Corporate Activities in Speech Recognition and Natural Language: Another "New Science"-Based Technology

Abstract

We have used data on patents and publications, and from an Internet-based survey, to analyse corporate technological activities in Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies. Two distinct clusters of firms exist: large firms mainly in telecommunications, desktop computing and consumer electronics; and small firms specialising in speech technologies. The small specialised firms depend heavily on nearby universities and public research institutes and, to some extent, on nearby large firms; their relations with the large firms are complementary as well as competitive. Similar patterns can be observed in other, recently emerging, "new science"-based technologies. Integration between ASR and NLP has so far been weak with the two research communities functioning more or less independently, with the former progressing more rapidly than the latter. Having built technological capabilities in ASR and NLP with a small proportion of their corporate technological resources, the large firms have two options depending on the rate of progress in these technologies (especially NLP) in the future. If it is high, substantial investments (including those in complementary technologies) could open up massive market opportunities. If it is low, modest investments will allow the exploitation of niche markets.

Faculty support for the objectives of university–industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity

“…It is of particular interest since some authors have challenged it on several occasions. For instance, Mahdi and Pavitt (1997) and Koumpis and Pavitt (1999) find that increasing R&D cooperation in speech recognition and computational chemistry is a spontaneous phenomenon arising from technological opportunities.…”

Innovating routines in the business firm: what corporate tasks should they be accomplishing?

“…The rise began before the Bayh-Dole Act in biotechnology, suggesting that the increase has been opportunity-rather then incentivedriven. There have also been related increases in university-based spin-off firms, not only in biotechnology, but also in fields benefiting from improvements in large-scale data processing like speech recognition and computational chemistry (Mahdi and Pavitt, 1997;Koumpis and Pavitt, 2000).…”

Dynamic Marketing Capabilities in Science‐based Firms: an Exploratory Investigation of the Pharmaceutical Industry

“…Similarly, biotechnology firms are having problems delivering on their initial promise of launching many new products on the market in a reasonable period of time (Pisano, 2006). More generally, the enthusiasm for the so-called new sciences that seemed to provide fruitful, new avenues of value creation for both private and public institutions has cooled down in more recent years due to the high risk and high costs involved in innovation processes (Koumpis and Pavitt, 1999). Since it is publicly recognized that science-based firms are major contributors to the knowledge economy, all these examples highlight the need to better understand their actual strategies and sources of performance.…”