IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11249-d654477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge Structure of the Application of High-Performance Computing: A Co-Word Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kiwon Lee

    (Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 37673, Korea)

  • Suchul Lee

    (Department of Business Administration, Sangmyung University, Seoul 03016, Korea)

Abstract

As high-performance computing (HPC) plays a key role in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the application of HPC in various industries is becoming increasingly important. Several studies have reviewed the research trends of HPC but considered only the functional aspects, causing limitations when discussing the application. Thus, this study aims to identify the knowledge structure of the application of HPC, enabling practical and policy support in various industrial fields. Co-word analysis is mainly used to establish the knowledge structure. We first collected 28,941 published papers related to HPC applications and built a co-word network that used author keywords. We performed centrality analysis and cluster analysis of the co-word network; as a result, we derived the major keywords and 18 areas of HPC applications. To validate the knowledge structure, we conducted a case study to find opportunities for HPC research plans in the research community. As a result, we discovered 17 new research topics and presented their research priorities by conducting expert interviews and Analytic Hierarchy Process. The findings of this study contribute to an understanding of the application of HPC, to exploring promising research fields for technological and social development, and to supporting research plans for successful technology commercialization.

Suggested Citation

  • Kiwon Lee & Suchul Lee, 2021. "Knowledge Structure of the Application of High-Performance Computing: A Co-Word Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11249-:d:654477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11249/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11249/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chavosh Nejad, Mohammad & Mansour, Saeed & Karamipour, Azita, 2021. "An AHP-based multi-criteria model for assessment of the social sustainability of technology management process: A case study in banking industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Minseo Kim & Hyesu Park & Yeong-wha Sawng & Sun-young Park, 2019. "Bridging the Gap in the Technology Commercialization Process: Using a Three-Stage Technology–Product–Market Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Foray, D. & Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R., 2012. "Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1697-1702.
    4. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2008. "R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 895-912, October.
    5. Sungjoo Lee & Chanwoo Cho & Jaehong Choi & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "R&D Project Selection Incorporating Customer-Perceived Value and Technology Potential: The Case of the Automobile Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Yoon Been Lee & Jiyoung Park, 2011. "Assessment System For Feasibility Analysis Of National R&D Programs: The Case Of Korea," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(04), pages 661-676.
    7. D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Gastaldi, Massimo & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2020. "RES-T trajectories and an integrated SWOT-AHP analysis for biomethane. Policy implications to support a green revolution in European transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Pilar Carbonell & Ana Isabel Rodriguez Escudero & Jose Luis Munuera Aleman, 2004. "Technology Newness and Impact of Go/No-Go Criteria on New Product Success," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(2_3), pages 81-97, July.
    9. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation," NBER Working Papers 24449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Lee, Sangjae & Kim, Wanki & Kim, Young Min & Lee, Hyoung Yong & Oh, Kyong Joo, 2014. "The prioritization and verification of IT emerging technologies using an analytic hierarchy process and cluster analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 292-304.
    11. Huang, Chi-Cheng & Chu, Pin-Yu & Chiang, Yu-Hsiu, 2008. "A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    12. Jeng, Don Jyh-Fu & Huang, Kuo-Hsin, 2015. "Strategic project portfolio selection for national research institutes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2305-2311.
    13. Jamie Berryhill & Kévin Kok Heang & Rob Clogher & Keegan McBride, 2019. "Hello, World: Artificial intelligence and its use in the public sector," OECD Working Papers on Public Governance 36, OECD Publishing.
    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. James A. Cunningham & Nadja Damij & Dolores Modic & Femi Olan, 2023. "MSME technology adoption, entrepreneurial mindset and value creation: a configurational approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 1574-1598, October.

    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. Wilson, Christopher & van der Velden, Maja, 2022. "Sustainable AI: An integrated model to guide public sector decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    3. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Kajal Chatterjee & Sheikh Ahmed Hossain & Samarjit Kar, 2018. "Prioritization of project proposals in portfolio management using fuzzy AHP," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 55(2), pages 478-501, June.
    5. Wu, Yunna & Xu, Chuanbo & Ke, Yiming & Li, Xinying & Li, Lingwenying, 2019. "Portfolio selection of distributed energy generation projects considering uncertainty and project interaction under different enterprise strategic scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 444-464.
    6. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    7. Amar Oukil & Srikrishna Madhumohan Govindaluri, 2020. "A hybrid multi‐attribute decision‐making procedure for ranking project proposals: A historical data perspective," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 461-472, April.
    8. Vanhoucke, Mario, 2010. "Using activity sensitivity and network topology information to monitor project time performance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 359-370, October.
    9. Seunghoon Lee & Young Hoon Lee & Yongho Choi, 2019. "Project Portfolio Selection Considering Total Cost of Ownership in the Automobile Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Kao, Chiang & Pao, Hwei-Lan, 2012. "Predicting project approvals: A case of grants from the National Science Council of Taiwan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 89-95, January.
    11. Lizarralde, Rafael & Ganzarain, Jaione & Zubizarreta, Mikel, 2022. "Adaptation of the MIVES method for the strategic selection of new technologies at an R&D centre. Focus on the manufacturing sector," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    12. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    13. Christian Rammer & Gastón P Fernández & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Industrial Innovation: Evidence from Firm-Level Data," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 674605, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    14. Malgorzata Gorzalczynska-Koczkodaj, 2023. "Intelligent Specializations as an Opportunity for Regional Development on the Example of the West Pomeranian Voivodeship," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 446-455.
    15. Marco FRIGERIO & Daniela VANDONE, 2018. "Virtuous or Vicious? Development Banks in Europe," Departmental Working Papers 2018-07, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    16. Yong‐Shik Lee, 2020. "New general theory of economic development: Innovative growth and distribution," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 402-423, May.
    17. Zhou, Yixiao & Tyers, Rod, 2019. "Automation and inequality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    18. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    19. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    20. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11249-:d:654477. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.