Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying disruptive technologies by integrating multi-source data

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Identifying disruptive technologies has important value for the decision-making in technology layout and investment. The identification methods of disruptive technologies based on data mining have attracted much attention recently, but most of the existing studies use single data for the identification, that may cause bias. Therefore, this paper uses multi-source data which represent the “science-technology-industry-market” chain to identify disruptive technologies. In addition, this paper improves the two steps, generating candidate technology list and evaluating disruptive potential, in the general process of identifying disruptive technologies separately and develops two new methods. One method is to obtain the list of potential disruptive technologies from experts and then evaluate the technology disruptive potential by using a multi-dimensional index system. The case study of this method is carried out in life science field, and four types of data (papers, patents, data of start-ups and public opinion) are used to evaluate thepotential disruptive technologies. Another method is to generate the list of potential disruptive technologies by mining multi-source data and then evaluate the technology disruptive potential by experts. The case study of this method is carried out in energy technology filed and life science, and three types of data (papers, patents and projects) are used for mining to generate the candidate technologies list. The effectiveness of the two methods using multi-source data is verified by comparing the results with the list of technologies given by experts in advance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bai, G., Zheng, Y., Wu, X., Jin, J., & Liu, Q. (2017). Research and demonstration on forecasting method of disruptive technology based on literature knowledge correlation. Journal of Intelligence, 36(9), 42–48. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M.(1995). Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.

  • Buchanan, B., & Corken, R. (2010). A toolkit for the systematic analysis of patent data to assess a potentially disruptive technology. United Kingdom: Intellectual property office, pp. 1–16.

  • Chang, P.-L., Wu, C.-C., & Leu, H.-J. (2010). Using patent analyses to monitor the technological trends in an emerging field of technology: A case of carbon nanotube field emission display. Scientometrics, 82(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (2009). Scientific and technological revolution and China's modernization. Science Press in China. (in Chinese)

  • Chinese Academy of Sciences(2013).Vision 2020: The Emerging Trends in Science & Technology and Strategic Option of China. Science Press in China. (in Chinese)

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. and Michael E. R. (2003). The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Harvard Business School Press, MA.

  • Clauset, A., Larremore, D. B., & Sinatra, R. (2017). Data-driven predictions in the science of science. Science, 355(6324), 477–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. W., Hevner, A. R., & Linger, R. C. (2011). Evaluating a disruptive innovation: function extraction technology in software development. In Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society.

  • Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8), 981–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damrongchai, N., Satangput, P., Greg, T., & Sripaipan, C. (2010). Future technology analysis for biosecurity and emerging infectious diseases in asia-pacific. Science & Public Policy, 37(1), 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dotsika, F., & Watkins, A. (2017). Identifying potentially disruptive trends by means of keyword network analysis. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 119(6), 114–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdi, P., Makovi, K., Somogyvari, Z., Strandburg, K., Tobochnik, J., Volf, P., & Zalanyi, L. (2013). Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network. Scientometrics, 95(1), 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner. (2021). Hype cycle for emerging technologies, 2021. Gartner, Inc.

  • Grupp, H. (1992). Dynamics of science-based innovation. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, R., Zuber, H., Rizk, A., & Steinmetz, R. (2017). Blockchain and smart contracts: disruptive technologies for the insurance market. eBusiness and eCommerce Digital Commerce (SIGeBIZ)

  • Huang, L., Jiang, L., & Wu, F. (2019). The identification of disruptive technology on emerging stage. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 36(01), 10–17. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Janke, A., & M Mißler-Behr. (2015). Identifying the disruptive potential of the sustainable innovation in the case of e-mobility. Sustainable technologies. IEEE.

  • Jia, W., Xie, Y., Zhao, Y., Yao, K., & Chong, D. (2021). Research on disruptive technology recognition of china’s electronic information and communication industry based on patent influence. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(2), 148–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, T. J., Miyazaki, K., & Kajikawa, Y. (2016). Identification of evolutionary characteristics of emerging technologies: The case of smart grid in Japan. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology. IEEE.

  • Kilkki, K., Mäntylä, M., Karhu, K., Hämmäinen, H., & Ailisto, H. (2018). A disruption framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129(4), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotelnikov, V. (2000). Radical innovation versus incremental innovation. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2018). Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127(2), 291–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R., McDermott, C. M., O'connor, G. C., Peters, L. S., Rice, M., & Veryzer, R. W.(2002). Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

  • Li, X., Aristodemou, L., Tietze, F., & Jeong, Y. (2020). Disruptive technologies: characteristics and early identification, using machine learning and text mining from patent data. R&D Management Conference 2020.

