Xác định cơ hội công nghệ tùy chỉnh dựa trên khả năng công nghệ của các doanh nghiệp vừa và nhỏ thông qua phân tích bằng sáng chế hai giai đoạn

Scientometrics - Tập 100 - Trang 227-244 - 2013
Yongho Lee1, So Young Kim2, Inseok Song2, Yongtae Park3, Juneseuk Shin4
1Department of Policy Research, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Taejon, Republic of Korea
2Department of Technology Opportunity Analysis, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Department of Industrial Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4Department of Systems Management Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Republic of Korea

Tóm tắt

Các doanh nghiệp vừa và nhỏ (SMEs) gặp khó khăn trong việc xác định các cơ hội công nghệ phù hợp trong bối cảnh hạn chế nghiêm trọng về khả năng và nguồn lực. Để giải quyết vấn đề này, chúng tôi đề xuất một phương pháp xác định các cơ hội công nghệ được tùy chỉnh theo các công nghệ hiện có và khả năng công nghệ của SMEs thông qua phân tích bằng sáng chế hai giai đoạn. Một bảng thuộc tính – ứng dụng công nghệ dựa trên chuyên gia cho phép xác định các cơ hội cơ bản thông qua việc ghép nhiều từ khóa. Ngoài ra, các cơ hội không truyền thống có thể được khám phá và xác định thông qua phân tích hành động – đối tượng lặp đi lặp lại của các bằng sáng chế. Phương pháp phân tích bằng sáng chế hai giai đoạn này cung cấp cho các nhà quản lý một cách để xác định các cơ hội công nghệ cụ thể, trong đó các công nghệ hiện có của họ có thể được sử dụng tối đa, từ đó giúp họ phát triển các chiến lược công nghệ.

Từ khóa

#doanh nghiệp vừa và nhỏ #cơ hội công nghệ #phân tích bằng sáng chế #khả năng công nghệ #chiến lược công nghệ

Tài liệu tham khảo

Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259. Bengisu, M., & Nekhili, R. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies with the aid of science and technology databases. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 835–844. Blackman, M. (1995). Provision of patent information: A national patent office perspective. World Patent Information, 17(2), 115–123. Cascini, G., Fantechi, A., & Spinicci, E. (2004). Natural language processing of patents and technical documentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3163, 508–520. Choi, S., Yoon, J., Kim, K., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, C. H. (2011). SAO network analysis of patents for technology trends identification: A case study of polymer electrolyte membrane technology in proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Scientometrics, 88(3), 863–883. Cozzens, S., Gatchair, S., Kang, J., Kim, K. S., Lee, H. J., Ordóñez, G., et al. (2010). Emerging technologies: Quantitative identification and measurement. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22, 361–376. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), 1892–1908. Daim, T., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8), 981–1012. Deerwester, S. C., Dumais, S. T., Landauer, T. K., Furnas, G. W., & Harshman, R. A. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 391–407. Durand, T. (2003). Twelve lessons from ‘Key Technologies 2005’: The French technology foresight exercise. Journal of Forecasting, 22, 161–177. Ernst, H. (2003). Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 25, 233–242. Gerken, J. M., & Moehrle, M. G. (2012). A new instrument for technology monitoring: Novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis. Scientometrics, 91(3), 645–670. Geum, Y., Jeon, J., & Seol, H. (2013). Identifying technological opportunities using the novelty detection technique: A case of laser technology in semiconductor manufacturing. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(1), 1–22. Ghemawat, P. (2003). The forgotten strategy. Harvard Business Online. Gruner, K. E., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38. Hausman, A. (2005). Innovativeness among small businesses: Theory and propositions for future research. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(8), 773–782. Heimeriks, G., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Emerging search regimes: Measuring co-evolutions among research, science, and society. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24(1), 51–67. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Johnston, R. (2006). Technology planning in major Asian countries: An analysis of recent foresight reports from China and India and comparison with Japan and Korea. Canberra: Australian Centre for Innovation. http://www.aciic.org.au/?page=77. Kerr, C. I. V., Mortara, L., & Probert, D. R. (2006). A conceptual model for technology intelligence. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 2(1), 73–93. Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185–205. Kostoff, R. (2001). Text mining using database tomography and bibliometrics: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 68(3), 223–253. Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. New York: Routledge. Lee, S., Lee, S., Seol, H., & Park, Y. (2008). Using patent information for designing new product and technology: Keyword based technology roadmapping. R&D Management, 38(2), 169–188. Lee, S., Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2009). An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation, 29(6–7), 481–497. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393–407. Moehrle, M. G., Walter, L., Geritz, A., & Müller, S. (2005). Patent-based inventor profiles as a basis for human resource decisions in research and development. R&D Management, 35(5), 513–524. Narin, F., Albert, M. B., & Smith, V. M. (1992). Strategic planning: Technology indicators in strategic planning. Science and Public Policy, 19(6), 369–381. Newbert, S., Walsh, S., Kirchhoff, B., & Chavez, V. (2006). Technology-driven entrepreneurship: Muddling through and succeeding with the second product. Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Growth, 3, 291–312. Nielsen, P. E. (2004). Evaluating patent portfolios: A Danish initiative. World Patent Information, 26, 143–148. Olsson, O. (2005). Technology opportunity and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 10, 35–57. Porter, A. L., & Cunningham, S. W. (2005). Tech mining: Exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage. New York: Wiley. Porter, A. L., & Detampel, M. J. (1995). Technology opportunities analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 49(3), 237–255. Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (2011). Mining external R&D. Technovation, 31(4), 171–176. Romano, C. A. (1990). Identifying factors which influence product innovation: A case study approach. Journal of Management Studies, 27(1), 75–95. Savioz, P., & Blum, M. (2002). Strategic forecast tool for SMEs: How the opportunity landscape interacts with business strategy to anticipate technological trends. Technovation, 22(2), 91–100. Savransky, S. D. (2000). Engineering of creativity: Introduction to TRIZ methodology of inventive problem solving. London: CRC Press. Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., Takeda, Y., & Matsushima, K. (2008). Detecting emerging research fronts based on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications. Technovation, 28(11), 758–775. Valk, T. Van Der, Moors, E., & Meeus, M. (2009). Conceptualizing patterns in the dynamics of emerging technologies: The case of biotechnology developments in the Netherlands. Technovation, 29, 247–264. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397–420. Wartburg, I. V., Teichert, T., & Rost, K. (2005). Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Research Policy, 34(10), 1591–1607. Xin, L., Jiwu, W., Lucheng, H., Jiang, L., & Jian, L. (2010). Empirical research on the technology opportunities analysis based on morphology analysis and conjoint analysis. Foresight, 12(2), 66–76. Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2011). Identifying rapidly evolving technological trends for R&D planning using SAO-based semantic patent networks. Scientometrics, 88(1), 213–228. Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2005). A systematic approach for identifying technology opportunities: Keyword-based morphology analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(2), 145–160. Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2007). Development of new technology forecasting algorithm: Hybrid approach for morphology analysis and conjoint analysis of patent information. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(3), 588–599. Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., Porter, A. L., Vicente Gomila, J. M., & Yan, A. (2013). Triple Helix innovation in China’s dye-sensitized solar cell industry: Hybrid methods with semantic TRIZ and technology roadmapping. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1090-9.