Advertisement

Market Complexity Evaluation to Enhance the Effectiveness of TRIZ Outputs

  • Paolo CarraraEmail author
  • Davide Russo
  • Anna Rita Bennato
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 541)

Abstract

In the context of innovation consulting activity, it may happen working in technical fields characterized by a high competitiveness level. Although TRIZ allows reaching innovative ideas in any kind of industry, it does not suggest any tool in order to evaluate the success rate of the invention in the reference market. During the last years, TRIZ got methodological contributes to sharpen the matching between the inventive idea and the actual needs of the market, for example the market potential tool. In order to support TRIZ experts in selecting the best innovation strategy, this paper introduces a new tool for the TRIZ toolbox that takes into account the competitiveness level of the market. Several economics works disclose the correlation between the patent-citation triadic relationships and the presence of dominant positions of few competitors. A patent analysis, focused on triads in patent citation, can inform the TRIZ expert about potential critical situation able to prevent the success of an inventive solution. It can generate an important indicator that helps him in selecting the most promising innovation strategy. The method could be integrated in a classic TRIZ activity, using commercial patent searching tools. The case study shows how to extract this kind of indicator from patent citation environment in Machine Learning field.

Keywords

TRIZ Patent Patent thicket Business Intelligence Market structure 

References

  1. 1.
    Brannon, N.: Business intelligence and E-discovery. Intellect. Prop. Technol. Law J. 22, 1–5 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alaskar, T., Poulis, E.: Business intelligence capabilities and implementation strategies. Int. J. Glob. Bus. 8, 34–45 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marchand, M., Raymond, L.: Researching performance measurement systems. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 28, 663–686 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570810881802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walsh, J.P., Lee, Y.-N.N., Jung, T.: Win, lose or draw? the fate of patented inventions. Res. Policy 45, 1362–1373 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Livotov, P.: Using patent information for identification of new product features with high market potential. In: TRIZ Future Conference. Elsevier B.V. (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A.: Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Ind. Corp. Chang. 10, 419–451 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.2.419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shapiro, C.: Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. In: Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J., Stern, S. (eds.) Innovation Policy and the Economy, pp. 119–150. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Von Graevenitz, G., Wagner, S., Harhoff, D.: How to measure patent thickets-a novel approach. Econ. Lett. 111, 6–9 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ijichi, T., Yoda, T., Hirasawa, R.: Mapping R&D network dynamics: analysis of the development of co-author and co-inventor relations. J. Sci. Policy Res. Manag. 8, 263–275 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.20801/jsrpim.8.3_4_263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Von Graevenitz, G., Wagner, S., Harhoff, D.: Incidence and growth of patent thickets: the impact of technological opportunities and complexity. J. Ind. Econ. 61, 521–563 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rubinfeld, D., Maness, R.: The strategic use of patents: implications for antitrust. Antitrust, patents Copyright - EU US Perspect, pp. 85–102 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sabety, T.: Nanotechnology innovation and the patent thicket: which IP policies promote growth. Albany Law J. Sci. Technol. 15, 477 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bawa, R., Bawa, S.R., Maebius, S.B.: The nanotechnology patent “gold rush”. J. Intellect. Prop. Rights 10, 426–433 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D’Silva, J.: Pools, thickets and open source nanotechnology. Eur. Intellect. Prop. Rev. 31, 300 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarkson, G., DeKorte, D.: The problem of patent thickets in convergent technologies. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1093, 180–200 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1382.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hargreaves, I.: Digital opportunity (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall, B., Helmers, C., von Graevenitz, G.: Technology entry in the presence of patent thickets, Cambridge, MA (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galasso, A., Schankerman, M.: Patent thickets, courts, and the market for innovation. RAND J. Econ. 41, 472–503 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2010.00108.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallini, N.: Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance. Can. J. Econ. 50, 893–926 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OECD: The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities Using Patent Data as Science and Technology Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M.: Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econ. 36, 16–38 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-009-2643-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università degli Studi di BergamoDalmineItaly
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations