A dynamic network measure of technological change

Management Science

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 791-817

  Funk, Russell J ^a   Owen Smith, Jason ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Graphs; Innovation; Networks; Organizational studies; Research and development; Strategy; Technological change; Universities

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; NETWORKS (CIRCUITS); PLANNING; SOCIAL SCIENCES COMPUTING;

GRAPHS; ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; STRATEGY; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE; UNIVERSITIES;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 85015218622     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Abernathy WJ, Clark KB (1985) Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Res. Policy 14(1):3-22.
2. Ahuja G, Lampert CM, Tandon V (2008) Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. Acad. Management Ann. 2(1):1-98.
3. Alcácer J, Gittelman M, Sampat B (2009) Applicant and examiner citations in U. S. patents: An overview and analysis. Res. Policy 38(2):415-427.
4. Arthur WB (2007) The structure of invention. Res. Policy 36(2):274-287.
5. Arthur WB (2009) The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves (Free Press, New York).
6. Azoulay P, Ding W, Stuart T (2007) The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? J. Econom. Behavior Organ. 63(4):599-623.
7. Benner M (2007) The incumbent discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change. Acad. Management J. 32(3):73-720.
8. Bettencourt LM, Lobo J, Helbing D, Kühnert C, West GB (2007) Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(17):7301-7306.
9. Bresnahan T, Greenstein S (1996) Technical progress and co-invention in computing and the uses of computers. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, Washington, DC, 1-83.
10. Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput. Networks ISDN Systems 30(1-7):107-117.
11. Buhr H, Owen-Smith J (2010) Networks as institutional support: Law firm and venture capital relations and regional diversity in hightechnology IPOs. Res. Sociol. Work 21:95-126.
12. Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349-399.
13. Christensen CM (1997) The Innovator's Dilemma (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).
14. Colaianni A, Cook-Deegan R (2009) Columbia University's Axel patents: Technology transfer and implications for the Bayh-Dole act. Milbank Quart. 87(3):683-715.
15. Cole JR (1993) Balancing acts: Dilemmas of choice facing research universities. Daedalus 122(4):1-36.
16. Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35(5):703-722.
17. Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23(5):487-521.
18. David PA (1990) The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(2):355-361.
19. de Vaan M, Stark D, Vedres B (2015) Game changer: The topology of creativity. Amer. J. Sociol. 120(4):1144-1194.
20. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11(3):147-162.
21. Economist, The (2002) Innovation's golden goose. (December 14): 3.
22. Enos JL (1958) A measure of the rate of technological progress in the petroleum refining industry. J. Indust. Econom. 6(3):180-197.
23. Enos JL (1962) Invention and innovation in the petroleum refining industry. Richard RN, ed. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ), 299-322.
24. Fealing KH, Lane JI, Marburger JH III, Shipp SS (2011) The Science of Science Policy (Stanford Business Books, Stanford, CA).
25. Feldman MP, Yoon JW (2012) An empirical test for general purpose technology: An examination of the Cohen-Boyer rDNA technology. Indust. Corporate Change 21(2):249-275.
26. Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117-132.
27. Fleming L, Sorenson O (2004) Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management J. 25(8-9):909-928.
28. Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D (2007) Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):443-475.
29. Fore J, Wiechers IR, Cook-Deegan R (2006) The effects of business practices, licensing, and intellectual property on development and dissemination of the polymerase chain reaction: Case study. J. Biomedical Discovery Collaboration 1:7.
30. Funk RJ (2014) Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in organizations. Acad. Management J. 57(1):193-222.
31. Gambardella A (1995) Science and Innovation: The U. S. Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
32. Gilbert R (2006) Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where are we in the competition-innovation debate? Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S, eds. Innovation Policy and the Economy Vol. 6(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 159-215.
33. Goldfarb B (2005) Diffusion of general-purpose technologies: Understanding patterns in the electrification of U. S. manufacturing 1880-1930. Indust. Corporate Change 14(5):745-773.
34. Graff GD, Rausser GC, Small AA (2003) Agricultural biotechnology's complementary intellectual assets. Rev. Econom. Statist. 85(2):349-363.
35. Greenberg DS (2007) Science for Sale (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
36. Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J. Econom. Lit. 28:1661-1707.
37. Hall BH, Trajtenberg M (2004) Uncovering GPTs with patent data. NBER Working Paper 10901, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
38. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2002) The NBER patent-citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, eds. Patents, Citations and Innovations (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 403-460.
39. Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer FM, Vopel K (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econom. Statist. 81:511-515.
40. Hausman J, Hall BH, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 52(4):909-938.
41. Henderson R, Cockburn I (1996) Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND J. Econom. 27(1):32-59.
42. Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (1998) Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Rev. Econom. Statist. 80(1):119-127.
43. Hughes SS (2001) Making dollars out of DNA: The first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974-1980. Isis 92(3):541-575.
44. Jaffe AB, Lerner J (2004) Innovation and Its Discontents (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
45. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2002) Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
46. Kabo FW, Cotton-Nessler N, Hwang Y, Levenstein MC, Owen-Smith J (2014) Proximity effects on the dynamics and outcomes of scientific collaborations. Res. Policy 43(9):1469-1485.
47. Kaplan S, Murray F, Henderson R (2003) Discontinuities and senior management: Assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology. Indust. Corporate Change 12(2):203-233.
48. Krimsky S (2004) Science in the Private Interest (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD).
49. Lane J (2010) Let's make science metrics more scientific. Nature 464(7288):488-489.
50. Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114(495):441-465.
51. Lemley MA, Sampat B (2008) Is the patent office a rubber stamp? Emory Law J. 58:181-206.
52. Lemley MA, Sampat B (2012) Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(3):817-827.
53. Li G-C, Lai R, D'Amour A, Doolin DM, Sun Y, Torvik VI, Yu AZ, Fleming L (2014) Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U. S. patent inventor database (1975-2010). Res. Policy 43(6):941-955.
54. Lucas HC, Goh JM (2009) Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 18(1):46-55.
55. Mayer H (2011) Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Second Tier Regions (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA).
56. Mehta A, Rysman M, Simcoe T (2010) Identifying the age profile of patent citations: New estimates of knowledge diffusion. J. Appl. Econometrics 25(7):1179-1204.
57. Mokyr J (1990) Punctuated equilibria and technological progress. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(2):350-354.
58. Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2002) Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Res. Policy 31(3):399-418.
59. Mowery DC, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2002) Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U. S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Sci. 48(1):73-89.
60. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of EconomicChange (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
61. Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(1):100-130.
62. Owen-Smith J (2003) From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Res. Policy 32(6):1081-1104.
63. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res. Policy 32(9):1695-1711.
64. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ. Sci. 15(1):5-21.
65. Owen-Smith J, Cotton-Nessler NC, Buhr H (2015) Network effects on organizational decision-making: Blended social mechanisms and IPO withdrawal. Soc. Networks 41:1-17.
66. Pollack A (2009) As patent ends, a seed's use will survive. New York Times (December 17), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html.
67. Powell WW, Owen-Smith J (1998) Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. J. Policy Anal. Management 17(2):253-277.
68. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1):116-145.
69. Powell WW, Owen-Smith J, Colyvas J (2007) Innovation and emulation: Lessons from American universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva 45(2):121-142.
70. Powell WW, Packalen K, Whittington K (2012) Organizational and institutional genesis: The emergence of high-tech clusters in the life sciences. Padgett JF, Powell WW, eds. The Emergence of Organizations and Markets (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 434-465.
71. Rosenberg N (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
72. Rosenberg N, Nelson RR (1994) American universities and technical advance in industry. Res. Policy 23(3):323-348.
73. Schumpeter J (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Perennial, New York).
74. Sine WD, Shane S, Gregorio DD (2003) The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Sci. 49(4):478-496.
75. Singh J, Fleming L (2010) Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Sci. 56(1):41-56.
76. Schoenmakers W, Duysters G (2010) The technological origins of radical inventions. Res. Policy 39(8):1051-1059.
77. Sosa ML (2009) Application-specific R&D capabilities and the advantage of incumbents: Evidence from the anticancer drug market. Management Sci. 55(8):1409-1422.
78. Sosa ML (2011) From old competence destructiontonew competence access: Evidence from the comparison of two discontinuities in anticancer drug discovery. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1500-1516.
79. Stephan P (2012) How Economics Shapes Science (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
80. Stuart T, Sorenson O (2003) The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Res. Policy 32(2):229-253.
81. Taylor A, Greve HR (2006) Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Acad. Management J. 49(4):723-740.
82. Trajtenberg M (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J. Econom. 21(1):172-187.
83. Trajtenberg M, Henderson R, Jaffe AB (1997) University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 5(1):19-50.
84. Tripsas M (1997) Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):119-142.
85. Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3):439-465.
86. Verspagen B (2007) Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: A study on the history of fuel cell research. Adv. Complex Systems 10(1):93-115.
87. Washburn J (2005) University, Inc. (Basic Books, New York).
88. Whittington KB, Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2009) Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):90-122.
89. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance ofteams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036-1039.
90. Youtie J, Iacopette M, Graham S (2008) Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? J. Tech. Transfer 33(3):315-329.