Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 405–423 | Cite as

Overlay technology space map for analyzing design knowledge base of a technology domain: the case of hybrid electric vehicles

  • Binyang SongEmail author
  • Bowen Yan
  • Giorgio Triulzi
  • Jeffrey Alstott
  • Jianxi Luo
Original Paper

Abstract

A tangible understanding of the latent design knowledge base of a technology domain, i.e., the set of technologies and related design knowledge used to solve the specific problems of a domain, and how it evolves, can guide engineering design efforts in that domain. However, methods for extracting, analyzing and understanding the structure and evolutionary trajectories of a domain’s accumulated design knowledge base are still underdeveloped. This study introduces a network-based methodology for visualizing and analyzing the structure and expansion trajectories of the design knowledge base of a given technology domain. The methodology is centered on overlaying the total technology space, represented as a network of all known technologies based on patent data, with the specific knowledge positions and estimated expansion paths of a specific domain as a subgraph of the total network. We demonstrate the methodology via a case study of hybrid electric vehicles. The methodology may help designers understand the technology evolution trajectories of their domain and suggest next design opportunities or directions.

Keywords

Design theory Data-driven design Knowledge management Technology evolution Network analysis and visualization Hybrid electric vehicles 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support from the Singapore Ministry of Education Tier 2 academic research Grant (#MOE2013-T2-2-167) “Theoretical Foundations of Technology Network Modeling for Innovation” and the SUTD-MIT International Design Centre. An early version of this paper was presented at the International Design Conference 2016. The feedback we received during the conference session greatly helped us refine the research and the paper.

References

  1. Alberts D, Yang CB, Fobare-DePonio D, Koubek K, Robins S, Rodgers M, DeMarco D (2011) Introduction to patent searching. In: Current challenges in patent information retrieval. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 3–43Google Scholar
  2. Allaire D, He Q, Deyst J, Willcox K (2012) An information-theoretic metric of system complexity with application to engineering system design. J Mech Des 134:100906Google Scholar
  3. Alstott J, Triulzi G, Yan B, Luo J (2017a) Inventors’ explorations across technology domains. Des Sci 3:e20Google Scholar
  4. Alstott J, Triulzi G, Yan B, Luo J (2017b) Mapping technology space by normalizing technology relatedness networks. Scientometrics 110(1):443–479Google Scholar
  5. Arthur WB (2009) The nature of technology: what it is and how it evolves. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Baxter D, Gao J, Case K et al (2007) An engineering design knowledge reuse methodology using process modelling. Res Eng Des 18(1):37–48Google Scholar
  7. Berthold M (2011) Bisociative knowledge discovery. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7250. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  8. Boschma R, Balland PA, Kogler DF (2014) Relatedness and technological change in cities: the rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Ind Corp Change 24(1):223–250Google Scholar
  9. Breschi S, Malerba F, Lissoni F (2003) Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Res Policy 32(1):69–87Google Scholar
  10. Chan J, Schunn C (2015) The impact of analogies on creative concept generation: lessons from an in vivo study in engineering design. Cogn Sci 39(1):126–155Google Scholar
  11. D’hondt E (2009) Lexical issues of a syntactic approach to interactive patent retrieval. In: The proceedings of the 3rd BCSIRSG symposium on future directions in information access, pp 102–109Google Scholar
  12. Dibiaggio L, Nasiriyar M, Nesta L (2014) Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies. Res Policy 43(9):1582–1593Google Scholar
  13. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy 11(3):147–162Google Scholar
  14. Ejermo O (2005) Technological diversity and Jacobs’ externality hypothesis revisited. Growth Change 36:167–195Google Scholar
  15. Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Manag Sci 47(1):117–132Google Scholar
  16. Fleming L, Sorenson O (2001) Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Res Policy 30(7):1019–1039Google Scholar
  17. Fleming L, Sorenson O (2004) Science as a map in technological search. Strateg Manag J 25(8–9):909–928Google Scholar
  18. Fu K, Cagan J, Kotovsky K, Wood K (2013a) Discovering structure in design databases through function and surface based mapping. J Mech Design 135(3):031006Google Scholar
  19. Fu K, Chan J, Cagan J, Kotovsky K, Schunn C, Wood K (2013b) The meaning of “near” and “far”: the impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. J Mech Design 135(2):021007Google Scholar
  20. Fu K, Moreno D, Yang M, Wood K (2014) Bio-inspired design: an overview investigating open questions from the broader field of design-by-analogy. J Mech Design 136(11):111102Google Scholar
  21. Fu K, Murphy J, Yang M, Otto K, Jensen D, Wood K (2015) Design-by-analogy: experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation improvement. Res Eng Design 26(1):77–95Google Scholar
  22. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to CK theory. In: DS 31: proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th international conference on engineering design, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  23. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C–K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Design 19(4):181–192Google Scholar
  24. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2004) CK theory in practice: lessons from industrial applications. In: DS 32: proceedings of DESIGN 2004, the 8th international design conference, Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  25. He Y, Luo J (2017) Novelty, conventionality, and value of innovation. In: Proceeding of the conference on design computing and cognition’17, Evanston, IL, Untied StatesGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinze S, Reiss T, Schmoch U (1997) Statistical analysis on the distance between fields of technology. In: Innovation Systems and European Integration (ISE), Targeted Socio-Economic Research Program, 4th Framework Program of the European Commission (DGXII). Frauenhofer-Institute Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Indukuri KV, Ambekar AA, Sureka A (2007) Similarity analysis of patent claims using natural language processing techniques. In: Conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications. International conference on. Vol. 4, pp 169–175Google Scholar
  28. Jaccard P (1901) Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 37:241–272Google Scholar
  29. Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D. Am Econ Rev 76:984–1001Google Scholar
  30. Kasravi K, Risov M (2007) Patent mining-discovery of business value from patent repositories. In: System sciences. HICSS 2007, the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on, pp 54–54Google Scholar
  31. Kauffman SA (1993) The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford university Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Kay L, Newman N, Youtie J, Porter AL, Rafols I (2014) Patent overlay mapping: visualizing technological distance. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 65(12):2432–2443Google Scholar
  33. Koch S, Bosch H, Giereth M, Ertl T (2009) Iterative integration of visual insights during patent search and analysis. In: IEEE symposium on visual analytics, pp 203–210Google Scholar
  34. Kogler D, Rigby DL, Tucker I (2013) Mapping knowledge space and technological relatedness in US cities. Eur Plan Stud 21:1374–1391Google Scholar
  35. Layton ET Jr (1974) Technology as knowledge. Technol Cult 31–41Google Scholar
  36. Leten B, Belderbos R, Van Looy B (2007) Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. J Prod Innovat Manag 24(6):567–579Google Scholar
  37. Leydesdorff L, Kushnir D, Rafols I (2014) Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC). Scientometrics 98(3):1583–1599Google Scholar
  38. Linsey JS (2007) Design-by-analogy and representation in innovative engineering concept generation. ProQuestGoogle Scholar
  39. Linsey JS, Markman AB, Wood KL (2012) Design by analogy: a study of the WordTree Method for problem re-representation. J Mech Des 134(4):041009Google Scholar
  40. Luo J (2015) The united innovation process: integrating science, design and entrepreneurship as sub-process. Design Sci (1):e2Google Scholar
  41. Luo J, Yan B, Wood K (2017) InnoGPS for data-driven exploration of design opportunities and directions: the case of Google driverless car project. J Mech Design 139(11):111416Google Scholar
  42. McNamee RC (2013) Can’t see the forest for the leaves: similarity and distance measures for hierarchical taxonomies with a patent classification example. Res Policy 42(4):855–873Google Scholar
  43. Mukherjea S, Bhuvan B, Kankar P (2005) Information retrieval and knowledge discovery utilizing a biomedical patent semantic web. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 17(8):1099–1110Google Scholar
  44. Nakamura H, Suzuki S, Sakata I, Kajikawa Y (2015) Knowledge combination modeling: the measurement of knowledge similarity between different technological domains. Technol Forecast Soc 94:187–201Google Scholar
  45. Pistorius CW, Utterback JM (1997) Multi-mode interaction among technologies. Res Policy 26(1):67–84Google Scholar
  46. Reich Y, Shai O (2012) The interdisciplinary engineering knowledge genome. Res Eng Des 23(3):251–264Google Scholar
  47. Rigby DL (2015) Technological relatedness and knowledge space: entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Reg Stud 49(11):1922–1937Google Scholar
  48. Shai O, Reich Y (2004) Infused design. I. Theory. Res Eng Des 15(2):93–107Google Scholar
  49. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech 24(4):265–269Google Scholar
  50. Smojver V, Štorga M, Potočki E (2016) An extended methodology for the assessment of technical invention evolution. In: Proceedings of the 14th international design conference, Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  51. Song B, Luo J (2017) Mining patent precedents for data-driven design: the case of spherical rolling robots. J Mech Design ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  52. Srinivasan V, Song B, Luo J, Subburaj K, Elara MR, Blessing L, Wood K (2017) Understanding effects of analogical distance on performance of ideation: Key observations and Findings. In: International design engineering technical conferences (IDETC17), Cleveland, USA. (accepted)Google Scholar
  53. Szykman S, Sriram RD, Bochenek C, Racz JW, Senfaute J (2000) Design repositories: engineering design’s new knowledge base. IEEE Intell Syst 15:48–55Google Scholar
  54. Tang V, Luo J (2013) Idea matrix and creativity operators. In: Proceedings DS 75–7: proceedings of the 19th international conference on engineering design (ICED13), design for harmonies, Vol. 7: human behaviour in design, Seoul, Korea, 19-22.08. 2013Google Scholar
  55. Taura T, Nagai Y (2012) Concept generation for design creativity: a systematized theory and methodology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Teece DJ, Rumelt R, Dosi G, Winter SG (1994) Understanding corporate coherence: theory and evidence. J Econ Behav Organ 23(1):1–30Google Scholar
  57. Thiel K, Berthold MR (2010, December) Node similarities from spreading activation. In: Data mining (ICDM). 2010 IEEE 10th international conference, pp 1085–1090Google Scholar
  58. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472Google Scholar
  59. Weisberg RW (2006) Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  60. Wuyts S, Colombo MG, Dutta S, Nooteboom B (2005) Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. J Econ Behav Organ 58(2):277–302Google Scholar
  61. Yan B, Luo J (2017a) Measuring technological distance for patent mapping. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68(2):423–437Google Scholar
  62. Yan B, Luo J (2017b) Filtering patent maps for visualization of diversification paths. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 68(6):1551–1563Google Scholar
  63. Yayavaram S, Ahuja G (2008) Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Admin Sci Quart 53(2):333–362Google Scholar
  64. Younge K, Kuhn JM (2015) Patent-to-Patent similarity: a vector space model. available at SSRNGoogle Scholar
  65. Zdrahal Z, Mulholland P, Valasek M et al (2007) Worlds and transformations: supporting the sharing and reuse of engineering design knowledge. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 65(12):959–982Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Product Development PillarSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.SUTD-MIT International Design CentreSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.School of ManagementUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  4. 4.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations