Indicator

Indicator (274)
Innovation indicator (10)
Performance indicators (6)
Technology indicator (21)

Synopsis: Indicators: Indicator:

identification of collective pathways (multiple backcasting) A common type of backcasting work in a multiple framework scenarios context is to identify bifurcation points and early warning indicators.

Indicators; Delphi survey 1. Introduction 1. 1. Background In the last few years, the issue of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has become very attractive, in particular among European policy-makers.

indicator-based approaches surveys Delphi studies. 3. Methodologies 3. 1. Indicator-based approaches 3. 1. 1. Introduction and definition New developments in science and technology

and traced by different indicators. These indicators allow the creation of comparisons between scientific and technological fields, between countries, organisations,

and over time. The most important science and technology indicators are publications in scientific journals and patents 20.

The former indicator reflects better the activities in basic research whereas the latter covers the performance in applied research and development.

One rather new indicator 21 are released technical standards by formal standardisation bodies. Since standardisation is a kind of industry self regulation,

The use of indicators to perform regulatory foresight exercises is just beginning. Since research activities only being performed in basic research are less likely to create challenges for the regulatory framework in the near or mid-term future

patent indicators are suited better to perform regulatory foresight exercises in the sense of identifying dynamic fields of technology.

which is an indicator of an emerging field. Since there are numerous regulatory challenges triggered by the dynamics in science and technology

Blind 25 shows, based on international and inter-sectoral cross-section data, that the output of formal standardisation bodies can be explained significantly by the patent applications as a reliable indicator for the dynamics in the respective technologies.

Very illustrative examples of the relevance of patents as early indicators for upcoming standardisation activities are the case of GSM 26.

the link between science and technology indicators and indicators describing the regulatory framework is established not yet. This deficit is caused by a significant lack of regulatory indicators and especially of respective time series and of rather differentiated sub-categories in regulation.

Furthermore, not all new developments in science and technology, but especially those with possible impacts on health, safety, the environment and on the functioning of markets require an adjustment of the regulatory framework.

Data requirements/indicators: The simple quantitative use of science and technology indicators in order to detect future challenges for the regulatory framework is not sufficient.

The scope of science-and technology-based indicator approaches is certainly in detecting possible fields

However, the identification of specific regulatory issues and even solutions cannot be achieved by applying simple indicator-based approaches.

Data requirements/indicators: The main advantage of surveys is that they allow the consideration of very specific regulatory challenges in the future,

which cannot be covered by indicator-based methodologies. Hence, they are able to provide unique data in this respect.

and lead to representative results, the data can be combined with indicator-based approaches representing the universe in science and technology.

Data requirements/indicators: The application of the Delphi method to the issue of regulations and standards requires the development of questionnaires,

Consequently, the combination of indicator-based approaches, which allow at least the identification of stakeholders in science

Stakeholders from the user and even the consumer side are much more difficult to select based on the presented indicator methodologies

and assessment of regulatory foresight methodologies Methodology Type Data requirements Strengths Limitations Indicators Quantitative also providing qualitative information Adequate science

which address regulation-specific dimensions, like possible implications on competition, indicators, like regulatory indicators, and stakeholders, like regulatory bodies.

The new developed systematic approach to identify future fields for standardisation combines both an indicator-based approach with a Delphi exercise

A promising approach however is building mapping tools based on underlying patterns and indicators of the dynamics of emergence.

The concept of emerging irreversibilities combines emerging structure (as in path dependency literature) with agency (as in path creation literature) by looking at indicators of alignment

Therefore we would claim immediate usability as a positive impact indicator. At the level of Frontiers the tool has been taken up in official documents as MPM-1 was included in the first round strategic planning document known as the Frontiers Roadmap for 2006/2007.

This acknowledgement is another positive impact indicator. Further developments of MPM-2 will be included in the following evolutions of the roadmap,

using several indicators on HE performance, can also influence national and regional HE policies. Also indirectly and less manifestly the various EC funded projects and expert groups on higher education can also shape these policies. 5 ERIA is understood throughout this paper as the set of all relevant actors of RTDI processes in the EU

and especially that of the government sector, is higher in the less developed countries (Figs. 1 2). Third, output indicators, such as publications, citations,

Furthermore, this sector is often less visible in public indicators (such as the number of scientific publications

measurement and evaluation beyond the traditional academic indicators Grants offered by universities are designed both to nurture talents and foster cohesion Inferior performance and a weakening position vis-à-vis the leading Triad

A closer look at various R&d indicators clearly shows however, that universities are not predominant research performers in the developed OECD (and EU) countries.

we chose to average the ordinal preference values that the different interest groups attributed to each option in each scenario as an indicator.

In addition to performance analysis based on ex-post indicators the barometer includes the questionnaire of the views and visions of the future development by relevant national actors.

Comparisons are based on a number of different indicators, composite indicators or survey based studies providing comparisons in a wide range of fields like economy, society, education, innovation system, or sustainable development.

Although useful in benchmarking of country performances indicators, if poorly constructed, can convey misleading policy messages 1,

2. For example composite indicators illustrate complex and sometimes even elusive issues and they often seem easier to interpret by the Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 Corresponding author.

E-mail address: torsti. loikkanen@vtt. fi (T. Loikkanen. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:

10.1016/j. techfore. 2009.07.011 Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Technological forecasting & Social Change general public than finding a common trend among many separate indicators.

Accordingly composite indicators must be seen as starting points for initiating discussion and attracting public interest 1, 2. Finland has improved her positionamong developed nations according to several internationalperformance comparisons since the latter part of 1990s,

For example, one problem of comparisons based on composite indicators is that they give a backward looking mirror perspective,

Fromthe start TEK included in the barometer both a comparative study of reference countries, based on indicators of past development,

so that the comparison of indicators of latest exercise to those of previous barometers remains possible. 2. Theoretical framework

and methodology Technology barometer is a societal indicator instrument with a strong emphasis on the innovation environment.

In technology barometer this challenge is solved by dividing the exercise first into a comparison of the performance of the Finnish innovation system with selected nations on a basis of available international indicators

Indicator-based country comparisons reveal the strengths, weaknesses and related possible areas for intervention and policy-making,

and making interpretations and policy implications on the basis of the barometer results. 2. 1. Theoretical framework It is important for composite indicators,

or any indicator system in that case, to have a sound theoretical and methodological basis 1,

The indicators of technology barometer are structured correspondingly among different development stages of a modern society, from an information society into a knowledge society and from the knowledge society stage towards a knowledgevaalu society and towards the society fulfilling the requirements of sustainable development.

each containing three indicators (Fig. 1). In the information society, information production, processing, dissemination and exploitation play a central role in all societal sectors.

and corresponding indicators are basic education and schooling and the skills and knowledge of the general public in a nation,

In technology barometer, the indicators of knowledge society assess the gearing of the human and intellectual capital investments towards science and technology

The indicators on knowledge-value society focus on entrepreneurship and venturing, innovation networking, and adaptations of innovative practices in a nation.

The indicators of societies fulfilling the requirements of sustainable development are social values, environmental responsibility and environmental systems.

The technology barometer measures the objectives of sustainable development by three indicator entities social cohesion in the society in question, environmental protection actions taken by businesses and authorities,

In conclusion, an indicator study of the technology barometer comprises 12 sub-indicators providing an index-type key value indicating the state of technology at a given time.

The indicator-based data can be used for the generation of index figures to display the nations'techno-scientific base and level of societal development in comparison with the reference group.

UK and USA. 2. 2. Computation techniques There is an ongoing discussion of the merits of different techniques applied in indicator-based comparisons

and related construction of composite indicators 1. Methodological issues need to be addressed transparently prior to the construction and use of Fig. 1. Internal structure of technology barometer. 1179 T. Loikkanen et al./

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 composite indicators to avoid datamanipulation andmisrepresentation 1. OECD publications 1,

and challenges in constructing composite indicators (Appendix A presents examples of composite indicators). In the technology barometer the computational procedure is as follows.

Each partial area is measured by using a combined indicator in order to calculate an arithmetic average value of several statistical indicators'normalised values between-2 and+2. For example,

Techno-scientific competence (pages 17 19 in Technology barometer 2007,7) includes the demographic group of people aged 25 64 with higher education qualifications, the share of new graduates in techno

The aforementioned indicators are summarised in order to obtain a weighted index figure that shows the compared countries'ratings in terms of their techno-scientific competence.

In the same way other combined composite indicators determine Finland's proportional rating compared to the reference group countries in different areas of technology barometer (the content of Technology barometer 2007 is presented in Appendix B

). Besides the indicator-based comparative analysis the technology barometer includes a forward-looking survey of future expectations of relevant target groups.

and interpret interpreted in parallel with the results of indicator-based comparisons. Together these analyses give an all-inclusive understanding of the present state and future perspectives of techno-scientific development of the nation.

The combination of the indicator-based comparative study and the future-oriented survey into one instrument creates a unique platform for the further analyses of the economic

and innovation performance of the nation. 3. Results of technology barometer 3. 1. Indicator-based comparison Statistical indicators collected from the eight countries through OECD

A closer look into the contents of the various sub-indicators provides interesting and useful information.

In the barometer report the sub-indicators are weighted equally for each country. However, should one want to set different priorities to some sub-indicators,

the fully transparent method does not prevent this in any way. In the first three implementation rounds of technology barometer all reference group countries appear to have specific profiles of their own with strong characteristic features.

When assessing societies by information society indicators the Nordic countries particularly Finland and Sweden excel (Fig. 2). This is partly explained by vigorous investments in the development of intellectual capital.

Judging by the indicators of the next phase, knowledge society, the Nordic countries led by Sweden, retain their strong positions albeit with smaller margins,

A look into the knowledge-value society indicators opens up a significantly different picture. Here USA

Scoring well in this section correlates strongly with the country's rating in widely used indicators of material wealth,

According to the indicators of sustainable development Sweden, Denmark and The netherlands proved to be leading of the rated economies followed by Finland.

and the barometer publications consist of a lot of complementary and comparative data and analysis of considered indicators.

7. The synthesis paints a picture of the country's progress in each indicator of two recent technology barometers.

In Fig. 3 the indicators depicting the country's longstanding above-average and further strengthening position are located on the upper right.

and knowledge management. The indicators depicting an above-average but possibly deteriorating position are located on the upper left.

The indicators depicting below-average position of Finland are located below the centre line. The weakest partial area proved to be the exploitation of ICT.

Compared to the previous indicator studies (Technology barometer 2004 and 2005 positive development was observed in entrepreneurship and openness to internationalism. 1180 T. Loikkanen et al./

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 3. 2. Survey study of future visions In addition to indicator-based comparison the technology barometer instrument includes a survey about people's expectations regarding the future development trends.

and diversifies the results of the indicator study by allowing the mutual comparison of the four respondent groups'views

and results of indicator study obtained in 2005 and 2007. Standard statistical practices such as the Mann Whitney U test, were applied to analyze the results.

The enquiry was divided into four parts in accordance with the partial indicators: competence and knowledge generation, knowledge society development, innovative society and sustainable development.

and related indicators are the level of investment, entrepreneurial activity and the impact of technology development on the quality of life.

Indicator-based information being backward looking by nature, the survey supplements the barometer by providing a forwardloookin element to complete the overall view.

allowing the identification of changes occurred in the course of time both in indicator study as well as in survey study.

Recent relatively radical changes of Finnish innovation policy are challenging data basis and indicators of research and innovation,

and novel indicators to be included in the barometer. In Finland, the sectoral research system of government administrations will be renewed,

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 indicators. Moreover, the process of developing Finnish national strategic centres for science, technology and innovation is underway in the technology fields with future importance for businesses and the society.

All these changes pose newchallenges to indicator and survey studies of technology barometer. The further development of barometer to respond to the above mentioned challenges is already in process.

Development of comprehensive indicators is time-consuming requiring a fair amount of resources as well as a widespread contact network within the society.

Also, the European commission produces several indicator and barometer type scoreboards and publications. With regard to the development of international comparisons the conclusions for the moment could be that at this stage it is important to let all flowers bloom in this field.

