Novelty, Conventionality, and Value of Invention

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.

[1]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Development of a Method for Assessing Design Creativity , 2007 .

[2]  D. Simonton.  Creativity. Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[3]  D. Simonton.  Creativity as Blind Variation and Selective Retention : Is the Creative Process Darwinian ? , 2022 .

[4]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity , 1996 .

[5]  Manuel Trajtenberg,et al.  Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look , 2000 .

[6]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[7]  Dean Keith Simonton,et al.  Creativity as a Constrained Stochastic Process. , 2004 .

[8]  Irem Y. Tumer,et al.  A comparison of creativity and innovation metrics and sample validation through in-class design projects , 2013 .

[9]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[10]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[11]  M. Boden.  Dimensions of creativity , 1996 .

[12]  Katherine A. Brady,et al.  Modeling Expectation for Evaluating Surprise in Design Creativity , 2015 .

[13]  R. Beghetto,et al.  Why Creativity Is Domain General, Why It Looks Domain Specific, and Why the Distinction Does Not Matter. , 2004 .

[14]  F. Narin,et al.  Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents , 1991 .

[15]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Do the best design ideas (really) come from conceptually distant sources of inspiration , 2015 .

[16]  Jeffrey V. Nickerson.  Collective Design: Remixing and Visibility , 2014 .

[17]  R. Sternberg,et al.  The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. , 1998 .

[18]  David C. Brown,et al.  Computational Design Creativity Evaluation , 2015 .

[19]  M. Boden.  The creative mind : myths & mechanisms , 1991 .

[20]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design : Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples , 2011 .

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

[22]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Hawking's Haiku, Madonna's Math: Why It Is Hard to Be Creative in Every Room of the House. , 2004 .

[23]  M. Trajtenberg.  A Penny for Your Quotes : Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations , 1990 .

[24]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The Meaning of “Near” and “Far”: The Impact of Structuring Design Databases and the Effect of Distance of Analogy on Design Output , 2012 .

[25]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Science as a Map in Technological Search , 2000 .

[26]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[27]  R. Weisberg.  Creativity: Understanding Innovation in Problem Solving, Science, Invention, and the Arts , 2006 .

[28]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[29]  R. Weisberg.  Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius , 1993 .