research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

20
Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ Dong Geun Choi Heesang Lee Tae-kyung Sung Received: 5 January 2011 / Published online: 12 February 2011 Ó Akade ´miai Kiado ´, Budapest, Hungary 2011 Abstract This paper addresses the profiling of research papers on ‘standardization and innovation’—exploring 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 Á Innovation Á Publication analysis Á Clustering analysis Á Taxonomy Á Research profiling Á Bibliometrics An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 15th Conference of European Academy for Standardization (EURAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland on 2 July 2010. D. G. Choi Standards and Quality Division, Korean Standards Association, 701-7 Yeoksam-Dong, Gangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-513, Korea e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] H. Lee (&) Department of Management of Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Cheoncheon-Dong, Jangan-Gu, Suwon, Gyeongi-Do 440-746, Korea e-mail: [email protected] T. Sung School of Management, Jeonju University, Hyoja-Dong, Jeonju 560-759, Korea e-mail: [email protected] 123 Scientometrics (2011) 88:259–278 DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0344-7

Upload: dong-geun-choi

Post on 15-Jul-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

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 and

innovation’—exploring 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: [email protected]; [email protected]

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

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

123

Scientometrics (2011) 88:259–278DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0344-7

Page 2: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

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 contribution

from 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 journals—the ‘International Journal of IT Stan-dards and Standardization Research (IJITSR, published by IGI-global since 2003)’, the

‘International Journal of Services and Standards (IJSS, published by Interscience since

2004)’, 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

research.

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

papers.

260 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 3: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

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 Germany’s 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 author’s affiliation,Sungkyunkwan University.

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 261

123

Page 4: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

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 profiling—chronological 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 1995–2008, it is clear that the total number of publications

Fig. 1 Approaches used for research profiling

262 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 5: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

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 1997–1999, then rising to 200 papers in 2006–2008 (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), Canada–the US (4 papers), Germany–Switzerland (4 papers), and

Australia–England (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

1995–2008. 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 (Technion—Israel 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

6.52.

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 research to be their secondary research topic, and standardization and

innovation research has been diverging from their primary research topics. This assump-

tion is based on the premise that diverging topics may have fewer prolific researchers in the

Fig. 2 Research trends for standardization and innovation for 1995–2008

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 263

123

Page 6: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

topic area while converging topics may have a definite growing number of prolific

researchers studying the given area of the topic.

On the other hand, we also detect that the overall breadth of research and its related

prolific authors are growing recently, and standardization and innovation studies are

consequently increasingly converging as a self-governing research topic.

Publication profiling—analysis of the citation-based impact of the research

As pointed out by Garfield (1979) there is no commonly available, fully satisfactory

‘measure of quality’ of research, but citation rates do represent the impact of published

research on the international community—an indication of the influence of individuals and

groups. The citation rate of a paper may be measured as a partial gauge of its impact (rather

than its quality or degree of importance) where impact is defined as ‘actual influence onsurrounding research activity at a given time’ (King 1987). The impact of the research of

any country or subject can thus be examined by doing a citation count that these articles

receive over a specified time period, as demonstrated in Table 1.

In order to attain the citation pattern of standardization and innovation papers, we

examined the citation of each publication from the year of its publication to 2008, using the

WoS Citation Report. This report provides total cumulative citation (citedness) information

for each paper during this period and was accessed on 27 September 2009, as presented in

Table 1. Table 1 shows that the total citations were 3,471 and the average citations per

paper were 6.52 for the 528 papers. Among the 328 papers published in 1995–2005,

excluding relatively new published papers in 2006–2008, 255 (77.7%) papers were cited

more than once.

There were 45 papers cited more than 20 times, and the total number of citations for

these totaled 1,854, which comprised 53% of the total citations for the 528 papers. The

exemplary highly cited papers for 1995–2004 were ‘Optimal standardization in the law ofproperty’ (Merrill and Smith 2000) and ‘‘Permits, standards, and technology innovation’’

(Montero 2002). Of the recent papers published in 2005–2008, based on a yearly average

citation, exemplary highly cited papers were ‘‘Toward a systematic framework for researchon dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change’’ (Murmann and

Frenken 2006) and ‘‘The role of standards in innovation and diffusion of broadband mobileservices: The case of South Korea’’ (Yoo et al. 2005).

Average citation per year was attained from the WoS citation report, which represents

the collective impact of papers published in given year blocks. This index is calculated by

taking the ‘total number of citations’ over the total number of years from publication for

papers published that given period. Average citation per year has increased consistently

Table 1 Citation of standardization and innovation paper in 1995–2008

Year blocks Total number of publications Total number of citations Average citation per year

1995–1996 13 ? 14 = 27 75 ? 101 = 176 12.48

1997–1999 22 ? 20 ? 24 = 66 514 ? 199 ? 153 = 866 66.62

2000–2002 28 ? 33 ? 44 = 105 322 ? 284 ? 416 = 1,022 92.91

2003–2005 41 ? 46 ? 43 = 130 352 ? 299 ? 236 = 887 110.8

2006–2008 69 ? 63 ? 68 = 200 300 ? 164 ? 56 = 520 130.0

Total 528 3,471 231.40

264 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 7: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

from 12.48 in 1995–1996 to 130.0 in 2006–2008. This finding reconfirms that standardi-

zation and innovation research since 1995 has become increasingly important and more

impactful on the international academic society.

Subject profiling—major subject domains

The analysis by subject category indicates that standardization and innovation research is

distributed among a large variety of 135 subject domains. Figure 3 shows the major

domains with more than 15 published papers. The subject domain of management ranked

first (82 papers), followed by economics (54), electrical and electronic engineering (41),

environmental sciences (35), information science and library science (30), law (15), all

covering social science as well as science domains.

This broad range of subject domains substantiates the argument that standardization and

innovation may not be mature enough yet to be classified as an independent discipline or

subject of separate study, and yet that same analysis indicates the characteristics the

complexity and multi-disciplinary of standardization and innovation related subject areas.

Since the WoS assigns each paper (journal) at least one and at the most six subject

categories, the total count for subject categories of the 528 papers was 949. For instance,

the articles on Technovation are categorized in three categories at the same time and thus

triple-counted as management, industrial engineering (IE), and Operational Research/

Management Science (OR/MS). Having considered the multiple categorization of papers

and the proximity of subject domains (e.g., business and management, environmental

studies and environmental sciences), we offer in Fig. 4 six major subject group domains—

(1) Management group (129 papers in 7 subject areas, including business, management,

industrial engineering, and OR/MS), (2) Environment group (79 papers in 7 subject areas,

including environmental engineering, environmental studies, and sciences), (3) Economics

group (54 papers in 2 subject areas, including economics and agricultural economics), (4)

Computer/Info group (61 papers in 8 subject areas including computer science, software

engineering, hardware and architecture), (5) Chemistry group (37 papers in 9 subject areas,

including analytical chemistry, applied chemistry, and biochemical research methods), and

(6) the Telecom/EE group (47 papers in 3 subject areas, including electrical and electronic

engineering, telecommunications, and communication.

Fig. 3 Major subject domains of the 528 papers

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 265

123

Page 8: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

These six group domains contained 354 papers and comprised about 67% of the total

number recorded. The data investigation confirmed that the Management group domain

occupied the largest territory (24.2%) followed by Economics (10.1%) in the social sci-

ences. In the sciences, the Environment group domain (14.8%) occupied the largest ter-

ritory, followed by the Computer/Info group (11.5%).

CAGR stands for compound annual growth rate and is used to give an indication of

yearly growth, herein calculated by normalized 3-year block recordings. The overall

research grew 12.6%2 while the six subject group domains grew by 16.3% from

1997–1999 to 2006–2008. Among the six subject group domains, except for Economics

showing 6.3% CAGR, five subject group domains grew higher than the overall average,

meaning that the five major domains are the central and also the growing domain of

standardization and innovation research. The low growth rate of the Economics group

domain may be caused by either the searching options for 528 papers or the difficulty of

assessing economics for standardization and innovation.

Figure 4 also displays how the research domains evolved over time and 3 years of

blocked data from 1997 to 2008. In the first block (1997–1999), the Economics group

domain ranked first (11 out of 70) and then surrendered its first position to the Management

group domain in the second- to fourth-block periods (2000–2008).

