Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The novelty ‘sweet spot’ of invention

  • Yuejun He (a1) and Jianxi Luo (a1)
Abstract

Invention arises from novel combinations of prior technologies. However, prior studies of creativity have suggested that overly novel combinations may be harmful to invention. Apart from the factors of expertise, market, etc., there may be such a thing as ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ novelty that will determine an invention’s future value, but little empirical evidence exists in the literature. Using technical patents as the proxy of inventions, our analysis of 3.9 million patents identifies a clear ‘sweet spot’ in which the mix of novel combinations of prior technologies favors an invention’s eventual success. Specifically, we found that the invention categories with the highest mean values and hit rates have moderate novelty in the center of their combination space and high novelty in the extreme of their combination space. Too much or too little central novelty suppresses the positive contribution of extreme novelty in the invention. Furthermore, the combination of scientific and broader knowledge beyond patentable technologies creates additional value for invention and enlarges the advantage of the novelty sweet spot. These findings may further enable data-driven methods both for assessing invention novelty and for profiling inventors, and may inspire a new strand of data-driven design research and practice.

  • 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.

      The novelty ‘sweet spot’ of invention
      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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The novelty ‘sweet spot’ of invention
      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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The novelty ‘sweet spot’ of invention
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
References
Hide All
Alstott, J., Triulzi, G., Yan, B. & Luo, J. 2017a Inventors’ movements and performance across technology domains. Design Science; in press.
Alstott, J., Triulzi, G., Yan, B. & Luo, J. 2017b Mapping technology space by normalizing technology relatedness networks. Scientometrics 110, 443479.
Amabile, T. M. 1996 Creativity in Context: Update to ‘The Social Psychology of Creativity’. Westview Press.
Arthur, W. B. 2007 The structure of invention. Research Policy 36, 274287.
Basnet, S. & Magee, C. L. 2016 Modeling of technological performance trends using design theory. Design Science 2, e8.
Boden, M. A. 1996 Dimensions of Creativity. MIT Press.
Boschma, R., Heimeriks, G. & Balland, P.-A. 2014 Scientific knowledge dynamics and relatedness in biotech cities. Research Policy 43, 107114.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. & Malerba, F. 2003 Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy 32, 6987.
Brown, D. C. 2015 Computational design creativity evaluation. Design Computing and Cognition’14. Springer.
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.
Chan, J. & Schunn, C. 2015a The importance of iteration in creative conceptual combination. Cognition 145, 104115.
Chan, J. & Schunn, C. D. 2015b The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cognitive Science 39, 126155.
Fleming, L. 2001 Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47, 117132.
Fleming, L. 2007 Breakthroughs and the ‘long tail’ of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 49, 69.
Fleming, L. & Sorenson, O. 2004 Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal 25, 909928.
Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D. &  Law, K. 1995 MAC/FAC: a model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science 19, 141205.
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.
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. B. 1997 Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52, 45.
Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. 1980 Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 12, 306355.
Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C. & Ulrich, K. T. 2010 Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science 56, 591605.
Grace, K., Maher, M. L., Fisher, D. & Brady, K. 2015 Modeling expectation for evaluating surprise in design creativity. Design Computing and Cognition’14. Springer.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B. & Trajtenberg, M. 2000 Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B. & Trajtenberg, M. 2001 The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M. & Vopel, K. 1999 Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 511515.
He, Y. & Luo, J. 2017 Novelty, conventionality, and value of invention. Design Computing and Cognition’16. Springer.
Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M. 2010 Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 61, 569598.
Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. 2004 Hawking’s Haiku, Madonna’s math: why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house. In Creativity: From Potential to Realization (ed. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. & Singer, J. L.), pp. 319.
Kay, L., Newman, N., Youtie, J., Porter, A. L. & Rafols, I. 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, 8.
Lubart, T.1994. Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Luo, J. 2015 The united innovation process: integrating science, design, and entrepreneurship as sub-processes. Design Science 1, e2.
Luo, J. & Wood, K. L. 2017 The growing complexity in invention process. Research in Engineering Design 115.
Nickerson, J. V. 2015 Collective design: remixing and visibility. Design Computing and Cognition’14. Springer.
Oman, S. K., Tumer, I. Y., Wood, K. & Seepersad, C. 2013 A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Research in Engineering Design 24, 6592.
Rigby, D. L. 2015 Technological relatedness and knowledge space: entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies 49, 19221937.
Rothenberg, A. 1980 The emerging goddess: the creative process in art, science, and other fields. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39 (2), 206209.
Sarkar, P. & Chakrabarti, A.2007. Development of a method for assessing design creativity. Guidelines for a Decision Support Method Adapted to NPD Processes.
Simonton, D. K. 1999 Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry 10, 309328.
Simonton, D. K. 2000 Creativity: cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist 55, 151.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. 1996 Investing in creativity. American Psychologist 51, 677.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. 1999 The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. Handbook of Creativity 1, 315.
Trajtenberg, M. 1990 A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics 21 (1), 172187.
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. 2013 Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468472.
Ward, T. B. 2001 Creative cognition, conceptual combination, and the creative writing of Stephen R. Donaldson. American Psychologist 56, 350.
Weisberg, R. W. 2006 Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and The Arts. John Wiley & Sons.
Yan, B. & Luo, J. 2017 Measuring technological distance for patent mapping. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68, 423437.
Youn, H., Strumsky, D., Bettencourt, L. M. & Lobo, J. 2015 Invention as a combinatorial process: evidence from US patents. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12, 20150272.
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

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

He and Lou supplementary material
He and Lou supplementary material 1

 Unknown (3.6 MB)
3.6 MB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 41
Total number of PDF views: 206 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 437 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 7th November 2017 - 17th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.