Abstract
Recent research has suggested that conventionality, in addition to novelty, creates value for invention. A balance between the novelty and conventionality of an invention may determine its eventual value, but is rarely understood. In this study, we use patents to approximate technological inventions, and measure the novelty, conventionality, and value of invention using patent reference and citation data from USPTO. Our empirical analyses of the patents in the 1990s reveal that medium conventionality and high novelty lead to high invention value. When conventionality is low or medium, increasing it may amplify the contribution of novelty to the value of invention. When conventionality is too high, invention value is generally low regardless of novelty. These findings provide implications and guidance to designers for enhancing the value of their potential inventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Albert MB, Avery D, Narin F, McAllister P (1991) Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Res Policy 20(3):251–259
Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context: update to “the social psychology of creativity”. Westview Press, Boulder
Boden M (1990) The creative mind: myths and mechanisms. Basic Books, New York
Boden MA (1996) Dimensions of creativity. MIT Press, Cambridge
Brown DC (2015) Computational design creativity evaluation. In: Design computing and cognition’14. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–224
Chan J, Fu K, Schunn C, Cagan J, Wood K, Kotovsky K (2011) On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. J Mech Des 133(8):081004
Chan J, Dow SP, Schunn CD (2015) Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration? Des Stud 36:31–58
Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Manage Sci 47(1):117–132
Fleming L, Sorenson O (2000) Science as a map in technological search. Available at SSRN 249578
Fu K, Chan J, Cagan J, Kotovsky K, Schunn C, Wood K (2013) The meaning of “near” and “far”: the impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. J Mech Des 135(2):021007
Grace K, Maher ML, Fisher D, Brady K (2015) Modeling expectation for evaluating surprise in design creativity. In: design computing and cognition’14. Springer, Berlin, pp 189–206
Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308(5722):697–702
Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2000) Market value and patent citations: a first look. National Bureau of Economic Research
Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research
Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM, Vopel K (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev Econ Stat 81(3):511–515
Kaufman JC, Baer J (2004) Hawking’s haiku, Madonna’s math: why it is hard to be creative in every room of the house
Kuhn TS (2012) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Newell A, Shaw JC, Simon HA (1959) The processes of creative thinking. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica
Nickerson JV (2015) Collective design: remixing and visibility. In: Design computing and cognition’14. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–276
Oman SK, Tumer IY, Wood K, Seepersad C (2013) A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects. Res Eng Des 24(1):65–92
Plucker JA, Beghetto RA (2004) Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter
Prabir S, Amaresh C (2007) Development of a method for assessing design creativity. Guidelines for a Decision Support Method Adapted to NPD Processes
Simonton DK (1999) Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychol Inq 10(4):309–328
Simonton DK (2000) Creativity: cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. Am Psychol 55(1):151
Simonton DK (2004) Creativity as a constrained stochastic process
Sternberg RJ, Lubart TI (1999) The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. Handb Creativity 1:3–15
Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand J Econ 172–187
Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442
Weisberg RW (1993) Creativity: beyond the myth of genius. WH Freeman, New York
Weisberg RW (2006) Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Wiley, Hoboken
Acknowledgements
This research is sponsored by the grants from SUTD-MIT International Design Centre at Singapore University of Technology and Design and Singapore Ministry of Education Tier 2 Grant (#MOE2013-T2-2-167). We also thank Kristin Wood, Aditya Mathur, and Christopher Magee for useful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
He, Y., Luo, J. (2017). Novelty, Conventionality, and Value of Invention. In: Gero, J. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44989-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44989-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44988-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44989-0
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)