IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v115y2017icp131-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Firms' knowledge profiles: Mapping patent data with unsupervised learning

Author

Listed:
  • Suominen, Arho
  • Toivanen, Hannes
  • Seppänen, Marko

Abstract

Patent data has been an obvious choice for analysis leading to strategic technology intelligence, yet, the recent proliferation of machine learning text analysis methods is changing the status of traditional patent data analysis methods and approaches. This article discusses the benefits and constraints of machine learning approaches in industry level patent analysis, and to this end offers a demonstration of unsupervised learning based analysis of the leading telecommunication firms between 2001 and 2014 based on about 160,000 USPTO full-text patents. Data were classified using full-text descriptions with Latent Dirichlet Allocation, and latent patterns emerging through the unsupervised learning process were modelled by company and year to create an overall view of patenting within the industry, and to forecast future trends. Our results demonstrate company-specific differences in their knowledge profiles, as well as show the evolution of the knowledge profiles of industry leaders from hardware to software focussed technology strategies. The results cast also light on the dynamics of emerging and declining knowledge areas in the telecommunication industry. Our results prompt a consideration of the current status of established approaches to patent landscaping, such as key-word or technology classifications and other approaches relying on semantic labelling, in the context of novel machine learning approaches. Finally, we discuss implications for policy makers, and, in particular, for strategic management in firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Suominen, Arho & Toivanen, Hannes & Seppänen, Marko, 2017. "Firms' knowledge profiles: Mapping patent data with unsupervised learning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 131-142.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:131-142
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516303651
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wu, Jianfeng & Shanley, Mark T., 2009. "Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United States electromedical device industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 474-483, April.
    2. McNamee, Robert C., 2013. "Can’t see the forest for the leaves: Similarity and distance measures for hierarchical taxonomies with a patent classification example," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 855-873.
    3. Gerard George & Reddi Kotha & Yanfeng Zheng, 2008. "Entry into Insular Domains: A Longitudinal Study of Knowledge Structuration and Innovation in Biotechnology Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1448-1474, December.
    4. Jing Zhang & Charles Baden‐Fuller, 2010. "The Influence of Technological Knowledge Base and Organizational Structure on Technology Collaboration," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 679-704, June.
    5. Loh, Han Tong & He, Cong & Shen, Lixiang, 2006. "Automatic classification of patent documents for TRIZ users," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 6-13, March.
    6. Jing Zhang & Charles Baden-Fuller & Vincent Mangematin, 2007. "Technological Knowledge Base, R&D Organization Structure and Alliance Formation: Evidence from the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Post-Print hal-00424512, HAL.
    7. Richter, Georg & MacFarlane, Andrew, 2005. "The impact of metadata on the accuracy of automated patent classification," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 13-26, March.
    8. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    9. Zhang, Jing & Baden-Fuller, Charles & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Technological knowledge base, R&D organization structure and alliance formation: Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 515-528, May.
    10. Rob J. Hyndman & George Athanasopoulos, 2014. "Optimally Reconciling Forecasts in a Hierarchy," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 35, pages 42-48, Fall.
    11. Gambardella, Alfonso & Torrisi, Salvatore, 1998. "Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 445-463, September.
    12. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    13. Venugopalan, Subhashini & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Topic based classification and pattern identification in patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 236-250.
    14. Nakamura, Hiroko & Suzuki, Shinji & Sakata, Ichiro & Kajikawa, Yuya, 2015. "Knowledge combination modeling: The measurement of knowledge similarity between different technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 187-201.
    15. Ventura, Samuel L. & Nugent, Rebecca & Fuchs, Erica R.H., 2015. "Seeing the non-stars: (Some) sources of bias in past disambiguation approaches and a new public tool leveraging labeled records," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1672-1701.
    16. Wang, Q. & von Tunzelmann, N., 2000. "Complexity and the functions of the firm: breadth and depth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 805-818, August.
    17. Zhang, Yi & Porter, Alan L. & Hu, Zhengyin & Guo, Ying & Newman, Nils C., 2014. "“Term clumping” for technical intelligence: A case study on dye-sensitized solar cells," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 26-39.
    18. Arho Suominen & Hannes Toivanen, 2016. "Map of science with topic modeling: Comparison of unsupervised learning and human-assigned subject classification," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(10), pages 2464-2476, October.
    19. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    20. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    21. Osmo Kuusi & Martin Meyer, 2007. "Anticipating technological breakthroughs: Using bibliographic coupling to explore the nanotubes paradigm," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 759-777, March.
    22. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    23. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    24. Lee, Won Sang & Han, Eun Jin & Sohn, So Young, 2015. "Predicting the pattern of technology convergence using big-data technology on large-scale triadic patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 317-329.
    25. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    26. Zhengyin Hu & Shu Fang & Tian Liang, 2014. "Empirical study of constructing a knowledge organization system of patent documents using topic modeling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(3), pages 787-799, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivan Savin & Kristina Chukavina & Andrey Pushkarev, 2023. "Topic-based classification and identification of global trends for startup companies," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 659-689, February.
    2. Huo, Da & Chaudhry, Hassan Rauf, 2021. "Using machine learning for evaluating global expansion location decisions: An analysis of Chinese manufacturing sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    3. WATANABE Ichiro & SHIMIZU Hiroshi, 2024. "Mainstream Formation and Competitive Dynamics in the Computer Graphics Industry: Topic modeling analysis of US patents," Discussion papers 24018, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Choi, Seokkyu & Lee, Hyeonju & Park, Eunjeong & Choi, Sungchul, 2022. "Deep learning for patent landscaping using transformer and graph embedding," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Bahoo, Salman & Cucculelli, Marco & Qamar, Dawood, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and corporate innovation: A review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Uijun Kwon & Youngjung Geum, 2020. "Identification of promising inventions considering the quality of knowledge accumulation: a machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1877-1897, December.
    7. Mehmet Güney Celbiş & Pui-Hang Wong & Karima Kourtit & Peter Nijkamp, 2021. "Innovativeness, Work Flexibility, and Place Characteristics: A Spatial Econometric and Machine Learning Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-29, December.
    8. Righi, Riccardo & Samoili, Sofia & López Cobo, Montserrat & Vázquez-Prada Baillet, Miguel & Cardona, Melisande & De Prato, Giuditta, 2020. "The AI techno-economic complex System: Worldwide landscape, thematic subdomains and technological collaborations," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6).
    9. Moehrle, Martin G. & Caferoglu, Hüseyin, 2019. "Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 776-784.
    10. Savin, Ivan & Ott, Ingrid & Konop, Chris, 2022. "Tracing the evolution of service robotics: Insights from a topic modeling approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. Choi, Hyunhong & Woo, JongRoul, 2022. "Investigating emerging hydrogen technology topics and comparing national level technological focus: Patent analysis using a structural topic model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    12. Donghyun Choi & Bomi Song, 2018. "Exploring Technological Trends in Logistics: Topic Modeling-Based Patent Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    13. Li, Munan & Wang, Wenshu & Zhou, Keyu, 2021. "Exploring the technology emergence related to artificial intelligence: A perspective of coupling analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    14. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    15. Huang, Hung-Chun & Su, Hsin-Ning, 2019. "The innovative fulcrums of technological interdisciplinarity: An analysis of technology fields in patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 84, pages 59-70.
    16. Liu, Lanjian & Zhang, Tian & Avrin, Anne-Perrine & Wang, Xianwen, 2020. "Is China's industrial policy effective? An empirical study of the new energy vehicles industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    17. Puccetti, Giovanni & Giordano, Vito & Spada, Irene & Chiarello, Filippo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2023. "Technology identification from patent texts: A novel named entity recognition method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    18. Zhang, Hao & Daim, Tugrul & Zhang, Yunqiu (Peggy), 2021. "Integrating patent analysis into technology roadmapping: A latent dirichlet allocation based technology assessment and roadmapping in the field of Blockchain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    19. Chung-Chu Chuang & Chung-Min Tsai & Hsiao-Chen Chang & Yi-Hsien Wang, 2021. "Applying Quantile Regression to Assess the Relationship between R&D, Technology Import and Patent Performance in Taiwan," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:pab:wpbsad:16.01 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Maïder SAINT-JEAN & Nabila ARFAOUI & Eric BROUILLAT & David VIRAPIN, 2019. "Mapping technological knowledge patterns: evidence from ocean energy technologies," Cahiers du GREThA 2019-09, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée(GREThA).
    3. Mohammad Saleh Farazi & Ana Pérez-Luño & Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, 2016. "How Can Knowledge Structuration Serve Strategic Goals? A Theory For Technology Firms," Working Papers 16.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Organization and Marketing (former Department of Business Administration), revised Jun 2016.
    4. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    5. Russo, Angeloantonio & Vurro, Clodia & Nag, Rajiv, 2019. "To have or to be? The interplay between knowledge structure and market identity in knowledge-based alliance formation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 571-583.
    6. Dibiaggio, Ludovic & Nasiriyar, Maryam & Nesta, Lionel, 2014. "Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1582-1593.
    7. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    8. Karen Ruckman & Ian McCarthy, 2017. "Why do some patents get licensed while others do not?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 667-688.
    9. Shafique, Muhammad & Hagedoorn, John, 2022. "Look at U: Technological scope of the acquirer, technological complementarity with the target, and post-acquisition R&D output," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Zhang, Ningning & You, Dingyi & Tang, Le & Wen, Ke, 2023. "Knowledge path dependence, external connection, and radical inventions: Evidence from Chinese Academy of Sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    11. Jing Zhang & Charles Baden‐Fuller, 2010. "The Influence of Technological Knowledge Base and Organizational Structure on Technology Collaboration," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 679-704, June.
    12. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    13. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    14. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2020. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: a study in the oil & gas industry," Post-Print hal-02613665, HAL.
    15. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    16. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara DiGuardo, 2017. "Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the U.S. communications services industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1334-1361, December.
    17. Carlo Corradini & Pelin Demirel & Giuliana Battisti, 2016. "Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 163-177, June.
    18. Burak Dindaroğlu, 2018. "Determinants of patent quality in U.S. manufacturing: technological diversity, appropriability, and firm size," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1083-1106, August.
    19. Slavova, Kremena & Jong, Simcha, 2021. "University alliances and firm exploratory innovation: Evidence from therapeutic product development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. McCarthy, Killian J & Aalbers, Hendrik Leendert, 2022. "Alliance-to-acquisition transitions: The technological performance implications of acquiring one's alliance partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    21. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:115:y:2017:i:c:p:131-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.