Appendix A. Examples of composite indicators Source: JRC (2002) and compilation by OECD. Area/name of composite indicator Economy Composite of Leading indicators (OECD) OECD International Regulation Database (OECD) Economic Freedom of the World

Index (Economic Freedom Network) Economic Sentiment Indicator (EC) Internal Market Index (EC) Business Climate Indicator (EC) Environment Environmental sustainability Index (World

Economic Forum) Wellbeing Index (Prescott-Allen) Sustainable development Index (UN) Synthetic Environmental Indices (Isla M.)Eco-indicator 99 (pre consultants) Concern about environmental problems

(Parker) Index of Environmental Friendliness (Puolamaa) Environmental policy Performance Index (Adriaanse) Globalization Global Competitiveness Report (World Economic Forum) Transnationality Index (UNCTAD) Globalization

in Knowledge-based Economy (EC) Performance in Knowledge-based Economy (EC) Technology Achievement Index (UN) General Indicator of Science and Technology (NISTEP) Information and Communications technologies

society 1. Introduction 2. Key results 2. 1. Barometer structure 2. 2. Key results 2. 3. Discussion 3. Indicators 3. 1

on constructing composite indicators. Methodology and user guide. OECD Statistics Working papers 2005/3, OECD, Paris, 2005.2 M. Freudenberg, Composite indicators of country performance:

a critical assessment. STI Working Paper Series 2005/3, OECD, Paris, 2005.3 M. Naumanen, Tekbaro Teknologiabarometri kansalaisten asenteista ja kansakunnan suuntautumisesta tietoon perustuvaan yhteiskuntaan

Although not an official body, the Nanodiablog community is deemed a high quality indicator of the populace (in any case the populace who takes an interest) and principles such as precaution, inclusiveness (transparency), integrity (protection for whistle blowers), ongoing

This can be seen as a stakeholder endorsement of the approach (which is an important indicator how well workshops like these are working.

The COST A22 Action on Foresight methodologies and the appearance of several journals dedicated to this area are just a few indicators of this.

from an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology analysis & Strategic management 13, no. 4: 533 53.

In our framework, these indicators reflect one of three main types of MOT information: technological maturation (life cycle status), contextual influences and market potential 3. The innovation indicators help answer MOT questions.

Our list of some 200 indicators is not exhaustive, but it suggests particular indicators for each MOT question.

One would adapt these to one's data sources and managerial concerns to posit particular indicators.

We emphasize that pre-specifying the empirical indicators for selected MOT questions and issues is vital for QTIP to work.

Having standard information dramatically enhances managerial receptivity:!Standard information becomes familiar information.!Familiar information becomes credible information.!

and understand each component indicator, and know what to look for. Accompanying this bone-pagerq would be the analyst's interpretation.

box (lower right) spotlights several indicators of technological advance: o publication and patent activity relating to the candidate hot topic (bnano-comboq-nano-surfaces

o another indicator of how hot a research area is the ratio of conference to journal publication relatively low for this subtopic in comparison to the larger research domain we might want to explore this discrepancy with our subject experts,

in order to be able to characterise them with appropriate indicators. In the first place the bipolar dimension of convergence/divergence should be substituted by a notion of pattern of growth that encompasses additional archetypes of transformations of‘‘bodies of knowledge''merging, death, birth...

Presentation at the 2nd PRIME Indicators Conference on STI Indicators for Policy Addressing New Demands of Stakeholders, Oslo, 28 30,may 2008. 47 A. Bonaccorsi, The dynamics of science in the nano

A series of methodological options, including scientometric indicators, surveys and Delphi studies are reviewed in the light of experience.

identifying turning points and indicators of change, developing narratives of future histories and accounts of affairs at a future point in time in a way enabling comparison across break out groups, and so on.

The indicators have emerged from the combination of the GRI and the UN Global Compact Initiative (UNGCI) in the GRI G3 guidelines. 3 The UNGCI, launched by the United nations in 2000 in partnership with business,

somewhat noisy and generally socially situated indicators of change in trends and systems that constitute raw informational material for enabling anticipatory action.

but not confirmed changes that may later become more significant indicators of critical forces for development, threats, business and technical innovation.

Promoting Action for Sustainability Through Indicators at Local Level in Europe), INTELCITIES (IST-FP6) and REFORM (Rok-FP6),

and Indicators, Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta. Mishan, E. J. and Quah, E. 2007), Cost Benefit Analysis, 5th ed.,Routledge, London and New york, NY.

For instance, the growing attention for a certain subject is an indicator for an emerging irreversibility. Fig. 1 shows the growing attention in journals for a certain topic and indicates that the term dnanotubest was used increasingly in the titles of scientific articles (extracted from the Picarta database.

as indicators of emerging irreversibilities. R. O. van Merkerk, H. van Lente/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1094 1111 1097 technological field, with its dedicated journals, conferences and communities.

Functional implications should provide plenty of clues for the establishment of a set of parametric indicators that will measure urban development impacts.

This goal may be achieved by analysing the in depth implications of each future scenario for functional systems, parametric indicators and spatial patterns. 4. 2 Step 2:

determining parametric implications Once functional implications have been determined, a set of parametric indicators related to standard sustainability issues (Kates et al.

determining spatial implications After parameterizing and projecting a set of sustainability indicators, the spatial implications of each scenario can be displayed with graphic tools.

I Main scenarios indicators 2025 Indicators Measurement unit 2010 Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Analytical methods and tools used for estimating indicators Society Population growth K

Goals, indicators, values, and practice'',Environment, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 8-21. Meadows, D. 1998), Indicators and Information systems for Sustainable development, The Sustainability Institute, Balaton Group, Montpelier, VT.

Millennium Project (n d.),available at: www. millennium-project. org (accessed 16 september 2011. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001), Les lignes directrices du CAD Strate'gies de de'veloppement durable, Organisation for Economic Co

While RIA evaluations usually employ indicators case studies and surveys as the most commonly used approaches (Blind, 2006), FTA would add to this methodological list other approaches that could render the evaluation of current laws,

The paper presents and develops three methodological approaches (indicator-based approaches, surveys and foresight studies Delphi methodology and scenarios) that are adequate to conduct regulatory foresight,

From an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology analysis & Strategic management 13, no. 4: 533 53.

From an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology analysis & Strategic management 13, no. 4: 533 53.

verifying and reporting the business performance improvement through established and specific indicators so that one can redefine its strategy and shape a new plan for the next cycle of improvement.

and indicators along the network and thus create individual and cooperative competitive advantages Operation The business principles

and evaluate the obtained results based on developed indicators. This will enable the organisation to make an assessment about whether

Sci. 16 (4)( 1998) 322 346.8 K. W. Boyack, K. Bfrner, Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research:

Dr. Boyack's current interests and work are related to information visualization, knowledge domains, semantics, metrics and indicators, cognition,

Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82, no. 2: 263 87.

Curran, C. S. and Leker, J. 2011),‘Patent indicators for monitoring convergence examples from NFF and ICT'',Technological forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78, pp. 256-73.

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2013 jforesight jpage 71 Griliches, Z. 1990),‘Patent statistics as economic indicators:

they propose a model to calculate the TLC for a technology based on multiple patent-related indicators.

and assessing patent-based TLC indicators using a Nearest Neighbour Classifier, which is used widely in pattern recognition,

Examples of current and upcoming FTA practices Output of qualitative approaches as input to quantitative approaches New indicators:

Qualitative data can provide additional evidence to quantitative models by inclusion of new indicators created from quantified expert judgments.

(whether it is a modeller choosing a functional form or an indicator, or a foresight practitioner identifying the right stakeholders to invite to a workshop).

Obviously, such endeavour would require the existence of both good performance indicators and the identification of correlations and causal relationships between the scores on the indicators and the anticipatory approaches applied.

The Handbook of Technology foresight, Concepts and Practicesedward Elgar, UK, 2008.37 C. S. Curran, J. Leker, Patent indicators for monitoring convergence examples from NFF and ICT, Technol.

In this paper, we build a model to calculate the TLC for an object technology based on multiple patent-related indicators.

and assessing patent-based TLC indicators. Then we choose some technologies (training technologies) with identified life cycle stages,

and finally compare the indicator features in training technologies with the indicator values in an object technology (test technology) using a nearest neighbour classifier,

Technology life cycle Patent Indicator Cathode ray tube Thin film transistor liquid crystal display Nano-biosensor 1. Introduction The rapidly changing economic environment

But using one indicator only to present technological performance would be problematic. A research team from MIT 11 studied the development trends of power transmission technology and aero-engine technology by S-curve modelling.

The results showed that the S-curve with a single indicator was not reliable and might lead the research in the wrong direction.

They suggested considering multiple indicators to measure technological development and to make business decisions. Usually, patent application activity is tracked as a TLC indicator for the S-curve analysis 10,12, 13.

But using patent application counts alone to represent the development of technology oversimplifies the situation. Accordingly, some multiple indicators are used to measure TLC.

Watts and Porter 14 have introduced nine indicators that look at publications of different types during the technology life cycle.

Reinhard et al. 15 tested seven indicators related to patents. Table 1 shows the indicators listed in the two papers.

These papers studied the indicators that would have different performance based on the changes of technology.

Separately the indicators can serve to measure technological changes. In this paper, we focus on combining multiple indicators to calculate the life cycle stages for an object technology

and hope that would help decision makers estimate its future development trends. 2. Methodology The model that we build to calculate the TLC for an object technology includes the following steps:

first, we focus on devising and assessing patent-based TLC indicators, then we choose some technologies (training technologies) with identified life cycle stages,

and finally we compare the indicator features in training technologies with the indicator values in an object technology Fig. 1. The S-curve concept of technology life cycle. 399 L. Gao et al./

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 398 407 (test technology) via the nearest neighbour classifier,

which is used widely in pattern recognition, in order to measure the technology's life cycle stages. The research framework is designed as follows (Fig. 2). 2. 1. Indicators

and data source The most fundamental and challenging task is to select suitable indicators and data sources.

In a recent work 16, we have compiled candidate patent indicators from multiple sources. Thirteen indicators are selected for TLC assessment (Table 2). All the data of the indicators are extracted by priority year (the first filing date year for a patent application

except the first indicator. In this research, we choose the Derwent Innovation Index (DII) as the data source and Vantagepoint (VP) for data cleaning and extraction.

Matlab 2010b is used for implementing the algorithms. 2. 1. 1. Application and priority Usually, three kinds of dates are included in the DII database:

application year, priority year, and basic year. The basic year has no legal meaning, but only represents the year in

So in this paper, we choose the other two indicators to measure the development of technology:

we count the number of patents Table 1 Technology life cycle indicators by former researchers. Author Indicator Robert J Watts, Alan L Porter 14 Number of items in databases such as Science Citation Index number of items in databases such as Engineering

Index number of items in databases such as U s. patents Number of items in databases such as Newspaper Abstracts Daily Issues raised in the Business

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 398 407 in DII by application year for the Application indicator and count the number of patents in DII by priority year for the Priority indicator

We count the respective numbers for each of these two indicators in DII by priority year. 2. 1. 3. Inventor This indicator indicates the amount of human resources invested in R&d of one particular technology.

Number of Inventors has been used as indicator to measure the TLC of RFID 21. We count the number of unique individual inventors of each year by priority year. 2. 1. 4. Citation Two major types of cited references are given in a patent:

IPC code has been used as an indicator to measure the technology life cycle 26. We count the number of IPCS 4-digit) in DII by priority year for the IPC indicator;

count the number of patents among the top 5 IPCS in DII by priority year for the IPC top 5 indicator;

and count the number of patents among the top 10 IPCS in DII by priority year for the IPC top 10 indicator. 2. 1. 6. MCS The Derwent manual code (MC

) system is developed a hierarchical classification system by Derwent. It is similar to the IPC classification system. Whereas the IPC is assigned by the examining patent offices,

We count the number of MCS in DII by priority year for the MC indicator;

count the number of patents among the top 5 MCS in DII by priority year for the MC top 5 indicator;

and count the number of patents among the top 10 MCS in DII by priority year for the MC top 10 indicator.