Classification(group domains)

1997-1999

AGR12000-2002

AGR22003-2005

AGR32006-2008

CAGR

1. Management 10 30.1% 22 15.6% 34 18.8% 57 21.3%

2.Environment 8 26.0% 16 7.7% 20 24.9% 39 19.2%

3.Economics 11 -3.1% 10 9.1% 13 13.5% 19 6.3%

4.Computer/Info 10 3.2% 11 -10.1% 8 53.6% 29 12.6%

5.Chemistry 2 35.7% 5 26.0% 10 21.6% 18 27.7%

6.Telecom/EE 4 40.1% 11 13.3% 16 -6.7% 13 14.0%

Six Group Total (354) 45 18.6% 75 10.4% 101 20.1% 175 16.3%

Total papers (528) 70 12.2% 99 10.3% 133 15.1% 203 12.6%

Fig. 4 Chronological changes of major subject group domains

2 CAGR = (end value 7 beginning value)1 7 (number of years) – 1 = (203 7 70)1 7 (9) – 1 = 12.6%.

266 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 9: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

AGR represents the averaged annual growth rate from the previous 3-year block to the

succeeding block. The Telecom/EE group grew most rapidly (40.1%) from 1997–1999 to

2000–2002, compared with the record for the AGRs of other subject group domains. We

interpreted that this growth originated from an expansion of research on mobile commu-

nication standards and innovation (Bekkers et al. 2002; Bourreau and Dogan 2001; Kano

2000). The Chemistry group domain grew the most rapidly (26.0%) from 2000–2002 to

2003–2005, presumably due to an increased interest standards and innovation in bio-

chemistry during the period (M’Barek et al. 2003; Ranalli et al. 2003; Vallance 2005;

Veglio et al. 2003). The Computer/Info group domain grew most rapidly (53.6%) from

2003–2005 to 2006–2008, seemingly rooted in diverse factors, including consortia stan-

dards or open source standards and technology innovation and diffusion in the period (Lee

and Percivall 2008; Lim 2008; Markus et al. 2006; Zhu et al. 2006).

After reviewing the six group papers and considering their relevance to the goal of this

paper and the citational impact of this paper, we distilled frequently observed key words.

These frequently observed keywords were counted based on their stemmed root, the

beginnings of words, for instance, ‘standardize’ and ‘standardization’ are indexed as

‘standard-’ as listed in Table 2. These typical keywords could partially describe how

professionals in different subject domains actually approach standardization and

innovation.

More closely examining the subject group domain data of WoS reveals that the Man-

agement group shares 13 papers with the Economics group domains, 13 papers with

Environment group domains, and 10 papers with Computer/Info group domains. This

sharing may indicate that the topics and approaches in the Management group are the most

diverse and also more complicated due to the basic nature of multidisciplinary disciplines.

In contrast, the papers of the Computer/Info group were tightly related only to those in the

Telecom/EE group; and the papers in the Environment (technical) group domains only

related to those of Chemistry group domains. These distinctions may perhaps derive from

a similarity or variation of research backgrounds, research methodologies, and the rela-

tionship between basic and applied science/technology.

The citation analysis of the six main group domains is summarized in Table 3. The

Management group domain leads the overall recordings in total number of citations, as it

Table 2 Frequently observed keywords for the six main group domains

Subject groupdomains

Frequently observed keywords

1. Management Innov-, standard-, technolog-, industri-, network-, competit-, market-, product-,strategi-, firm-, manag-, compat-, mode-, system-, develop-, extern-, perform-,dynam-, busi-, diffuse-, effect-, service-, design-

2. Environment Environment-, technolog-, polic-, system-, pollut-, product-, regul-, perform-, cost-,health-, industri-, treatment-, water-, energ-, air-, develop-, public-

3. Economics Innov-, standard-, technolog-, environment-, polici-, model-, product-, market-,industry-, growth-, competit-, patent-, firm-, pollut-, perform-, trade-, regul-, network-

4. Computer/Info Standard-, innov-, inform-, technolog-, case-, develop-, mobil-, network-, system-, us-,servic-, busi-, design-, diffus-, process-

5. Chemistry Innov-, standard-, wastewat-, extract-, sampl-, process-, method-, system-, laboratori-,ga-, us-, spectroscopi-, chromatographi-, base-

6. Telecom/EE Innov-, standard-, code-, speech-, mobil-, telecommun-, servic-, sensor-, system-,process-, predict-, power-, network-, integr-, gener-, electr-

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 267

123

Page 10: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

leads the number of publications and, therefore, also the annual average citations per group

domain. The Management group also leads in citation per paper—a relative impact of

domain papers. This leadership supports the finding that the Management group domain is

the main scientific community interested in research on standardization and innovation.

To identify the central source of publications, favorable to or interested in standardi-

zation and innovation research, we analyzed the gathered data and disclosed 135 journals.

