, Volume 100, Issue 2, pp 459–470 | Cite as

Are significant inventions more diversified?

  • Chunjuan Luan
  • Haiyan Hou
  • Yongtao Wang
  • Xianwen Wang


This study aims at exploring whether significant inventions are more technologically diversified or have more diverse applications, investigating whether there are any innovation laws existing in R&D activities. Based on technology co-classification analysis, we select patent dataset meets the specific standard from the worldwide patent database named Derwent Innovations Index as sample dataset. Three indicators out of four verify the proposed hypotheses, i.e., significant inventions are more diversified in terms of individual invention. The fourth indicator implies that focusing on some core technology domains maybe better for creating significant inventions when R&D activities are considered as a whole. The results are of great theoretical significance by helping us identifying the diversified characteristic laws of significant inventions; moreover, they are of crucial practical meanings to R&D work and technology innovation activities etc.


Significant inventions Technologically diversity Technology co-classification analysis Innovation laws Patent citations TRIZ 



We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for the important comments. The research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant 71073015, 71103064, 71103022; Major Project of the National Social Science Fund of “Ethical issues of high-tech” under Grant No. 12&ZD117; Key Project of the National Social Science Fund of “Promoting the construction of socialist culture and powerful country” under Grant No. 13AZD016; the Project of Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (DUT14XXXX, undetermined).


  1. Altshuller, H. (2001). And suddenly the inventor appeared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.Google Scholar
  2. Anton, J. J., & Yao, D. A. (1995). Start-ups, spin-offs, and internal projects. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 11(2), 362–378.Google Scholar
  3. Archambault, E., & Lariviere, V. (2011). Scientific publications and patenting by companies: a study of the whole population of Canadian firms over 25 years. Science and Public Policy, 38(4), 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castaldi, C., Milakovic, M., et al. (2006). Scale and technological factors in the diversification structure of business firms. Economics Letters, 91(1), 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, S. B., Lai, K. K., et al. (2009). Exploring technology diffusion and classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, Y. S., & Chang, K. C. (2012). Using the entropy-based patent measure to explore the influences of related and unrelated technological diversification upon technological competences and firm performance. Scientometrics, 90(3), 825–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, D. Z., Huang, M. H., et al. (2011). Identifying missing relevant patent citation links by using bibliographic coupling in LED illuminating technology. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Y. S., Shih, C. Y., & Chang, C. H. (2012). The effects of related and unrelated technological diversification on innovation performance and corporate growth in the Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. Scientometrics, 92(1), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiu, Y. C., Lai, H. C., Lee, T. Y., & Liaw, Y. C. (2008). Technological diversification, complementary assets, and performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(6), 875–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., et al. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1103–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Csardi, G., Strandburg, K. J., Zalanyi, L., et al. (2007). Modeling innovation by a kinetic description of the patent citation system. Physica A-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 374(2), 783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daye, C. (2008). An introduction to science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 38(2), 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Moura, A. M. M., & Caregnato, S. E. (2010). Co-classification between articles and patents: a study of the interaction between S & T on Brazilian Biotech. Informacao & Sociedade-Estudos, 20(2), 119–132.Google Scholar
  14. Erdi, P., Makovi, K., Somogyvari, Z., et al. (2013). Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network. Scientometrics, 95(1), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia-Vega, M. (2006). Does technological diversification promote innovation? An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ilevbare, I. M., Probert, D., & Phaal, R. (2013). A review of TRIZ, and its benefits and challenges in practice. Technovation, 332–3, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koren, M., & Tenreyro, S. (2013). Technological diversification. American Economic Review, 103(1), 378–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lam, Y. L. J., & Cistone, P. J. (1973). School structure and technological diversification. Educational Technology, 13(8), 52–55.Google Scholar
  19. Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, Z., Tate, D., & Lane, C. (2012). A framework for automatic TRIZ level of invention estimation of patents using natural language processing, knowledge-transfer and patent citation metrics. Computer-Aided Design, 44(10), 987–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luan, C., Liu, Z., & Wang, X. (2013). Divergence and convergence: Technology-relatedness evolution in solar energy industry. Scientometrics, 97(2), 461–475.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glanze, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Narin, F. (1994). Patent citation indicators. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, 20(8), 42–52.Google Scholar
  24. Narin, F., Smith, V. M., & Albert, M. B. (1993). What patents tell you about your competition. Chemtech, 23(2), 52–59.Google Scholar
  25. Nicholas, T. (2010). The role of independent invention in US technological development, 1880–1930. Journal of Economic History, 70(1), 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Patel, D., & Ward, M. R. (2011). Using patent citation patterns to infer innovation market competition. Research Policy, 40(6), 886–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Persson, O. (2012). BibExcel. from 2013-05-16.
  28. Persson, O., & Dastidar, P. G. (2013). Citation analysis to reconstruct the dynamics of Antarctic ozone hole research and formulation of the Montreal Protocol. Current Science, 104(7), 835–840.Google Scholar
  29. Puri, S., Quadir, I. Z., Battaglia, G. J., et al. (2011). The big question greatest thing since… what is the most significant invention of the past decade, and what do you anticipate for the future? World Policy Journal, 28(3), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silverberg, G., & Verspagen, B. (2007). The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance. Journal of Econometrics, 139(2), 318–339.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Sismondo, S. (2001). An introduction to science and technology studies. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Spasser, M. A. (1997). Mapping the terrain of pharmacy: Co-classification analysis of the international pharmaceutical abstracts database. Scientometrics, 39(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verspagen, B. (2007). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: A study on the history of fuel cell research. Advances in Complex Systems, 10(1), 93–115.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamashina, H., Ito, T., & Kawada, H. (2002). Innovative product development process by integrating QFD and TRIZ. International Journal of Production Research, 40(5), 1031–1050.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang, C. J., & Chen, J. L. (2012). Forecasting the design of eco-products by integrating TRIZ evolution patterns with CBR and Simple LCA methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2884–2892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunjuan Luan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Haiyan Hou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yongtao Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xianwen Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Administration and LawDalian University of TechnologyDalianPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.WISE LabDalian University of TechnologyDalianPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations