2002. "Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 122-137, January.
    9. Junseok Lee & Ji-Ho Kang & Sunghae Jun & Hyunwoong Lim & Dongsik Jang & Sangsung Park, 2018. "Ensemble Modeling for Sustainable Technology Transfer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    10. Jongchan Kim & Jaehyun Choi & Sangsung Park & Dongsik Jang, 2018. "Patent Keyword Extraction for Sustainable Technology Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    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. Chi-Yo Huang & Min-Jen Yang & Jeen-Fong Li & Hueiling Chen, 2021. "A DANP-Based NDEA-MOP Approach to Evaluating the Patent Commercialization Performance of Industry–Academic Collaborations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(18), pages 1-26, September.
    2. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    3. Ryan, Michael P., 2010. "Patent Incentives, Technology Markets, and Public-Private Bio-Medical Innovation Networks in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1082-1093, August.
    4. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    5. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," 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 275-314, Elsevier.
    6. Lee, Gyumin & Lee, Sungjun & Lee, Changyong, 2023. "Inventor–licensee matchmaking for university technology licensing: A fastText approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Yusuf, Shahid, 2008. "Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1167-1174, September.
    8. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2003. "Searching Low and High What Types of Firms use Universities as a Source of Innovation?," DRUID Working Papers 03-16, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    9. Katalin Erdős & Attila Varga, 2012. "The Academic Entrepreneur: Myth or Reality for Increased Regional growth in Europe?," Chapters, in: Marina van Geenhuizen & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), Creative Knowledge Cities, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Lee, Yoo Hwan & Graff, Gregory D., 2016. "Academic Knowledge Spillovers and the Role of Geographic Proximity in Regional Agriculture-related Sectors: The impact of agricultural research at Colorado State University on the Colorado economy, an," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Joel West, 2008. "Commercializing Open Science: Deep Space Communications as the Lead Market for Shannon Theory, 1960–73," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1506-1532, December.
    12. Scott A. Shane & Karl T. Ulrich, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Technological Innovation, Product Development, and Entrepreneurship in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 133-144, February.
    13. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2016. "Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 533-545.
    14. Buenstorf, Guido & Schacht, Alexander, 2013. "We need to talk – or do we? Geographic distance and the commercialization of technologies from public research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 465-480.
    15. Yuandi Wang & Die Hu & Weiping Li & Yiwei Li & Qiang Li, 2015. "Collaboration strategies and effects on university research: evidence from Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 725-749, May.
    16. Kenney, Martin, 2013. "Commercialization or Engagement: Which Is of More Significance to the U.S. Economy ?," ETLA Working Papers 13, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    17. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2010. "The Patenting Behavior of Academic Founders," EconStor Preprints 37083, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Todeva, Emanuela, 2013. "Governance of Innovation and Intermediation in Triple Helix Interactions," MPRA Paper 67612, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Baldini, Nicola, 2009. "Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1217-1224, October.
    20. Kyriakos Drivas & Andreas Panagopoulos & Stelios Rozakis, 2018. "Instigating entrepreneurship to a university in an adverse entrepreneurial landscape," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 966-985, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6153-:d:392346. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.