Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Inventors’ explorations across technology domains

  • Jeff Alstott (a1) (a2), Giorgio Triulzi (a1) (a3) (a4), Bowen Yan (a1) and Jianxi Luo (a1)
Abstract

Technologies are created through the collective efforts of individual inventors. Understanding inventors’ behaviors may thus enable predicting invention, guiding design efforts or improving technology policy. We examined data from 2.8 million inventors’ 3.9 million patents and found that most patents are created by ‘explorers’: inventors who move between different technology domains during their careers. We mapped the space of latent relatedness between technology domains and found explorers were 250 times more likely to enter technology domains that were highly related to the domains of their previous patents, compared to an unrelated domain. The great regularity of inventors’ behavior enabled accurate prediction of individual inventors’ future movements: a model trained on just 5 years of data predicted inventors’ explorations 30 years later with a log-loss below 0.01. Inventors entering their most related domains were associated with patenting up to 40% more in the new domain, but with reduced citations per patent. These findings may be instructive for inventors exploring design directions, and useful for organizations or governments in forecasting or directing technological change.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Inventors’ explorations across technology domains
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Inventors’ explorations across technology domains
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Inventors’ explorations across technology domains
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Corresponding author
Email address for correspondence: gtriulzi@mit.edu
Footnotes
Hide All

