Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

Download Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

Post on 15-Jul-2016




5 download

Embed Size (px)


  • Research profiling for standardization and innovation

    Dong Geun Choi Heesang Lee Tae-kyung Sung

    Received: 5 January 2011 / Published online: 12 February 2011 Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary 2011

    Abstract This paper addresses the profiling of research papers on standardization andinnovationexploring major topics and arguments in this field. Drawing on 528 papers

    retrieved from the database, Web of Science, we employed trend, factor, and clustering

    analyses to demonstrate that the standardization and innovation research has continuously

    grown from publication of 13 papers in 1995 to 68 papers in 2008; the majority of these

    papers have been published in the six subject group domains of management, economics,

    environment, chemistry, computer science, and telecommunications. Technology innova-

    tion management specialty journals are the most central sources favorable for these

    themes. We also present an exploratory taxonomy that offers nine topical clusters to

    demonstrate the contextual structures of standardization and innovation. The implications

    of our results for ongoing consistent policy and future research into standardization and

    innovation are discussed.

    Keywords Standardization Innovation Publication analysis Clustering analysis Taxonomy Research profiling Bibliometrics

    An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 15th Conference of European Academyfor Standardization (EURAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland on 2 July 2010.

    D. G. ChoiStandards and Quality Division, Korean Standards Association, 701-7 Yeoksam-Dong,Gangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-513, Koreae-mail:;

    H. Lee (&)Department of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Cheoncheon-Dong,Jangan-Gu, Suwon, Gyeongi-Do 440-746, Koreae-mail:

    T. SungSchool of Management, Jeonju University, Hyoja-Dong, Jeonju 560-759, Koreae-mail:


    Scientometrics (2011) 88:259278DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0344-7

  • Introduction

    Whereas standardization has conventionally been believed to be an obstacle to innovation,

    there are growing public policies and academic literature that perceive standardization as

    an enabler or catalyst for innovation at a national or a company level by facilitating

    access to markets and enabling interoperability between new and existing technologies,

    products, services, and processes (Blind 2009; DIUS 2009; Farrell and Saloner 1985;

    Galvin and Rice 2008; Kano 2000; Swann 2000). For instance, in 2008, the European

    Commission adopted a Communication titled, Towards an increased contribution fromstandardisation to innovation in Europe, which places its focus on a greater contributionfrom standardization to innovation and competitiveness (European Commission 2008).

    The nineteen pages of strategy embrace the role of standards in priority actions and identify

    the key elements for focusing standardization policy on innovation. Despite this rising

    attention among policy makers and researchers, few bibliometric studies on standardi-

    zation and innovation have been undertaken, and existing standardization specialty

    journals are very limited.

    While a few pioneering studies have considered standardization as an independent

    discipline (de Vries 2001; Verman 1973), standardization specialty journals seem to be in

    the embryonic stage, and the numbers of these are as restricted as ever. Presently, there are

    three distinct standardization specialty journalsthe International Journal of IT Stan-dards and Standardization Research (IJITSR, published by IGI-global since 2003), theInternational Journal of Services and Standards (IJSS, published by Interscience since2004), and Computer Standards and Interface (CSI, published by Elsevier since 1986).CSI is the only journal indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and has the longest

    publishing history of the three standardization specialty journals; CSI does not cover

    general standardization and innovation perspective research, but rather computer engi-

    neering oriented research only. IJSS is increasingly gaining global recognition, but does

    not cover technological standardization and the innovation perspective. IJITSR is the

    journal that focuses the most on standardization and innovation research, but it is not

    recognized globally as yet due to its short history of publication and limited number of

    issues per year. Due to the current shortage of standardization specialty journals, academic

    papers on standardization, particularly on the relationship between standardization and

    innovation have been scattered in different academic communities and journals (Allen and

    Sriram 2000; Blind and Hipp 2003; Egyedi and Sherif 2008; Farrell and Saloner 1985;

    Gallagher 2007; Lemley 2002; Sung 2008; Yoo et al. 2005). This constraint has decen-tralized the standardization and innovation research and led to some difficulty in identi-

    fying and profiling main trends and issues related to standardization and innovation