  • Li, Z., Luo, H., Li, Z. F., & Wang, H. W. (2017). Primary study on evaluation method of science and technology based on Catastrophe Theory. Science Research Management, 38(S1), 193–200. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. B., Kang, J. Q., & Zhang, J. (2020). The disruptive technology of recognition based on topic mutation detection: With the drone technology as an example. Science & Technology Review, 38(20), 97–105. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luan, C. J., & Cheng, F. (2016). Measuring and forecasting technology market potential based on aggregative indicators of disruptive potential & technology maturity. Studies in Science of Science, 34(12), 1761–1768. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, H. C., & Jie, M. G. (2009). Disruptive technology: How kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, S. P., Kou, C. C., Jin, J., & Yuan, H. M. (2019). Disruptive technology prediction based on outlier patents: traditional chinese medicine patents as an example. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 42(07), 165–170. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Momeni, A., & Rost, K. (2016). Identification and monitoring of possible disruptive technologies by patent-development paths and topic modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104(3), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, D., Schuessler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 57(8), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. (2019). The 11th S&T Foresight 2019 Cooperation Report.

  • National Research Council. (2010). Persistent Forecasting of Disruptive Technologies. National Academies Press

  • Okubo, Y. (1997), Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. STI Working Papers 1997/1, Document OECD/GD (97) 41, OECD, Paris, 1–70.

  • Robinson, D., Ruivenkamp, M., & Rip, A. (2007). Tracking the evolution of new and emerging S&T via statement-linkages: Vision assessment in molecular machines. Scientometrics, 70(3), 831–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Y. C., Chang, S. H., Lin, G., & Yu, H. C. (2010). A hybrid selection model for emerging technology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(1), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2011). Demystifying disruption: A new model for understanding and predicting disruptive technologies. Marketing Science, 30(2), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2003). Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 82–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J., Gao, J., Yang, B., & Tan, R. (2008). Achieving Disruptive Innovation - forecasting potential technologies based upon technical system evolution by TRIZ. In IEEE International conference on management of innovation & technology. IEEE.

  • Sun, Y., Wang, L., Sun, Z., Wang, K., Hu, L., Cui, J., & Kang, X. (2017). Connotation and selection of disruptive technologies that lead industrial change. Strategic Study of CAE, 19(5), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suurs, R. A. A. (2009). Motors of sustainable innovation - towards a theory on the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.

  • Thomond, P., & Lettice, F. (2002). Disruptive innovation explored. In 9th IPSE international conference on concurrent engineering: research and applications (CE2002).

  • Upham, S. P., & Small, H. (2010). Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics, 83(1), 15–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasunaga, Y., Watanabe, M., & Korenaga, M. (2009). Application of technology roadmaps to governmental innovation policy for promoting technology convergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2007). Development of new technology forecasting algorithm: Hybrid approach for morphology analysis and conjoint analysis of patent information. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(3), 588–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, G. H., Ning, Z., & Li, H. F. (2021). Research on identification method of disruptive technology based on patent and Bass Model. Studies in Science of Science, 39(08), 1467–1473. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Lin, Y. H., & Hou, J. H. (2021). Technology prediction method based on data fusion and life cycle: empirical analysis of virus nucleic acid detection. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 40(05), 462–470. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is financially supported by the projects of Strategy research (GHJ-ZLZX-2018-41, GHJ-ZLZX-2019-31-2) from Bureau of Planning and Strategy, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, People’s Republic of China

    Xiwen Liu, Xuezhao Wang, Lucheng Lyu & Yanpeng Wang

  2. Department of Library, Information and Archives Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academic of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, People’s Republic of China

    Xiwen Liu, Xuezhao Wang, Lucheng Lyu & Yanpeng Wang

Authors
  1. Xiwen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuezhao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucheng Lyu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanpeng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiwen Liu.

Appendix

Appendix

See (Tables

Table 8 Detailed description of atomic indexes in case study I
Full size table

8,

Table 9 Atomic index score and weighted total score of the 12 candidate technologies in Case Study I
Full size table

9,

Table 10 Three-dimensional index system of technology disruptive potential evaluation in Case Study II
Full size table

10).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, X., Wang, X., Lyu, L. et al. Identifying disruptive technologies by integrating multi-source data. Scientometrics 127, 5325–5351 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04283-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04283-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation