IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v121y2019i2d10.1007_s11192-019-03223-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structural decomposition of technological domain using patent co-classification and classification hierarchy

Author

Listed:
  • Changbae Mun

    (Hanyang University)

  • Sejun Yoon

    (Hanyang University)

  • Hyunseok Park

    (Hanyang University)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new method for decomposing a technological domain (TD). Specifically, the method identifies sub-TDs at the different levels of technological hierarchy within the TD based on the characteristics of patent co-classification and classification hierarchy. We defined the smallest class, named Minimum Overlapped Class (MOC), constructed by overlaps of sub-group IPC(s) and sub-class UPC(s), and sub-TD is basically identified as a set of the MOCs. In order to cluster the MOCs, technological distances among MOCs are calculated based on patent co-classification and hierarchical structure of patent classification systems. Technologically similar MOCs are grouped by using a hierarchical clustering and the identified clusters at the different level of hierarchy show the hierarchical structure of a TD. Detailed technological content for each sub-TD is represented by extracting representative keywords through a text-mining technique. The method is empirically tested by the solar photovoltaic technology and the results show that the identified sub-TDs are reasonably acceptable by qualitative analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Changbae Mun & Sejun Yoon & Hyunseok Park, 2019. "Structural decomposition of technological domain using patent co-classification and classification hierarchy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 633-652, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:121:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03223-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03223-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03223-8
    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/s11192-019-03223-8?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. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    3. 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.
    4. Yan Yan & Jiancheng Guan, 2018. "How multiple networks help in creating knowledge: evidence from alternative energy patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 51-77, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    7. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    8. Lybbert, Travis J. & Zolas, Nikolas J., 2014. "Getting patents and economic data to speak to each other: An ‘Algorithmic Links with Probabilities’ approach for joint analyses of patenting and economic activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 530-542.
    9. Ansgar Moeller & Martin G. Moehrle, 2015. "Completing keyword patent search with semantic patent search: introducing a semiautomatic iterative method for patent near search based on semantic similarities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 77-96, January.
    10. Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), 2011. "Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13391.
    11. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    12. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    13. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1987. "Patents, Citations and Innovations: Tracing the Links," NBER Working Papers 2457, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. 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.
    15. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2016. "Using Enhanced Patent Data for Future-Oriented Technology Analysis," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, in: Tugrul U. Daim & Denise Chiavetta & Alan L. Porter & Ozcan Saritas (ed.), Anticipating Future Innovation Pathways Through Large Data Analysis, chapter 0, pages 119-131, Springer.
    16. Lothar Walter & Alfred Radauer & Martin G. Moehrle, 2017. "The beauty of brimstone butterfly: novelty of patents identified by near environment analysis based on text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 103-115, April.
    17. von Wartburg, Iwan & Teichert, Thorsten & Rost, Katja, 2005. "Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1591-1607, December.
    18. Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2011. "Identifying rapidly evolving technological trends for R&D planning using SAO-based semantic patent networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 213-228, July.
    19. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 883-909, December.
    20. Mina, A. & Ramlogan, R. & Tampubolon, G. & Metcalfe, J.S., 2007. "Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 789-806, June.
    21. Subarna Basnet & Christopher L Magee, 2017. "Artifact interactions retard technological improvement: An empirical study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Xuefeng Wang & Pingping Ma & Ying Huang & Junfang Guo & Donghua Zhu & Alan L. Porter & Zhinan Wang, 2017. "Combining SAO semantic analysis and morphology analysis to identify technology opportunities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 3-24, April.
    25. 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.
    26. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lijie Feng & Yuxiang Niu & Zhenfeng Liu & Jinfeng Wang & Ke Zhang, 2019. "Discovering Technology Opportunity by Keyword-Based Patent Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Morphology Analysis and USIT," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-35, December.
    2. Mun, Changbae & Yoon, Sejun & Raghavan, Nagarajan & Hwang, Dongwook & Basnet, Subarna & Park, Hyunseok, 2021. "Function score-based technological trend analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Chie Hoon Song, 2021. "Exploring and Predicting the Knowledge Development in the Field of Energy Storage: Evidence from the Emerging Startup Landscape," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Aaldering, Lukas Jan & Song, Chie Hoon, 2021. "Of leaders and laggards - Towards digitalization of the process industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    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. Donghyun You & Hyunseok Park, 2018. "Developmental Trajectories in Electrical Steel Technology Using Patent Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Mun, Changbae & Yoon, Sejun & Raghavan, Nagarajan & Hwang, Dongwook & Basnet, Subarna & Park, Hyunseok, 2021. "Function score-based technological trend analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Sandro Montresor & Gianluca Orsatti & Francesco Quatraro, 2023. "Technological novelty and key enabling technologies: evidence from European regions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 851-872, August.
    8. Higham, Kyle & Contisciani, Martina & De Bacco, Caterina, 2022. "Multilayer patent citation networks: A comprehensive analytical framework for studying explicit technological relationships," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Martin Ho & Henry CW Price & Tim S Evans & Eoin O'Sullivan, 2023. "Order in Innovation," Papers 2302.13076, arXiv.org.
    10. Feng, Sida & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Technological development of key domains in electric vehicles: Improvement rates, technology trajectories and key assignees," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    11. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    12. Arianna Martinelli & Önder Nomaler, 2014. "Measuring knowledge persistence: a genetic approach to patent citation networks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 623-652, July.
    13. Qu, Guannan & Chen, Jin & Zhang, Ruhao & Wang, Luyao & Yang, Yayu, 2023. "Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. P. G. J. Persoon & R. N. A. Bekkers & F. Alkemade, 2020. "How cumulative is technological knowledge?," Papers 2012.00095, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    15. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2020. "Ties that matter: The impact of alliance partner knowledge recombination novelty on knowledge utilization in R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    16. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    17. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    18. Lai, Kuei-Kuei & Chen, Yu-Long & Kumar, Vimal & Daim, Tugrul & Verma, Pratima & Kao, Fang-Chen & Liu, Ruirong, 2023. "Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: A case study of E-payment technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    19. Niemann, Helen & Moehrle, Martin G. & Frischkorn, Jonas, 2017. "Use of a new patent text-mining and visualization method for identifying patenting patterns over time: Concept, method and test application," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 210-220.
    20. 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.

    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:121:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03223-8. 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.