IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v110y2017i1d10.1007_s11192-016-2107-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping technology space by normalizing patent networks

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Alstott

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Singapore University of Technology and Design)

  • Giorgio Triulzi

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Singapore University of Technology and Design
    United Nations University - MERIT)

  • Bowen Yan

    (Singapore University of Technology and Design)

  • Jianxi Luo

    (Singapore University of Technology and Design)

Abstract

Technology is a complex system with technologies relating to each other in a space that can be mapped as a network. The technology network’s structure can reveal properties of technologies and of human behavior, if it can be mapped accurately. Technology networks have been made from patent data using several measures of proximity. These measures, however, are influenced by factors of the patenting system that do not reflect technologies or their proximity. We introduce a method to precisely normalize out multiple impinging factors in patent data and extract the true signal of technological proximity by comparing the empirical proximity measures with what they would be in random situations that remove the impinging factors. With this method, we created technology networks, using data from 3.9 million patents. After normalization, different measures of proximity became more correlated with each other, approaching a single dimension of technological proximity. The normalized technology networks were sparse, with few pairs of technology domains being significantly related. The normalized network corresponded with human behavior: We analyzed the patenting histories of 2.8 million inventors and found they were more likely to invent in two different technology domains if the pair was closely related in the technology network. We also analyzed the patents of 250,000 firms and found that, in contrast with inventors, firms’ inventive activities were only modestly associated with the technology network; firms’ portfolios combined pairs of technology domains about twice as often as inventors. These results suggest that controlling for impinging factors provides meaningful measures of technological proximity for patent-based mapping of the technology space, and that this map can be used to aid in technology innovation planning and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Alstott & Giorgio Triulzi & Bowen Yan & Jianxi Luo, 2017. "Mapping technology space by normalizing patent networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 443-479, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2107-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2107-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2107-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2107-y?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. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Duncan Kushnir & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1583-1599, March.
    3. Frank Neffke & Martin Svensson Henning, 2008. "Revealed Relatedness: Mapping Industry Space," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0819, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2008.
    4. Gerald Silverberg & Bart Verspagen, 2007. "Self-organization of R&D search in complex technology spaces," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 2(2), pages 211-229, December.
    5. Criscuolo, Paola & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1892-1908, December.
    6. Si Hyung Joo & Yeonbae Kim, 2010. "Measuring relatedness between technological fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 435-454, May.
    7. Nicholas Bloom & Mark Schankerman & John Van Reenen, 2013. "Identifying Technology Spillovers and Product Market Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1347-1393, July.
    8. Frenken, Koen, 2006. "A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 288-305, September.
    9. Saviotti, P P & Mani, G S, 1995. "Competition, Variety and Technological Evolution: A Replicator Dynamics Model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-392, December.
    10. Luciano Kay & Nils Newman & Jan Youtie & Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Patent overlay mapping: Visualizing technological distance," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(12), pages 2432-2443, December.
    11. Jaffe, Adam B., 1989. "Characterizing the "technological position" of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 87-97, April.
    12. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2009. "How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-001-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Giulio Bottazzi & Davide Pirino, 2010. "Measuring Industry Relatedness and Corporate Coherence," LEM Papers Series 2010/10, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2005. "A percolation model of innovation in complex technology spaces," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 225-244, January.
    15. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    16. David J. Bryce & Sidney G. Winter, 2009. "A General Interindustry Relatedness Index," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1570-1585, September.
    17. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(10), pages 1582-1597, August.
    18. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2008. "Innovation Systems as Patent Networks," Working Papers id:1651, eSocialSciences.
    19. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    20. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    21. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    22. Hong, Yili, 2013. "On computing the distribution function for the Poisson binomial distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 41-51.