    Compared to the standardization specialty camp, the technology innovation and man-

    agement (TIM) camp has dozens of specialty journals that are much more internationally

    recognized, and their impact has literally increased according to the Journal Citation

    Reports (JCR) (Linton 2009). Bibliometric analyses of TIM issues have also consequently

    grown, covering national innovation systems, a national strategy for innovation, company

    innovation, and technological innovation competitiveness (Choung and Hwang 2000;

    Junquera and Mitre 2007; Lin and Jang 2010; Sun and Negishi 2010; Uzun 2006). TIM

    specialty journals have published some standardization and innovation papers, but few

    studies so far have investigated the characteristics of the quantitative features of these


    260 D. G. Choi et al.


  • Recently two review papers on bridging standardization and innovation research have

    been undertaken. Gamber et al. (2008) used bibliometric approaches, and accomplished an

    in-depth analysis to depict the knowledge array of German DIN standards under the

    assumption that standards function as a catalyst of technical knowledge diffusion and,

    therefore, are an important factor in Germanys innovation system. Although their research

    adopted a bibliometric and statistical analysis, its main discussion point was not to review

    the relevant literature, but rather identify the trajectory and structure of technology dif-

    fusion through DIN standards. On the other hand, Rillio (2009) initiated an extensive

    literature review of 486 papers on bridging the research of standardization and innovation

    and developed a conceptual framework that proposed three dimensions of standardization

    and innovation research, namely, knowledge dimension, network dimension, and trans-

    actional cost dimension. While his contribution can be considered as the first important

    examination of a wide scan of this theme, its limitation may be its subjective interpretation

    and classification without employing any scientific methodology, such as statistics or

    bibliometrics. There is still practically no research that provides a macroscopic view of

    standardization and innovation research by drawing on bibliometric approaches.

    In this paper, the aim is to build through research profiling, a broad scan of contextual

    literature by employing bibliometrics or the text mining methodologies proposed by Porter

    et al. (2002), on standardization and innovation. The term standardization herein refers to

    the process of development and application of standards; and additionally standards are

    rules, guidelines or characteristics, established by consensus and approved by a recognized

    body (ISO/IEC 2004). Innovation is a term, representing a change in the thought process

    for doing something, or the useful application of new inventions or discoveries (McKeown

    2008). A more discussion of the detailed concept and definitions of the two terms stan-

    dardization and innovation can be also found in Gamber et al. (2008).

    This paper specifically profiles the research patterns for standardization and technology-

    based innovation study by analyzing the various research papers published over time and

    their publication and citation data as indexed in Web of Science (WoS). The outcome

    examines both the quantitative and qualitative aspect of standardization and innovation

    research and presents these papers in the format of subject group domains and finally topical

    clusters, namely, exploratory taxonomy. Such research profiling can give decision-makers

    better guidance on choices for setting strategies for standardization and innovation. The work

    may also be useful for researchers in producing future studies in the same area of interest.

    The paper starts with a discussion of the methodology and data in Data and method

    section. Results and discussion section explains the results in terms of the publication,

    citation, subject domain, and exploratory taxonomy. Conclusions section presents our

    conclusion as well as the limitations of the research and future research opportunities.

    Data and method

    The present study contains data regarding publication and citations from research papers

    on standardization and innovation. The publication data consists of papers that appeared in

    academic journals from 1995 to 20081 as indexed by the ISI Web of Science (WoS) by

    Thomson Reuters. The ISI WoS as a source of data is one of the most reliable and widely

    accepted scientific databases offering citation data. After we pre-tested the database search

    1 The coverage years for this research are restricted by the subscription period of the authors affiliation,Sungkyunkwan University.

    Research profiling for standardization and innovation 261


  • options and the results, we collected papers that included both standard* and innovat* in

    their topic reference and either standard* or innovat* in their titles. That initial search

    produced 832 papers, but the search also contained papers with little relevance to tech-

    nology-based innovation. We reviewed the 832 search results for subject category and

    eliminated 304 papers for 35 subject categories, such as surgery or medicine. For example,

    a paper titled Therapeutic standards for ovarian cancer (Pfisterer and du Bois 2007)listed in the subject topic area of surgery was excluded. After removing the 304 less

    relevant papers, we were able to use 528 research papers. These 528 records included titles,

    keywords, abstracts, author information, publication years, source journals, subject cate-

    gories, and citation information.

    To analyze the collected data, we employed the concept of research profiling method

    proposed by Porter et al. (2002), namely, a step-by-step schematic categorization of a

    broad scan of contextual literature to discover research trends and topic relationships.

    The overall schema of research profiling for this paper are summarized in Fig. 1. First

    we conducted publication profiling by identifying chronological changes in publications

    from 1995 to 2008 and major authorship and then analyzed the records with citation

    information by years, subject groups, and journals to gain a full picture of the research

    activities involved in standardization and innovation. Secondly, we further classified the

    papers into subject group domains to identify basic trends and interested communities and

    journals. Finally, we applied factor analysis and clustering methods, a bibliometric tech-

    nique for finding natural groups in the data, and developed a taxonomy for standardization

    and innovation research.

    We have to point out here that potential partiality exists in the methodology used for this

    paper. First, as the WoS database is not inclusive, we had some limitations in terms of

    impartial viewpoints. Second, there may be papers that referenced certain standards or

    innovation theories, but did not use the word standard or innovation in either their titles

    or keywords. Our searching constraint hence may not be all inclusive and have a technical

    limitation. However, as earlier pointed out by Braun and Schubert (2007), this searching

    result can be considered as statistically considerable samples of the total standardization

    and innovation research published.

    Results and discussion

    Publication profilingchronological research efforts and prolific authors

    We began by showing trends, based on the annual number of papers indexed by WoS in

    Fig. 1. During the period of 19952008, it is clear that the total number of publications

    Fig. 1 Approaches used for research profiling

    262 D. G. Choi et al.


  • kept ascending. The publications increased from 13 in 1995 to 68 in 2008 or by around five

    times over 13 years. A 3-year block analysis shows the same continuing increase

    continuing, i.e., 66 papers in 19971999, then rising to 200 papers in 20062008 (Fig. 2).

    In a geographical distribution of this research, we used the whole counting scheme,

    defined by Gauffriau et al. (2007)all unique countries receive one credit. The 528 papers

    were dominated by two regions, namely, North America and Europe as follows: US (184

    papers, 1st) and Canada (21 papers, 7th); Germany (57 papers, 2nd), England (44 papers,

    3rd), Italy (36 papers, 4th), France (28 papers, 5th), the Netherlands (22 papers, 6th). Only

    three countries in other regions ranked in the top 10, namely, Japan (19 papers, 8th), China

    (18 papers, 9th) and Australia (16 papers, 10th). International co-publication patterns of

    these papers indicated that a relatively high level of collaboration exists between Canada

    France (5 papers), Canadathe US (4 papers), GermanySwitzerland (4 papers), and

    AustraliaEngland (4 papers).

    A breakdown of the data indicates that the 528 publications were contributed by 1,356

    (co-) authors, and of these, only 43 authors contributed more than two papers during

    19952008. Altogether, 19 authors published more than two papers as first authors. The

    most prolific author was observed to be K. Blind (Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and

    Innovation Research, Germany), who published 7 papers (all as first author), followed by

    E. Naveh (TechnionIsrael Institute of Technology, Israel), who published 3 papers (2 as

    first author). I.P. Chochliouros (Hellenic Telecommunications Organization, Greece) and

    other authors published 2 papers.

    These authors, taken together, contributed 69 publications, comprising 13% of the total

    528 papers; the number of citations received by these authors totaled 491, representing

    14% of the total citations. An analysis of the citations per paper for these authors indicates

    that the prolific group averaged 7.12 and was slightly higher than the overall average of


    On the one hand, this result may imply that there are not many researchers working on

    bridging the study of standardization and innovation as their primary research effort, and

    thus not many highly prolific and cited authors currently exist in this area of research. This

    observation suggests that majority of the authors of these 528 papers found standardization

    and innovation re...


View more >