Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2107-y , 10.48550/arxiv.1509.07285 , 10.5281/zenodo.1237727 , 10.5281/zenodo.1237728
arXiv: 1509.07285
handle: 1721.1/106776
doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2107-y , 10.48550/arxiv.1509.07285 , 10.5281/zenodo.1237727 , 10.5281/zenodo.1237728
arXiv: 1509.07285
handle: 1721.1/106776
Technology is a complex system, with technologies relating to each other in a space that can be mapped as a network. The technology network's structure can reveal properties of technologies and of human behavior, if it can be mapped accurately. Technology networks have been made from patent data, using several measures of proximity. These measures, however, are influenced by factors of the patenting system that do not reflect technologies or their proximity. We introduce a method to precisely normalize out multiple impinging factors in patent data and extract the true signal of technological proximity, by comparing the empirical proximity measures with what they would be in random situations that remove the impinging factors. With this method, we created technology networks, using data from 3.9 million patents. After normalization, different measures of proximity became more correlated with each other, approaching a single dimension of technological proximity. The normalized technology networks were sparse, with few pairs of technology domains being significantly related. The normalized network corresponded with human behavior: we analyzed the patenting histories of 2.8 million inventors and found they were more likely to invent in two different technology domains if the pair was closely related in the technology network. We also analyzed 250 thousand firms' patents and found that, in contrast, firms' inventive activities were only modestly associated with the technology network; firms' portfolios combined pairs of technology domains about twice as often as inventors. These results suggest that controlling for impinging factors provides meaningful measures of technological proximity for patent-based mapping of the technology space, and that this map can be used to aid in technology innovation planning and management.
13 pages + 23 pages Appendix and SI
Social and Information Networks (cs.SI), FOS: Computer and information sciences, Physics - Physics and Society, Technology, Technology diversification, INNOVATION, COCITATION, FOS: Physical sciences, CITATIONS, Computer Science - Digital Libraries, Computer Science - Social and Information Networks, Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph), Invention, Technology Diversification, RELATEDNESS, COHERENCE, Digital Libraries (cs.DL), Networks, Patents
Social and Information Networks (cs.SI), FOS: Computer and information sciences, Physics - Physics and Society, Technology, Technology diversification, INNOVATION, COCITATION, FOS: Physical sciences, CITATIONS, Computer Science - Digital Libraries, Computer Science - Social and Information Networks, Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph), Invention, Technology Diversification, RELATEDNESS, COHERENCE, Digital Libraries (cs.DL), Networks, Patents
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 65 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
| views | 28 | |
| downloads | 97 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts