Abstract
Intermediaries in a technological knowledge network have recently been highlighted as crucial innovation drivers that accelerate technological knowledge flows. Although the patent network analysis has been frequently used to monitor technological knowledge structures, it has examined only sources or recipients of the technological knowledge by mainly estimating technological knowledge inflows or outflows of a network node. This study, therefore, aims to identify technological knowledge intermediaries when a technology-level knowledge network is composed of several industries. First, types of technological knowledge flows are deductively classified into four types by highlighting industry affiliations of source technologies and recipient technologies. Second, a directed technological knowledge network is generated at the technology class level, using patent co-classification analysis. Third, for each class, mediating scores are measured according to the four types. The empirical analysis illustrates the Korea’s technological knowledge network between 2000 and 2008. As a result, the four types of mediating scores are compared between industries, and industry-wise technological knowledge intermediaries are identified. The proposed approach is practical to explore converging processes in technology development where technology classes act as technological knowledge intermediaries among diverse industries.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Patent data has been regarded as the only formally and widely accepted technological output measure of inventive activities (Ma and Lee 2008) or a firm’s innovative capabilities (Hall et al. 2001). First, patents include various ideas on the origins and features of a new technology (Griliches 1990). Thus, they are a useful source to analyze technical and commercial knowledge, accumulated capabilities, and specialization. Second, patents may not be a perfect proxy of innovation activities but they provide a device to monitor main trends and analyze innovation processes in detail by tracing technological changes (Engelsman and van Raan 1994). Furthermore, patent statistics are publicly available, remain up-to-dated, and provide very specific and detailed information for tracing inventive activities over time at macro or micro level. Nevertheless, it is also noted that using patents as an indicator of technology innovation has some drawbacks (Archibugi and Pianta 1996; Arundel and Kabla 1998).
Patents provide diverse usages to construct technological knowledge networks at various levels. That is, the unit of technological knowledge intermediaries can be a nation (Ho and Verspagen 2006), an institution (Breschi et al. 2003; Jaffe 1986; Okamura and Vonortas 2006), and a technology field (Grupp 1996; Shin and Park 2007) when using the patent information such as assignee countries, assignee organizations, and patent classification codes, respectively.
NMS j is a different approach from other brokerage measures. For example, the betweenness centrality of node j is calculated as below (Freeman 1977):
\( {\text{Betweenness}}_{j} = \sum\nolimits_{i \ne j} {\sum\nolimits_{k \ne j} {{\frac{{g_{ijk} }}{{g_{ik} }}}} } \)
where g ijk refers to the number of the shortest geodesic paths from node i to node k, which also pass through node j (i ≠ j ≠ k); g ik represents the number of geodesics from node i to node k. That is, g ijk /g ik can be considered an estimated probability when node j plays a role of intermediaries in the knowledge flows between nodes i and k. While the betweenness centrality focuses on the geodesics among nodes in the whole network, NMS j only counts the number of brokerage cases according to the four types of technological knowledge flows. In the case of type I, MS j for only counts the number of cases when the classes i, j and k are in the same industry.
As one of the strongly specialized countries in producing information communication technologies (ICT) products for export, Korea developed “convergence strategies among industries and technologies” in 2008. According to the government’s technology convergence roadmap, Korea plans to drive technology convergence based on information technologies (IT) with eight industries in the next 5–10 years. Those eight industries include automotive, shipbuilding, construction, textile, safety, aviation, medical, and mechanical industries. Thus, the Korea’s patent analysis might result in that the technological knowledge intermediaries are concentrated in the IT-related technologies.
More details in the Appendix 2 of Table 4.
The industry means of NMSs are listed in Appendix 3 of Table 5.
Pavitt (1984) originally classified sectoral patterns of inter-industry linkages based on the firms’ production and use of innovations, and suggested the main interactions of technology transfers amongst firms in different sectoral groups. This paper, on the other hand, explores the inter-industry patterns of knowledge flows based on the production and use of technological knowledge with patent data. As a result, science-based sectors such as computer and communications industries are more likely to receive technological knowledge from other industries and also transmit it to other industries, while supplier dominated and production intensive sectors do not actively mediate technological knowledge flows.
The NMSs for each technological class in industry 11 are listed in Appendix 4 of Table 6.
References
Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16(9), 451–468.
Arundel, A., & Kabla, I. (1998). What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy, 27(2), 127–141.
Basberg, B. L. (1984). Patent statistics and the measurement of technological change: An assessment of the Norwegian patent data, 1840–1980. World Patent Information, 6(4), 158–164.
Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structures. Applied Anthropology, 7, 16–30.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69–87.
Burt, R. (1976). Positions in networks. Social Forces, 55(1), 93–122.
Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
Chen, D. Z., Chang, H. W., Huang, M. H., & Fu, F. C. (2005). Core technologies and key industries in Taiwan from 1978 to 2002: A perspective from patent analysis. Scientometrics, 64(1), 31–53.
Engelsman, E. C., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1994). A patent-based cartography of technology. Research Policy, 23(1), 1–26.
Fernandez, R. M., & Gould, R. V. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. The American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1455–1491.
Freeman, L. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Krohn, K. (1984). Positions, roles, and dependencies in a community interorganizational system. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 527–550.
Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.
Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.
Grupp, H. (1996). Spillover effects and the science base of innovations reconsidered: An empirical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6(2), 175–197.
Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER working paper no. W8498, Social Science Research Network.
Han, Y., & Park, Y. (2006). Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: The case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Information, 28(3), 235–247.
Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70(3), 811–830.
Ho, M., & Verspagen, B. (2006). The role of national borders and regions in knowledge flows. In E. H. Lorenz & B. Å. Lundvall (Eds.), How Europe’s economies learn: Coordinating competing models (pp. 50–73). New York: Oxford University Press.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.
Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market values. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1), 105–136.
Keenan, M. (2002). Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: The UK experience. Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), 129–160.
Lacasa, I., Grupp, H., & Schmoch, U. (2003). Tracing technological change over long periods in Germany in chemicals using patent statistics. Scientometrics, 57(2), 175–195.
Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11(5), 295–324.
Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319.
Lissoni, F. (2008). Academic inventors as brokers: An exploratory analysis of the KEINS database. CESPRI working paper.
Ma, Z., & Lee, Y. (2008). Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980–2005. Technovation, 28(6), 379–390.
Marsden, P. (1982). Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 201–218). Beverly Hills: Sage.
No, H. J., & Park, Y. (2009). Trajectory patterns of technology fusion: Trend analysis and taxonomical grouping in nanobiotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change (in press). doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.006.
OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Using patent data as science and technology indicators. Paris, OECD. OCDE/GD(94)114.
Okamura, K., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). European alliance and knowledge networks. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(5), 535–560.
Oppenheim, C. (2000). Do patent citations count? In B. Cronin & H. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge (pp. 405–432). Medford: Information Today.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.
Ronde, P. (2001). Technological clusters with a knowledge-based principle: Evidence from a Delphi investigation in the French case of the life sciences. Research Policy, 30(7), 1041–1057.
Scherer, F. M. (1982). Inter-industry technology flows in the United States. Research Policy, 11(4), 227–245.
Shin, J., Lee, W., & Park, Y. (2006). On the benchmarking method of patent-based knowledge flow structure: Comparison of Korea and Taiwan with USA. Scientometrics, 69(3), 551–574.
Shin, J., & Park, Y. (2007). Building the national ICT frontier: The case of Korea. Information Economics and Policy, 19, 249–277.
Todorov, R. (1989). Co-classification analysis for science mapping: An example from superconductivity. In A. F. J. Van Raan, A. J. Nederhof, & H. F. Moed (Eds.), Science and technology indicators (pp. 261–270). University of Leiden: DSWO Press.
Verspagen, B. (1997). Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: Estimates from the European and US patent office databases. Economic Systems Research, 9(1), 47–65.
Verspagen, B. (1999). Large firms and knowledge flows in the Dutch R&D system: A case study of Philips electronics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(2), 211–233.
Verspagen, B. (2001). Small worlds and technology networks: The case of European research collaboration. KNOW conference. Athens, Greece.
Verspagen, B., & De Loo, I. (1999). Technology spillovers between sectors over time. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 215–235.
Yoffie, D. B. (1997). Competing in the age of digital convergence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Derivations of the expected values for the four types of technological knowledge flows
The expected values, E(j) = p(ijk) × (N − 1) × (N − 2), can vary upon the industry relations among classes i, j, and k. According to the four types of technological knowledge flows, the variations of the expected values are listed as below:
Type | Industry relation | p(ijk) | (N − 1) × (N − 2) |
---|---|---|---|
I | Ind I = Ind J = Ind K | pin × pout | (n j − 1)(n j − 2) |
II | Ind I ≠ Ind J and Ind J = Ind K | (1 − p in) × p out | (N − n j )(n j − 1) |
III | Ind I = Ind J and Ind J ≠ Ind K | pin × (1 − pout) | (n j − 1)(N − n j ) |
IV | Ind I ≠ Ind J and Ind J ≠ Ind K | (1 − p in) × (1 − p out) | (N − n j )(N − n j − 1) |
In the case of type I, p(ijk) can be specified into p in × p out, where p in is the observed probability that technological knowledge for class j comes from class i in the same industry (Ind J ), and p out is the observed probability that technological knowledge for class j goes to class k in the same industry.
The number of possible ordered pairs can be (n j − 1)(n j − 2) for type I, where n j is the number of classes in the Ind J (the industry where the class j belongs to), and N is the total number of classes of total K industries (in this case, N = 365 and K = 15).
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lim, H., Park, Y. Identification of technological knowledge intermediaries. Scientometrics 84, 543–561 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0133-8
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0133-8