Patent data analysis of innovation behaviours in technology hardware & equipment industry
Download PDF | Download for mobile
Francesca Michelino1, Antonello Cammarano2, Emilia Lamberti3 and
1,2,4 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno,
3Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”,
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 316698, Journal of Innovation and Business Best Practice, 13 pages, DOI: 10.5171/2015.316698
Received date : 8 September 2014; Accepted date : 11 December 2014; Published date : 5 October 2015
Academic editor: Pedro Maia Malta
Cite this Article as: Francesca Michelino, Antonello Cammarano, Emilia Lamberti and Mauro Caputo (2015),"Patent data analysis of innovation behaviours in technology hardware & equipment industry", Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practice, Vol. 2015 (2015), Article ID 316698, DOI: 10.5171/2015.316698
Copyright © 2015. Francesca Michelino, Antonello Cammarano, Emilia Lamberti and Mauro Caputo. Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
The paper presents an analytical method to define innovation behaviours and technology strategies of companies using patent data.The framework can be used to: 1) analyse single innovation behaviours, 2) map innovation strategies defined as combinations of different innovation behaviours, and 3) describe the patterns of technological evolutions over time.The methodology is tested on a sample of 133 top research and development (R&D) companies belonging to technology hardware & equipment industry, by analysing their patents applied from 2008 to 2012. From the analysis of the behaviours, a preponderance of exploitation strategies that lead to radical outputs is detected. We also uncovered a growing adoption of open innovation and an increasing concentration of R&D efforts on radical outputs.
Keywords: Innovation strategies, exploration vs. exploitation, open innovation, radical vs. incremental innovation, patent data analysis.
patent data are widely used in literature as a measure of innovation, being the only formally and publicly verified output of inventive activities and. we use patent data to study innovation strategies related to exploitative vs. explorative activities, closed vs. open processes and incremental vs. radical outputs. in this paper, we propose an integrated framework based on the combination of such variables, in order to analyse capabilities, activities and competencies related to r&d processes. twelve different behaviours were detected considering four dimensions of innovative processes. if combined together, such behaviours describe the overall innovation strategy of a company.
our research question is: how innovation strategies of companies can be analysed and technological evolution can be tracked through patent statistics?
the research is based on objective data detected from patstat database, and on some variables already acknowledged and operationalized in scientific literature, that we combine in an integrated framework. the output of our analysis consists of a map summarising the strategies of companies towards innovation and providing information about the prevailing innovation paths (firm level). the framework can be also applied for mapping innovation strategies in specific industries and describing their technological evolution (industry level).
the methodology is tested on a sample of 133 r&d intense companies from technology hardware & equipment (the) industry, by analysing over 300,000 patents applied from 2008 to 2012, validating both the framework applicability and its explicative power and usefulness.
in what follows, after a brief literature review on patent-based metrics for innovation, the measurement framework is presented and then applied to the sample. results are discussed and conclusions will close the work.
A large number of scholars have used patent data as a proxy for innovation (Acs and Audretsch, 1989; Chakrabarti, 1991; Grupp, 1992; Belderbos, 2001; Frietsch and Grupp, 2006; Hanel, 2006). Patent data offer a valuable source of information, useful to both keep track of the technological strategy evolution of companies and make comparisons, as they contain standardized data, stored for a long period and continuously updated (Griliches, 1990). Furthermore, patents are the only formally and publicly veriï¬ed outputs of inventive activities (Ma and Lee, 2008).
The integrated framework we suggest is based on the combination of variables already acknowledged in scientific literature concerning: 1) exploitative vs. explorative activities, 2) closed vs. open processes and 3) incremental vs. radical outputs. In what follows, a deepening of the operationalization of each dimension under investigation is reported.
Since March’s (1991) work, a wide debate has raged over the need for a balance between exploiting the knowledge an organization already holds (local search) and exploring for knowledge that is different and new to the organization (distant search). Exploitation is associated with current viability and thus leads to more capability at current activities, while exploration is related to the acquisition of diverse and novel body of knowledge that will serve as the seed for future technological developments. Such concepts can be operationalized through the investigation of patent classification codes: international patent classification (IPC) codes allow analysing the technology field in which patents impact and can be considered as a proxy of skills developed by the firm in a specific technology domain. A patent is considered as an explorative one when it is situated in a technology domain that is new or unfamiliar to the ï¬rm, i.e. the firm did not patent in the technology domain in the past five years (Belderbos et al., 2010). On the contrary, exploitative technological processes are acts of creation in technological domains where the ï¬rm has already patented technology in the previous ï¬ve years. Such approach is widely diffused among scholars, e.g. Lo Storto (2006), by studying the IPC information disclosed in patent data, detected exploitative and explorative activities of companies and related them to innovation in components or combinations.
Regarding the organizational dimension of R&D activities, firms can either invest on their own resources and efforts, developing closed innovation processes, or open up their R&D processes, adopting the open innovation paradigm. Companies can develop patents either internally – pursuing a closed innovation strategy – or jointly, through collaboration activities with third parties. Therefore co-patents seem to be a relevant indicator for signalling the occurrence of open innovation strategies (Chesbrough, 2006) and the number of patents deriving from collaborative projects can be considered as a proxy of open innovation (Al-Ashaab et al., 2011). By analysing the number of applicants disclosed in the assignee ï¬eld of a patent application, information about the ownership of innovation can be detected and it is possible to understand whether the patent is the result of collaborative activities. Such operationalization is widely diffused and many scholars, using joint-patenting information, reported a growing open innovation adoption (Kim and Song, 2007).
As regards the outputs of R&D processes (radical vs. incremental), the distinction between refining and improving an existing design and introducing a new concept that departs in a significant way from past practice is one of the most addressed topics in innovation strategy literature. Incremental innovations are minor improvements or simple adjustments in current technology (Munson and Pelz, 1979), while radical innovation is based on a different set of engineering and scientific principles and often opens up whole new markets and potential applications (Dess and Beard, 1984; Ettlie et al., 1984; Dewar and Dutton, 1986).
Even if patent data are widely used to investigate technological innovation strategies implemented by innovative ï¬rms, most attention has been devoted to only one dimension of R&D processes at time, e.g. Sakata et al., (2009) study only IPC combinations in order to define the innovation position of Japanese companies. However, some contributions analyse the mix of concepts related to innovation activities, e.g. evaluating the impact of open innovation on exploitative and explorative processes through patent statistics (Dittrich and Duysters, 2007; Belderbos et al., 2010).
Starting from the literature review, we designed a framework that combines all the aforementioned variables with the aim of defining the innovation strategies adopted by companies after a multidimensional perspective.
A fourth dimension is added to the input-process-output model: the relevance of the process, that can be defined high if the capabilities which gave raise to the process are core, low otherwise (Figure 1).
As suggested by scientific literature, technology fields can be analysed by detecting IPCs recorded in patent applications. In our framework, we used the cooperative patent classification (CPC) system, a new patent classification system – jointly developed by the European Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office – which can be considered as an evolution of IPC, since it is more specific and detailed.
After data extraction, for each company we obtained a list of all the CPCs detected in the patents it filed in the selected time horizon. CPCs can be labelled as core or non-core and exploitative or explorative. In particular, each CPC is defined core if it is declared in at least 10% of the patents filed in the previous five years, non-core otherwise; exploitative if the company filed patents in such technology domain in the past five years, explorative otherwise. Obviously, from these two definitions, no core and explorative CPCs can be found. In Table 1 the methodology for CPCs labelling is provided.
Further, by analysing patents that declare the specific technological field and detecting the number of owners and backward citations, we can define their nature as (see Table 2):
– closed if only one applicant is found, open otherwise ;
– incremental if at least one backward citation is detected, radical otherwise.
Given that a CPC can be detected in more than one patent for each company, both closed and open patents, as well as both incremental and radical ones, can be found, i.e. the competencies can be used by companies in both their closed and their open innovation processes and can give raise to both incremental and radical innovation.
Thus, our framework describes the innovation processes adopted for each CPC through four dimensions. Each patent that contains the analysed CPC is described with four different labels, the first two inherited from the belonging CPC, and associated to only one of the twelve available different behaviours in R&D processes explained in Figure 2.
Two of the most discussed trade-off in the scientific literature, are exploration vs. exploitation and radical vs. incremental innovation strategies. Through our framework, we can evaluate the adoption of such strategies, or their mix (Table 3).
Companies that exploit their capabilities in order to obtain incremental innovations pursue a strengthening innovation strategy, related to continuous improvement and evolution on already known technologies; otherwise, if their outputs are radical they carry on an advancement strategy, based on the development of potential revolutionary innovations and the exploitation of capabilities already owned.
Starting from the behaviours described through the capabilities-competencies matrix, by adding the information about relevance and process organization, we can define a simple nomenclature for the twelve different combinations (Table 4).
Therefore, our framework supports us in identifying innovation strategies of firms in a specific time interval and provides a useful instrument for benchmarking.
Further, by selecting a sample of companies, the framework provides information about innovation in specific industries, allowing to perform an industry level analysis.
By comparing results obtained in different time intervals, we can study the innovation paths undertaken by companies and find the continuous innovation strategies of companies or industries, verifying the evolution on the adoption of the twelve different combinations.
The framework was applied to a sample of 133 R&D intense companies from THE industry ranked by their investment in R&D, according to The 2012 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard (JRC, 2012), excluding the firms whose 2012 annual reports were not available and those for which the list of subsidiaries was not found in such documents. We choose this industry because it is R&D intense, uses patents as a means of appropriation of innovation (Pavitt, 1984) and is characterised by companies incorporating strategic technology alliances into the core of their technology strategies.
For example, for the year 2012 we downloaded all patent applications of companies, including documents related to their subsidiaries, identifying the CPCs registered and verifying if they were core/non-core and exploitative/explorative by analysing patents data from 2007 to 2011 and recording information about number of applicants and backward citations. We applied our framework in order to estimate the overall innovation strategy of each company and, by comparing results obtained from a group of firms, a benchmark is available. Table 6 provides an example of benchmarking, aiming at comparing the innovation strategies adopted in 2012 by four companies belonging to our sample. Different behaviours emerge: Infineon Technologies mostly addresses its R&D efforts to advancement; Alcatel-Lucent focus on strengthening, while Logitech International mostly relies on expansion; finally, only Lexmark among the four companies has a significant share of patents exploring new technological fields and obtaining radical innovation.
In order to perform an industry level analysis, we cumulated the results obtained for each firm, evaluating the behaviour of the whole sample. Table7 reports the share of the twelve configurations for the year 2012 for the whole sample, while Table 8 shows the capabilities-competencies matrix for patents applied in 2012.
The non-core closed advancement is detected in over one third of innovative activities, with companies obtaining radical outputs starting from capabilities that currently are less relevant for their business.
In order to detect the evolution of the technological patterns of the sample and analyse the innovation strategies, we applied the framework, year by year, on patent applications from 2008 to 2012 and studied the result obtained on the eight cumulative share indicators. In Figure 3 the trends for core, exploration, open and radical shares are reported, being those of non-core, exploitation, closed and incremental complementary to the former. In the five-year period the shares of exploration and core innovation do not vary significantly, the former always being less than 4% and the latter on average around 14%.
The paper aims at contributing to the current literature on innovation management by describing how companies manage technological evolution and organize R&D activities, through the use of patent data. A capabilities-competencies matrix is defined, pointing out the differences between exploitation vs. exploration strategies and incremental vs. radical outputs. Noteworthy, these concepts are often treated alternatively in current literature but they can be evaluated separately since they describe two different dimensions of innovation activities.
The paper addresses the need for operative, practical instruments, which can help managers to monitor and control their innovation paths. Given the availability and objectivity of patent documents, studying innovation through the analysis of patent data can help decision-makers to assess the status of their own strategies and compare it over time and space, also allowing the benchmarking with competitors.
A sample of 133 companies from THE industry over the period2008-2012 was studied, validating both the framework applicability and its explicative power and usefulness. Advancement strategies seem to be characteristics in such industry, while exploration activities are negligible as a whole. An increasing adoption of open innovation and a growing concentration of R&D efforts on radical outputs are also detected.
Two operationalization issues arise. First, the results are affected by our definition of core and non-core activities – CPCs are considered core if they are declared in at least 10% of the patents filed in the previous five years -as well as by the decision of cutting CPCs without considering the subgroup number, in order to avoid excessive detail on the definition of the capabilities of companies. Second, as to the definition of exploitative activities, companies may lose experience if they did not patent in a specific technology domain in a previous time interval lower than five years, since in THE industry the development pace is faster and the life cycle of product is shorter.
Further research will be addressed to widening our sample of investigation, by analysing different industries and making comparisons among innovation strategies of companies with different features. In order to evaluate the overall impact of open innovation adoption, we plan to enforce our framework introducing other open models already studied by scientific literature, like licensing, trading and incorporation (Michelino et al., 2014a). Correlations between strategic behaviours detected through our framework, context features (e.g., firm’s age and dimension) and financial performance indicators are under investigation. Finally, we are trying to match the openness indicator provided by this framework with the openness ratios measuring the pecuniary dimension of open innovation (Michelino et al., 2014b).
1. Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (1989), “Patents as a measure of innovative activity”, Kyklos, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 171-180.
2. Ahuja, G. and Lampert, C.M. (2001), “Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how estabilished firms create breakthrough inventions”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 521-543.
3. Al-Ashaab, A., Flores, M., Doultsinou, A. and Magyar, A. (2011), “A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry-university collaboration”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22, No. 5-6, pp. 554-570.
4. Belderbos, R. (2001), “Overseas innovation by Japanese firms: an analysis of patent and subsidiary data”, Research Policy, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 313-332.
5. Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B. and Van Looy, B. (2010), “Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: exploitation and exploration within and between firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 869-882.
6. Chakrabarti, A.K. (1991), “Competition in high technology: analysis of patents of US, Japan, UK, West Germany, and Canada”, IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 78-84.
7. Chesbrough, H.W. (2006) Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
8. Dess, G.G. and Beard, D. (1984), “Dimensions of organizational task environments”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 52-73.
9. Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986), “The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 1422-1433.
10. Dittrich, K. and Duysters, G. (2007), “Networking as a means to strategy change: the case of Open Innovation in Mobile Telephony”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 510-521.
11. Ettlie, J.H., Bridges, W.P. and O’Keefe, R.D. (1984), “Organizational strategy and structural differences for radical vs incremental innovation”, Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 682-695.
12. Frietsch, R. and Grupp, H. (2006), “There is a new man in town: the paradigm shift in optical technology”, Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 463-472.
13. Griliches, Z. (1990), “Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 661-1707.
14. Grupp, H. (1992) Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation, Springer, Berlin.
15. Hagedoorn, J., Kranenburg, H. and Osborn, R.N. (2003), “Joint patenting amongst companies – exploring the effects of inter-firm R&D partnering and experience”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 24, No. 2-3, pp. 71-84.
16. Hanel, P. (2006), “Intellectual property rights business management practices: a survey of the literature”, Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 895-931.
17. JRC (2012), The 2012 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard. Joint Research Centre, Directorate General Research and Innovation, European Commission.
18. Kim, C. and Song, J. (2007), “Creating new technology through alliances: An empirical investigation of joint patents”, Technovation, Vol. 27, No. 8,pp. 461-470.
19. Lo Storto, C. (2006), “A method based on patent analysis for the investigation of technological innovation strategies: The European medical prostheses industry”, Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 932-942.
20. Ma, Z., and Lee, Y. (2008), “Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980-2005”, Technovation, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 379-390.
21. March, J. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 71-87.
22. Michelino, F., Cammarano, A., Lamberti, E. and Caputo, M. (2014a), ‘Open models for innovation of leading companies in high competitive industries,’ Proceedings of the 23rd International Business Information Management Association Conference – IBIMA. 13-14 May 2014. Valencia, Spain.
23. Michelino, F., Lamberti, E., Cammarano, A. and Caputo, M. (2014b), ‘Measuring open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry,’ Creativity and Innovation Management (Article in Press).
24. Munson, F.C. and Pelz, D.C. (1979), The Innovating Process: A Conceptual Framework, Working paper, University of Michigan.
25. Pavitt, K. (1984), “Sectorial patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory”, Research Policy, Vol.13, No. 6, pp. 343-373.
26. Sakata, J., Suzuki, K. and Hosoya, J. (2009), “The analysis of research and development efficiency in Japanese companies in the field of fuel cells using patent data”, R&D Management, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 291-304.
27. Suzuki, J. and Kodama, F. (2004), “Technology diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: two case studies of large Japanese firms”, Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 531-549.