A Dynamic Network Approach to Breakthrough Innovation

This paper outlines a framework for the study of innovation that treats discoveries as additions to evolving networks. As inventions enter they expand or limit the reach of the ideas they build on by influencing how successive discoveries use those ideas. The approach is grounded in novel measures of the extent to which an innovation amplifies or disrupts the status quo. Those measures index the effects inventions have on subsequent uses of prior discoveries. In so doing, they characterize a theoretically important but elusive feature of innovation. We validate our approach by showing it: (1) discriminates among innovations of similar impact in analyses of U.S. patents; (2) identifies discoveries that amplify and disrupt technology streams in select case studies; (3) implies disruptive patents decrease the use of their predecessors by 60% in difference-in-differences estimation; and, (4) yields novel findings in analyses of patenting at 110 U.S. universities.

[1]  Adam B. Jaffe,et al.  Innovation and its Discontents , 2004 .

[2]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Disruptive technology: how Kodak missed the digital photography revolution , 2013 .

[3]  M. Lourdes Sosa,et al.  Application-Specific R&D Capabilities and the Advantage of Incumbents: Evidence from the Anticancer Drug Market , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Carl E. Pray,et al.  IMPACT OF INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION ON INNOVATION IN THE U.S. PLANT BIOTECH INDUSTRY , 2000 .

[5]  M. Lourdes Sosa,et al.  From Old Competence Destruction to New Competence Access: Evidence from the Comparison of Two Discontinuities in Anticancer Drug Discovery , 2011 .

[6]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model , 2009 .

[7]  M. Lessnoff.  Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1979 .

[8]  Vivek Tandon,et al.  1 Moving Beyond Schumpeter: Management Research on the Determinants of Technological Innovation , 2008 .

[9]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Recruiting for Ideas: How Firms Exploit the Prior Inventions of New Hires , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[10]  W. Powell,et al.  Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[12]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[13]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[14]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention , 1997 .

[15]  Jonathan R. Cole,et al.  Balancing acts: dilemmas of choice facing research universities , 1993 .

[16]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[17]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[18]  John L. King,et al.  The Science of Science Policy , 2011 .

[19]  L. Fleming,et al.  Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success , 2007 .

[20]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[21]  Richard J. Gilbert,et al.  Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition--Innovation Debate? , 2006, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[22]  W. Abernathy.  Innovation : Mapping the winds of creative destruction * , 2003 .

[23]  Stuart J. H. Graham,et al.  Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? , 2008 .

[24]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[25]  Scott Shane,et al.  The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog , 2005, LinkKDD '05.

[27]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences , 1998 .

[28]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology , 2003 .

[29]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[30]  E. Duflo,et al.  How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? , 2001 .

[31]  W. Powell,et al.  The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity , 2003 .

[32]  Andrew B. Hargadon.  Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation , 2002 .

[33]  GruberMarc,et al.  Knowledge Recombination Across Technological Boundaries , 2013 .

[34]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Lone Inventors as Source of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality? , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[35]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[36]  James A. Evans.  Industry Induces Academic Science to Know Less about More1 , 2010, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[38]  Henrich R. Greve,et al.  Fast and expensive: the diffusion of a disappointing innovation , 2011 .

[39]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship , 1984 .

[40]  Gregory D. Graff,et al.  Agricultural Biotechnology's Complementary Intellectual Assets , 2001, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[41]  S. Carrière,et al.  (12) United States Patent Page (54) Method for Node Ranking in a Linked Database , .

[42]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  5. Modeling Diffusion of Multiple Innovations via Multilevel Diffusion Curves: Payola in Pop Music Radio , 2008 .

[43]  Robert Cook-Deegan,et al.  The effects of business practices, licensing, and intellectual property on development and dissemination of the polymerase chain reaction: case study , 2006, Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration.

[44]  Vallabh Sambamurthy,et al.  Social Contagion and Information Technology Diffusion: The Adoption of Electronic Medical Records in U.S. Hospitals , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[45]  Jason Owen-Smith,et al.  Networks as Institutional Support: Law Firm and Venture Capitalist Relations and Regional Diversity in High-technology IPOs * , 2010 .

[46]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms , 2003 .

[47]  Z. Griliches.  HYBRID CORN: AN EXPLORATION IN THE ECONOMIC OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE , 1957 .

[48]  J. Lane.  Let's make science metrics more scientific , 2010, Nature.

[49]  Jeannette A. Colyvas.  From divergent meanings to common practices: The early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University , 2007 .

[50]  M. Wigler,et al.  Processes for inserting DNA into eucaryotic cells and for producing proteinaceous materials. United States Patent 4634665 , 1987 .

[51]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 2004 .

[52]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents , 1998 .

[53]  W. Powell,et al.  Networks, Propinquity, and Innovation in Knowledge-intensive Industries , 2009 .

[54]  Fiona E. Murray.  Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering , 2002 .

[55]  A. Colaianni,et al.  Columbia University's Axel patents: technology transfer and implications for the Bayh-Dole Act. , 2009, The Milbank quarterly.

[56]  S S Hughes,et al.  Making Dollars out of DNA: The First Major Patent in Biotechnology and the Commercialization of Molecular Biology, 1974-1980 , 2001, Isis.

[57]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[58]  M. Feldman,et al.  Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change , 2003 .

[59]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[60]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Valuable Patents , 2003 .

[61]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Innovaton and Emulation: Lessons from American Universities in Selling Private Rights to Public Knowledge , 2007 .

[62]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Is the Patent Office a Rubber Stamp? , 2008 .

[63]  D. Orr.  AN INDEX OF ENTRY BARRIERS AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE MARKET STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP , 1974 .

[64]  Steven Levy,et al.  In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives , 2011 .

[65]  D. Harhoff,et al.  Citation Frequency and the Value of Patented Inventions , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[66]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[67]  S. Klepper.  Industry Life Cycles , 1997 .

[68]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[69]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[70]  Karin Hoisl,et al.  Knowledge Recombination Across Technological Boundaries: Scientists vs. Engineers , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[71]  G. King,et al.  Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding , 2011 .

[72]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .