Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
標題: Investigating Technological Innovation Capability by the use of patent-based indicators - A global comparison
作者: 林佳韻
Jia-Yun Lin
關鍵字: 科技創新能力;產業政策;專利指標;引證網路;知識流動;Technological innovation capability;Industrial policy;Patent indicator;Citation network;Knowledge flow
引用: Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069-1085. doi: Adcox, K., Adler, S., Afanasiev, S., Aidala, C., Ajitanand, N., Akiba, Y., . . . Aoki, K. (2005). Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus–nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX Collaboration. Nuclear Physics A, 757(1), 184-283. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701-728. Allred, B. B., & Park, W. G. (2007). The influence of patent protection on firm innovation investment in manufacturing industries. Journal of International Management, 13(2), 91-109. doi: Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905-917. Andersen, E. S. (1997). Neo-and post-Schumpeterian contributions to evolutionary economics. Reijnders (ed), 109-135. Annalee, S. (1994). Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128: Harvard University Press. Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. ResearchPolicy,16(2–4),131-141.doi: Belderbos, R. (2001). Overseas innovations by Japanese firms: an analysis of patent and subsidiary data. Research Policy, 30(2), 313-332. Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. (1992). Accumulating Technological Capability in Developing-Countries. World Bank Economic Review, 257-281. Bensman, S. J., & Wilder, S. J. (1998). Scientific and technical serials holdings optimization in an inefficient market: A LSU serials redesign project exercise. Library Resources & Technical Services, 42(3), 147-242. Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35(5), 655-672. doi: Bosworth, D., & Rogers, M. (2001). Market value, R&D and intellectual property: an empirical analysis of large Australian firms. Economic Record, 77(239), 323-337. Burns, J., Arias, C., Kostenyuk, I., & Obraztnova, M. (2000). 662 Molecular Mechanisms and Potential Control of Abscission in Horticultural Crops. HortScience, 35(3), 512-512. Chang, S.-C. (2005). The TFT–LCD industry in Taiwan: competitive advantages and future developments. Technology in Society, 27(2), 199-215. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.01.005 Chen, C., Cribbin, T., Macredie, R., & Morar, S. (2002). Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms: Two case studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(8), 678-689. Chen, Y.-T., Wang, M.-C., Ooi, S.-J., Liu, C.-C., Chiang, C.-Y., Tsai, W.-K., & Chau, S.-W. (2011). Comparison of auditory evoked potential index and clinical signs as indicator for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Acta Anaesthesiologica Taiwanica, 49(1), 3-6. doi: Chen, Z., & Guan, J. (2010). The impact of small world on innovation: An empirical study of 16 countries. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 97-106. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1). Czarnitzki, D., & Kraft, K. (2004). Innovation indicators and corporate credit ratings: evidence from German firms. Economics Letters, 82(3), 377-384. doi: de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (Vol. 27): Cambridge University Press. Deng, Z., Lev, B., & Narin, F. (1999). Science and technology as predictors of stock performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 20-32. Dosi, G., Fagiolo, G., Napoletano, M., & Roventini, A. (2013). Income distribution, credit and fiscal policies in an agent-based Keynesian model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37(8), 1598-1625. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., & Soete, L. L. (1988). Technical change and economic theory. Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. (2005). How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(5), 375-393. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics, 55(3), 349-361. Ellis, P., Hepburn, G., & Oppenhein, C. (1978). Studies on patent citation networks. Journal of Documentation, 34(1), 12-20. Ernst, H. (1998a). Industrial research as a source of important patents. Research Policy, 27(1), 1-15. doi: Ernst, H. (1998b). Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(4), 279-308. doi: Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World PatentInformation,25(3),233-242.doi: Ernst, H., & Omland, N. (2011). The Patent Asset Index–A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios. World Patent Information, 33(1), 34-41. Feinberg, S. E., & Gupta, A. K. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the assignment of R&D responsibilities to foreign subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8‐9), 823-845. Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. I. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6), 938-954. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Segregation in social networks. Sociological Methods & Research, 6(4), 411-429. Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 381-400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.005 Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity.ResearchPolicy,31(6),899-933.doi: Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 1360-1380. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent Statistics as Economic lndicators. Joumal _of Economic. Grindley, P. C., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Intellectual Capital. CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 39(2). Gu, S. (2001). Science and technology policy for development: China's experience in the second half of the twentieth century. Science Technology & Society, 6(1), 203-234. Guan, J., & Chen, Z. (2009). The technological system of Chinese manufacturing industry: A sectorial approach. China Economic Review, 20(4), 767-776. Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Research Policy, 30(8), 1253-1266. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365-1379. doi: Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? : National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2000). Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look. Han, Y.-J., & Park, Y. (2006). Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: The case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Information, 28(3), 235-247. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 82-111. Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and statistics, 81(3), 511-515. Helpman, E. (1992). Innovation, imitation, and intellectual property rights: National Bureau of Economic Research. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and statistics, 80(1), 119-127. Hicks, D., & Hegde, D. (2005). Highly innovative small firms in the markets for technology.ResearchPolicy,34(5),703-716.doi: Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2001). Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and U.S. firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9(1), 65-82. doi: Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91-107. doi: Hufker, T., & Alpert, F. (1994). Patents: a managerial perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3(4), 44-54. Jaeger, E. (2011). Technology sourcing and exploitation in the knowledge economy: The case of the Hybrid Electric Vehicles industry. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy: MIT press. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (2004). Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations'. INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF CRITICAL WRITINGS IN ECONOMICS, 179, 463-484. Jones, C. I. (1995). R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth.'. Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 759-784. Karki, M. M. S. (1997). Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool. World Patent Information,19(4),269-272.doi: Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea's technological learning: Harvard Business Press. Kline, S. J. (1985). Innovation is not a linear process. Research management, 28(4), 36-45. Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth, 275, 305. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. Kumaresan, N., & Miyazaki, K. (1999). An integrated network approach to systems of innovation—the case of robotics in Japan. Research Policy, 28(6), 563-585. doi: Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859-876. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00153-6 Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586-1598. doi: Layard, R., Layard, P. R. G., Nickell, S. J., & Jackman, R. (2005). Unemployment: macroeconomic performance and the labour market: Oxford University Press. Leoncini, R., Maggioni, M. A., & Montresor, S. (1996). Intersectoral innovation flows and national technological systems: network analysis for comparing Italy and Germany. Research Policy, 25(3), 415-430. Lewis, W. W. (2004). The power of productivity: Wealth, poverty, and the threat to global stability: University of Chicago Press. Li, X., Chen, H., Huang, Z., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3), 337-352. Lo, C. C. Cross-border trade-relevant patent dispute: Taiwanese cases in the United States Section 337 investigations. Lo Storto, C. (2006). A method based on patent analysis for the investigation of technological innovation strategies: The European medical prostheses industry. Technovation, 26(8), 932-942. Lucas Jr, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3-42. Ma, Z., & Lee, Y. (2008). Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980–2005. Technovation, 28(6), 379-390. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.011 Ma, Z., Lee, Y., & Chen, C.-F. P. (2009). Booming or emerging? China's technological capability and international collaboration in patent activities. Technological ForecastingandSocialChange,76(6),787-796.doi: Mariani, M. (2004). What determines technological hits?: Geography versus firm competencies.ResearchPolicy,33(10),1565-1582.doi: Meyer, M. (2002). Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems. Scientometrics, 54(2), 193-212. Mogee, M. E. (1991). Inward international licensing by US-based firms: Trends and implications. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 16(2), 14-19. Moors, A. (2003). Migrant domestic workers: Debating transnationalism, identity politics, and family relations. A review essay. Comparative studies in Society and History, 45(02), 386-394. Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30(1), 147-155. Narin, F. (1995). Patents as indicators for the evaluation of industrial research output. Scientometrics, 34(3), 489-496. Narin, F. (2000). Tech-line background paper. CHI Research, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ, downloadable at www. chiresearch. com. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2-4), 143-155. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1998). Linkage between patents and papers: An interim EPO/US comparison. Scientometrics, 41(1), 51-59. Nunn, H., & Oppenheim, C. (1980). A patent-journal citation network on prostaglandins. World Patent Information, 2(2), 57-60. Oecd, E. (2005). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD. (1971). Occupational and Educational Structures of the Labour Force and Levels of Economic Development: OECD. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R and D at the firm level: A first look: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA. Palagi, C. P., Trippe, B. T., Baker, C. H., & Nager, U. F. (2003). Filtered power connectors and methods thereof: US Patent 20,030,228,802. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1987). Is Western Europe losing the technological race? ResearchPolicy,16(2–4),59-85.doi: Penner‐Hahn, J., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 121-140. Piore, M. J. (1984). The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity: Basic books. Pleschak, F., & Sabisch, H. (1996). Innovationsmanagement: Schäffer-Poeschel. Podolny, J. M., Stuart, T. E., & Hannan, M. T. (1996). Networks, knowledge, and niches: Competition in the worldwide semiconductor industry, 1984-1991. American journal of sociology, 659-689. Porter, A. L., & Detampel, M. J. (1995). Technology opportunities analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 49(3), 237-255. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(95)00022-3 Reisner, P. (1963). A machine stored citation index to patent literature experimentation and planning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Automation and Scientific Communications Annual Meeting. Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6), 939-957. Reisinger, D. (2012). 'Worldwide smartphone user base hits 1 billion.' Retrieved June 20: 2013. Ryu, T. K., & Han, Y. J. (2012). Indicator for Evaluating National Patent Performance: Comparative Analysis among the 30 OECD Countries. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17, 103-110. Saxenian, A. (1994a). Lessons from silicon valley. TECHNOLOGY REVIEW-MANCHESTER NH-, 97, 42-42. Saxenian, A. (1994b). Silicon Valley versus Route 128. Inc, 16(2), 25-29. Scherer, F. M., & Weisburst, S. (1995). Economic effects of strengthening pharmaceutical patent protection in Italy. IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT LAW, 26(6), 1009-1024. Schmoch, U. (2008). Concept of a technology classification for country comparisons. Final report to the world intellectual property organisation (wipo), WIPO. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth (Vol. 26): Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA. Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756-770. Sirilli, G. (1991). The technological balance of payments as an indicator of technology transfer in OECD countries. The case of Italy. Technovation, 11(1), 3-25. doi: Smith, P. J. (1999). Are weak patent rights a barrier to U.S. exports? Journal of InternationalEconomics,48(1),151-177.doi: Solow, R. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Readings in Macroeconomics edited by MG Mueller, Hinsdale, 111, 323-336. Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994-1017. Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. (2000). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of Venture capital investments, Research Document, 49 pages. Sreekumar, T., & Parayil, G. (2002). Contentions and contradictions of tourism as development option: the case of Kerala, India. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 529-548. Suh, Y., & Kim, M.-S. (2012). Effects of SME collaboration on R&D in the service sector in open innovation. Innovation : Management, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 349-362. Suzuki, J., Gemba, K., Tamada, S., Yasaki, Y., & Goto, A. (2006). Analysis of propensity to patent and science-dependence of large Japanese manufacturers of electrical machinery. Scientometrics, 68(2), 265-288. Tether, B. S. (2005). Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European Innobarometer Survey. Industry & Innovation, 12(2), 153-184. Thompson, P. (2006). Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: evidence from inventor-and examiner-added citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 383-388. Tijssen, R. J. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30(1), 35-54. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). Economic analysis of product innovation: the case of CT scanners (Vol. 160): Harvard University Press. van Ophem, J., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Mohnen, P. (2002). The mutual relation between patents and R&D. Verspagen, B., & Schoenmakers, W. (2004). The spatial dimension of patenting by multinational firms in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(1), 23-42. Von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591-1607. Wang, H., & Chen, W.-R. (2010). Is firm-specific innovation associated with greater value appropriation? The roles of environmental dynamism and technological diversity.ResearchPolicy,39(1),141-154.doi: Wang, Y.-L., Huang, S., & Wu, Y.-C. J. (2012). Information technology innovation in India: The top 100 IT firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4), 700-708. doi: World Bank Group. (2010). Research and development expenditure [Data]. Retrieved June 30, 2014, from World Development Indicators (WDI) database. Zhang, X., Fang, S., Tang, C., Xiao, G., Hu, Z., & Gao, L. (2009). Study on indicator system for core patent documents evaluation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ISSI.
There has been a rapid change in technological innovation development since the past several decades. Understanding technological development trends, keeping advanced technologies and acquiring the most inimitable and appropriate technologies are pivotal elements for a country or an organization to maintain its technological innovation competitiveness. However, it is rather difficult to evaluate innovation capability as there is no straightforward way of direct measurement. Managers and policy makers can rely on simple indicators and social network theory to measure and evaluate national technological innovation capability in different industries, in order to understand 1) technological innovation trends and quality, 2) the technological innovation knowledge flow trajectories. This study reviews major works to build support and validate four patent indicators: number of patents (P), cites per patent (CPP), current impact index (CII), and technology strength(TS). Moreover, the citation relationship is used to observe knowledge flows for global industries and to benchmark technological innovation capability. In order to achieve this purpose, large-scale analysis on patents issued between 1976 and 2012 by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was conducted in this research. The obtained results emphasized the importance of patent quality and quantity for organizations and countries as a source of competitive advantage through technology exploitation and transfer. This result can be served as a roadmap for strategic planning and decision making regarding national science and technology development policy.

在過去的幾十年,科技創新發展持續轉變迅速。了解科技發展趨勢、保持領先技術和獲取獨有及適當的技術,已成為國家或組織保持科技創新競爭力的關鍵因素,但在過去並沒有直接且簡易的測量方法,以致於創新能力的評估相對困難。為了提供政策制定者有效衡量全球科技創新能力的方法,本文旨在選用簡易的指標、配合社會網絡理論衡量產業與國家的技術創新能力,以了解: 1) 科技創新趨勢和質量,和 2) 科技創新的知識流動軌跡。這篇文章的主要任務是驗證四項專利指標:專利數量 (P),平均專利被引證次數 (CPP),現行影響指數 (CII)和技術強度 (TS),並透過引證關係觀察全球產業知識流動情況與比較國家技術創新能力。為了達成研究目的,本研究分析美國專利資料庫從 1976 到 2012 年的專利資料。研究結果可以作為國家科學發展政策與組織策略規劃之參考。
其他識別: U0005-0106201510005200
Rights: 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務
Appears in Collections:科技管理研究所

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-103-7101026009-1.pdf2.93 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network   
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.