Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology – II: The multiple uses of technometric indicators

Abstract

Science and technology development have become critical instruments in the public policy arena given their demonstrated impact on economic progress. As a consequence, a wide array of indicators for measuring and mapping scientific and technological activity, their progress and their outcomes, has been developed over recent decades (see for instance, European Commission, 2nd Report on S&T Indicators, 1997). The majority of these indicators relate to measuring and mapping the published journal and patent literature. In the second part of this review, we focus on a state-of-the-art overview of patent indicators and their multiple uses in supporting the development of science and technology policy. We also discuss the limitations and the pitfalls related to their use.

Exploring the Coevolution of Design and Technology

“…We use longitudinal US patent application data as proxy for industrial evolution. To proxy technology developments on industry level we used utility patents (Debackere et al, 2002, Schmookler, 1966. This procedure has been often used in research, but has been also critized for a number of reasons (Agarwal, 1998, Debackere, Verbeek, Luwel andZimmermann, 2002).…”

“…To proxy technology developments on industry level we used utility patents (Debackere et al, 2002, Schmookler, 1966. This procedure has been often used in research, but has been also critized for a number of reasons (Agarwal, 1998, Debackere, Verbeek, Luwel andZimmermann, 2002). It has been argued that in different technology fields, industries and firms may differ in their patenting behaviors and cannot be compared directly.…”

“…Furthermore, it remains difficult to relate technologies directly to industries in which they are used. Yet various researchers point out that patents can -despite of the shortcomings -be regarded as valid indicators for technological change, as they are closely related to R&D output and are systematically available (Debackere, Verbeek, Luwel and Zimmermann, 2002). Following the same logic we use design patents as proxy for innovation in design: design patents are IP rights that relate to ornamental appearance or form (Rademaker, 2000).…”

A new model for measuring the impact of patent value growth trajectory

“…Such a knowledge stock affects the technological and economic values of patents (Bass and Kurgan, 2010). Much work has been conducted to reveal that knowledge stock positively changes patent value (Albert et al, 1991;Carpenter, Narin and Woolf, 1981;Chen, Lin and Huang, 2007;Debackere et al, 2002;Reitzig, 2004;Wang, 2007). Ulku (2007) asserted that the long-term growth rate of innovation is driven by the knowledge stock.…”

Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology

“…Each patent document is issued by an authorized government agency and grants the owner a monopoly over the exploitation of a precisely defined technological advancement or incremental improvement (i.e., new device, apparatus, or process) over a stated period of time, e.g., 20 years in the United States (Connolly and Hirschey 1988;Debackere et al 2002;Griliches 1990;Gupta 1999).…”