    23. Li, Guan-Cheng & Lai, Ronald & D’Amour, Alexander & Doolin, David M. & Sun, Ye & Torvik, Vetle I. & Yu, Amy Z. & Fleming, Lee, 2014. "Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 941-955.
    24. David J. Teece & Richard Rumelt & Giovanni Dosi & Sidney Winter, 2000. "Understanding Corporate Coherence: Theory and Evidence," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 9, pages 264-293, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Hall, Bronwyn H & Ziedonis, Rosemarie Ham, 2001. "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 101-128, Spring.
    26. Engelsman, E. C. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1994. "A patent-based cartography of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-26, January.
    27. Bart Verspagen, 1997. "Estimating international technology spillovers using technology flow matrices," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 133(2), pages 226-248, June.
    28. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    29. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    30. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jong-Chan Kim & Jae Young Choi, 2015. "Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 841-871, September.
    31. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2009. "How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1635-1651, August.
    32. Matthew L. Wallace & Yves Gingras & Russell Duhon, 2009. "A new approach for detecting scientific specialties from raw cocitation networks," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(2), pages 240-246, February.
    33. Bart Verspagen, 1997. "Measuring Intersectoral Technology Spillovers: Estimates from the European and US Patent Office Databases," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 47-65.
    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. Francesco Lamperti & Franco Malerba & Roberto Mavilia & Giorgio Tripodi, 2019. "Does the Position in the Inter-sectoral Knowledge Space affect the International Competitiveness of Industries?," LEM Papers Series 2019/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    2. Fusillo, Fabrizio, 2020. "Are Green Inventions really more complex? Evidence from European Patents," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202002, University of Turin.
    3. Petralia, Sergio & Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Morrison, Andrea, 2017. "Climbing the ladder of technological development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 956-969.
    4. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 755-785, September.
    5. Stefano Basilico & Holger Graf, 2023. "Bridging technologies in the regional knowledge space: measurement and evolution," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1085-1124, September.
    6. Hofmann, Peter & Keller, Robert & Urbach, Nils, 2019. "Inter-technology relationship networks: Arranging technologies through text mining," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 202-213.
    7. Stephan, Annegret & Bening, Catharina R. & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Schwarz, Marius & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2019. "The role of inter-sectoral knowledge spillovers in technological innovations: The case of lithium-ion batteries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Aharonson, Barak S. & Schilling, Melissa A., 2016. "Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 81-96.
    9. Loet Leydesdorff & Dieter Franz Kogler & Bowen Yan, 2017. "Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1573-1591, September.
    10. Alessandra Colombelli & Francesco Quatraro, 2013. "New Firm Formation and the properties of local knowledge bases: Evidence from Italian NUTS 3 regions," Working Papers hal-00858989, HAL.
    11. Dieter F. Kogler & Jürgen Essletzbichler & David L. Rigby, 2017. "The evolution of specialization in the EU15 knowledge space," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 345-373.
    12. Dibiaggio, Ludovic & Nasiriyar, Maryam & Nesta, Lionel, 2014. "Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1582-1593.
    13. David H. Hsu & Kwanghui Lim, 2014. "Knowledge Brokering and Organizational Innovation: Founder Imprinting Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1134-1153, August.
    14. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    15. Katsuyuki Kaneko & Yuya Kajikawa, 2023. "Novelty Score and Technological Relatedness Measurement Using Patent Information in Mergers and Acquisitions: Case Study in the Japanese Electric Motor Industry," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(2), pages 163-177, June.
    16. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    17. Po‐Hsuan Hsu & Hai‐Ping Hui & Hsiao‐Hui Lee & Kevin Tseng, 2022. "Supply chain technology spillover, customer concentration, and product invention," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 393-417, April.
    18. Colombelli, Alessandra & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2013. "Properties of knowledge base and firm survival: Evidence from a sample of French manufacturing firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1469-1483.
    19. Manuel Castriotta & Maria Chiara Guardo, 2016. "Disentangling the automotive technology structure: a patent co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 819-837, May.
    20. Hain, Daniel S. & Jurowetzki, Roman & Buchmann, Tobias & Wolf, Patrick, 2022. "A text-embedding-based approach to measuring patent-to-patent technological similarity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    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:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2107-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.