Table 2 Technology life cycle indicators. No. Indicator Indicator description 1 Application Number of patents in DII by application year 2 Priority Number of patents in DII by priority year 3 Corporate Number

of corporates in DII by priority year 4 Non-corporate Number of non-corporates in DII by priority year 5 Inventor Number of inventors in DII by priority year

and analyse indicator data. 2. 4. Data process First, we develop a map for 13 indicators of each training technology.

Numbers of inventors suggest very interesting changes in different stages. Fig. 3, which presents the emerging and growth stages, shows that the number of inventors is typically higher than that of all other indicators.

This declines in the mid-maturity stage (Fig. 4 but slightly increases in the following years.

The number of inventors is less than some other indicators, such as application numbers and priority application numbers in the maturity and decline stages.

Trends of other indicators also show different patterns. In the emerging and growth stages, indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10,11, 12,

and 13 show similar trends; indicator 6 and 8 look similar; indicators 3 and 7 are different from the others and also different from each other.

In the maturity and decline stages, indicators 1, 2, 9 and 10 are similar. To make clear which indicators are similar with the others in the development trends,

we employ a cross-correlation analysis to measure the similarity among the 13 indicators in the four stages.

Table 4 provides the results of the cross-correlation analysis (r=0. 9). Emerging stage:

In group 1, indicators 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10,11, 12, and 13 have strong correlations.

Indicators 5, 6, and 7 are another group with strong correlations. Indicators 4 and 8 are uncorrelated.

Growth stage: 11 of the 13 indicators are correlated strongly. Indicators 6 and 7 form the other group with strong correlations.

Maturity stage: There are 5 groups in this stage. Indicators 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,

and 13 have strong correlations. Indicators 11,12, and 13 form another group. Indicators 4, 5,

and 6 are uncorrelated. Decline stage: There are 6 groups in this stage. Because CRT is still in its decline stage,

the indicator performance should be interpreted with great caution. Since the indicators show different trends in different stages, it might be better to combine all 13 indicators to measure the change of technology rather than using one single indicator.

It is common to process multidimensional data by matrix. The original data are extracted by Vantagepoint

and imported into MS Excel 13 rows of indicators, 30 columns (years) for TFT-LCD (from 1978 to 2007), 36 columns (years) for CRT (from 1972 to 2008),

and 24 columns (years) for NBS (from 1985 to 2008. Table 3 TLC stages of CRT and TFT-LCD.

Stage Emerging Growth Maturity Decline Period (year)( CRT) 1897 1929 1930 1972 1973 2000 2001 2020 Period (year)( TFT-LCD

) 1976 1990 1991 2007 2008 402 L. Gao et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 398 407 We propose a normalisation method with two steps to pre-process the original data.

The first step is data smoothing by calculating three-year moving averages. The original data are defined as A A1;

-TOP10 Fig. 3. Development trends of 13 indicators (TFT-LCD. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

MC-TOP10 Fig. 4. Development trends of 13 indicators (CRT. 403 L. Gao et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 398 407 A1 i;

vuutð13þ Table 4 Cross-correlation analysis for 13 indicators (r=0. 9). TLC stage Emerging Growth Maturity Decline Group 1 1, 2

it adopts 13 indicators that can be quantified to measure the TLC stages of an object technology.

since data of the all indicators can be downloaded from most patent databases. Certainly, our study possesses limitations.

if we can improve indicator performance. Many papers have pointed to the desirability of improving the accuracy of trend projection methods 36 39.

Change 56 (1997) 25 47.15 R. Haupt, M. Kloyer, M. Lange, Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development, Res.

, Study on indicator system for core patent documents evaluation, in: Proceedings of ISSI 2009-The 12th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rio de janeiro, Brazil, 2009, pp. 154 164.17 C. Zhang, D. H

Public policy 27 (5)( 2000) 310 320.24 F. Narin, E. Noma, R. Perry, Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength, Res.

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011