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Albert M. B., Avery D., Narin F. & McAllister P. 1991 Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy 20, 251259.
Alcácer J. & Gittelman M. 2006 Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: the influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics 88, 774779.
Alstott J., Triulzi G., Yan B. & Luo J. 2017 Mapping technology space by normalizing patent networks. Scientometrics 110 (1), 443479.
Arthur W. B. 2009 The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, p. 256. Simon and Schuster.
Börner K., Contractor N., Falk-Krzesinski H. J., Fiore S. M., Hall K. L., Keyton J., Spring B., Stokols D., Trochim W. & Uzzi B. 2010 A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine 2, 49cm24–49cm24.
Bottazzi G. & Pirino D.2010 Measuring Industry Relatedness and Corporate Coherence. Working Paper 2010/10 (LEM).
Breschi S., Lissoni F. & Malerba F. 2003 Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy 32, 6987.
Brockmann D., Hufnagel L. & Geisel T. 2006 The scaling laws of human travel. Nature 439, 462465.
Carpenter B., Gelman A., Hoffman M., Lee D., Goodrich B., Betancourt M., Brubaker M. A., Guo J., Li P. & Riddell A.2016 Stan: a probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software (in press).
Castaldi C., Frenken K. & Los B. 2015 Related variety, unrelated variety and technological breakthroughs: an analysis of US State-level patenting. Regional Studies 49, 767781.
Chan J., Dow S. P. & Schunn C. D. 2015 Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration? Design Studies 36, 3158.
Chan J., Fu K., Schunn C., Cagan J., Wood K. & Kotovsky K. 2011 On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design 133, 081004.
Chu-Shore J., Westover M. B. & Bianchi M. T. 2010 Power law versus exponential state transition dynamics: application to sleep-wake architecture. PLoS ONE 5, e14204.
Clough G. W. 2004 The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. National Academies Press.
Conti R., Gambardella A. & Mariani M. 2013 Learning to be Edison: inventors, organizations, and breakthrough inventions. Organization Science 25, 833849.
Criscuolo P. & Verspagen B.2008 Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor versus examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, Special section knowledge dynamics out of balance: knowledge biased, skewed and unmatched 37, 1892–1908.
Della Malva A. & Riccaboni M.‘(Un)Conventional Combinations: At the Origins of Breakthrough Inventions’, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2610562 (Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, 2014).
Deville P., Song C., Eagle N., Blondel V. D., Barabási A.-L. & Wang D. 2016 Scaling identity connects human mobility and social interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 70477052.
Fiore S. M. 2008 Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research 39, 251277.
Fleming L. 2001 Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47, 117132.
Fleming L. & Waguespack D. M. 2007 Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science 18, 165180.
Frenken K., Van Oort F. & Verburg T. 2007 Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies 41, 685697.
Fu K., Cagan J., Kotovsky K. & Wood K. 2013 Discovering structure in design databases through functional and surface based mapping. Journal of Mechanical Design 135, 031006.
Fu K., Chan J., Cagan J., Kotovsky K., Schunn C. & Wood K. 2013 The meaning of ‘near’ and ‘far’: the impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Journal of Mechanical Design 135, 021007.
Fu K., Murphy J., Yang M., Otto K., Jensen D. & Wood K. 2015 Design-by-analogy: experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation improvement. Research in Engineering Design 26, 7795.
Gambardella A., Harhoff D. & Verspagen B. 2008 The value of European patents. European Management Review 5, 6984.
Gentner D. & Markman A. B. 1997 Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52 (1), 4556.
Hall B., Jaffe A. & Trajtenberg M.2000 Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look. NBER Working Paper 7741 (National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc).
Hall B. H. & Ziedonis R. H. 2001 The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. The RAND Journal of Economics 32, 101128.
Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F. M. & Vopel K. 1999 Citation frequency the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 511515.
Hatchuel A., Le Masson P. & Weil B.2004. CK theory in practice: lessons from industrial applications. Presented at the DS 32: Proceedings of DESIGN 2004, the 8th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Hatchuel A. & Weil B. Presented at the DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.
Hatchuel A. & Weil B. 2009 CK design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design 19, 181.
Hidalgo C. A., Klinger B., Barabási A.-L. & Hausmann R. 2007 The product space conditions the development of nations. Science 317, 482487.
‘Interdisciplinarity in Research’ (European Research Advisory Board (EURAB), 2004).
Jaffe A. B. & de Rassenfosse G.2016 Patent Citation Data in Social Science Research: Overview and Best Practices. Working Paper 21868 (National Bureau of Economic Research).
Jaffe A. B. & Trajtenberg M. 2002 Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy, p. 502. MIT Press.
Kay L., Newman N., Youtie J. & Porter A. L. 2014 Patent overlay mapping: visualizing technological distance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 24322443.
Kim D., Cerigo D. B., Jeong H. & Youn H. 2016 Technological novelty profile and invention’s future impact. EPJ Data Science 5.
Lafond F. & Kim D.2017 Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system. arXiv:1703.02104 (q-fin).
Leten B., Belderbos R. & Van Looy B. 2007 Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24, 567579.
Leydesdorff L., Kushnir D. & Rafols I. 2014 Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on international patent classification (IPC). Scientometrics 98, 15831599.
Li G.-C., Lai R., D’Amour A., Doolin D. M., Sun Y., Torvik V. I., Yu A. Z. & Fleming L. 2014 Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010). Research Policy 43, 941955.
Linsey J. S. 2007 Design-by-Analogy and Representation in Innovative Engineering Concept Generation. ProQuest.
Linsey J. S., Markman A. B. & Wood K. L. 2012 Design by analogy: a study of the wordtree method for problem re-representation. Journal of Mechanical Design 134, 041009.
Masson P. L., Hatchuel A., Kokshagina O. & Weil B. 2017 Designing techniques for systemic impact: lessons from C-K theory and matroid structures. Research in Engineering Design 28, 275298.
McAdams D. A. & Wood K. L. 2002 A quantitative similarity metric for design-by-analogy. Transactions-American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Mechanical Design 124, 173182.
Monath N. & McCallum A.2015 Discriminative Hierarchical Coreference for Inventor Disambiguation, Alexandria, VA. Presented at the PatentsView Inventor Disambiguation Technical Workshop, USPTO, Alexandria VA, 2015.
Neffke F. & Henning M. 2013 Skill relatedness and firm diversification. Strategic Management Journal 34, 297316.
Neffke F., Henning M. & Boschma R. 2011 How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography 87, 237265.
Nooteboom B. 2000 Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. OUP.
Nooteboom B., Van Haverbeke W., Duysters G., Gilsing V. & van den Oord A. 2007 Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy 36, 10161034.
Olson S. & Dahlberg M. 2013 Trends in the Innovation Ecosystem: Can Past Successes Help Inform Future Strategies? Summary of Two Workshops. National Academies Press.
Phene A., Fladmoe-Lindquist K. & Marsh L. 2006 Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal 27, 369388.
Reich Y. & Shai O. 2012 The interdisciplinary engineering knowledge genome. Research in Engineering Design 23, 251264.
Rigby D. L. 2015 Technological relatedness and knowledge space: entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies 49, 19221937.
Schoen A., Villard L., Laurens P., Cointet J.-p. & Heimeriks G.The network structure of technological developments; technological distance as a walk on the technology map. Presented at the Science & Technology Inidicators.
Shai O. & Reich Y. 2004 Infused design. I. Theory. Research in Engineering Design 15, 93107.
Tang V. & Luo J.2013 Idea matrix and creativity operators. Ds 75-7: proceedings of the 19th international conference on engineering design (iced13), design for harmonies, vol. 7: human behaviour in design, seoul, korea, 19-22.08. 2013.
Trajtenberg M. 1990 A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics 21, 172187.
Tseng I., Moss J., Cagan J. & Kotovsky K. 2008 The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design Studies 29, 203221.
Uzzi B., Mukherjee S., Stringer M. & Jones B. 2013 Atypical combinations scientific impact. Science 342, 468472.
Valverde S., Solé R. V., Bedau M. A. & Packard N. 2007 Topology and evolution of technology innovation networks. Physical Review E 76, 056118.
Verspagen B. 1997 Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: estimates from the European and US patent office databases. Economic Systems Research 9, 4765.
Weisberg R. W. 2006 Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts. John Wiley & Sons.
White H. D., Wellman B. & Nazer N. 2004 Does citation reflect social structure?: longitudinal evidence from the ‘Globenet’ interdisciplinary research group. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55, 111126.
Wilson J. O., Rosen D., Nelson B. A. & Yen J. 2010 The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies 31, 169186.
Wuchty S., Jones B. F. & Uzzi B. 2007 The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 10361039.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Design Science
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2053-4701
  • URL: /core/journals/design-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 61 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 113 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 6th November 2017 - 24th January 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.