The twelve journals that published more than five papers are listed in Table 4. The

acronyms of the subject group domains are in the first column of Table 3. All twelve

journals are within the six main groups, and nine are in the Management group domain.

We also learned that seven of the twelve journals are technology innovation management

(TIM) specialty journals—marked *TIM in the second column of Table 4. In a way, it seems

natural that technology innovation specialty journals would focus on ‘innovation’ and

consequently be favorable toward bridging the research on standardization and innovation.

The other three journals, out of the ten TIM specialty journals (Linton 2006; Linton and

Embrechts 2007) not listed here also published 6 papers in total with 3 papers in R&DManagement, 2 papers in Research-Technology Management, and 1 paper in the Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management. The ten TIM journals published 53 papers totaling

10% of the total researches and around half (41%) of the 129 papers in the Management group

domain. Although the TIM community does not dominate this area, the community is the most

central research camp now in the study of standardization and innovation.

Topical profiling—an exploratory taxonomy

A general question facing researchers in many areas of inquiry is how to organize observed

data into meaningful structures, that is, how to develop taxonomy (Yuen 2000). We

adopted the approaches of Kostoff et al. (2006, 2007) and a devised exploratory taxonomy

from both factor analysis and document clustering. Clustering analysis is an exploratory

data analysis tool that aims at sorting different objects into groups in a way that the degree

of association between two objects is maximal, if both belong to the same group, and

minimal otherwise. In the present paper, we use one of the most popular clustering

methods, Ward’s algorithm of hierarchical clustering, to develop an exploratory taxonomy

of standardization and innovation. In our clustering analysis, the research papers were

combined into groups based on their text similarities based on the abstract.

As Table 5 shows, we analyzed the title, keywords, and abstracts of the 528 papers, and

the results show that on average the titles were composed of 11.8 words, the keywords

were 8.7, and the abstracts, 162 words. Since the analyzed title and the keywords included

too limited information or incomplete information (119 papers did not even have

Table 3 Citation comparison of the six main group domains

Subject group domains Total numberof publications

Total numberof citations

Citationsper paper

Average citationsper year

1. Management group (1.MGT) 129 1,072 8.31 71.47

2. Environment group (2.ENV) 79 451 5.71 30.07

3. Economics group (3.ECO) 54 402 7.44 28.71

4. Computer/Info group (4.CS/IS) 61 350 5.74 25.00

5. Chemistry group (5. CHE) 37 253 6.84 16.87

6. Telecom/EE group (6.TE/EE) 47 350 7.45 23.33

268 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 11: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

keywords), we mainly analyzed the abstracts to cluster the 528 research papers and title/

keywords for supplementary purposes in case some papers did not have abstract data.

However, 6,092 indexed words from the abstracts were too many variables and may have

caused a randomized result of clustering. Therefore, we reduced the 6,092 words based on

their frequency ranking to 100. Among the 100 most frequently appearing indexed words

in abstracts, we excluded words that too commonly appeared in abstracts, regardless of

topics (e.g. paper, research, analyze, use, examine, etc.), and finally selected 43 words as

appropriate variables. A factor analysis was then performed to identify the linkage between

the indexed words and to downsize the number of variables for the clustering analysis

exhibited in Table 5.

In a subsequent clustering analysis of documents and drawing on Ward’s hierarchical

clustering methods, we developed from three to twenty-five clusters from examining the

528 research papers. Nine clusters were chosen to present the significant topical profiling

for standardization and innovation research. After we analyzed the most frequently

appearing keywords and examined the abstracts of each cluster, we named the nine topical

clusters and regrouped them into three group-clusters as shown in Table 6. The designation

of three topical group-clusters (Level 1) and nine clusters (Level 2), however, has a certain

level of exaggeration or incompleteness due to the complexity of the multidisciplinarity

Table 4 Twelve Major Journals (published C5 papers)

Source title (journal abbreviation)IF 2009 (journal ranking in subject category)a

SubjectGroup domain

Record count

Research Policy (RP)IF: 2.261 (22/112 in management; 2/44 in planning and dev)

1.MGTTIM journalb

13

International Journal of Technology Management (IJTM)IF: 0.419 (92/112 in management)

1.MGTTIM journalb

7

Energy Policy (EP)IF: 2.436 (5/66 in environmental studies)

1.MGT, 2.ENV 6

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (JEEM)IF: 2.581 (16/87 in business; 17/247 in economics)

1.MGT 6

Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM)IF: 1.522 (41/112 in management)

1.MGTTIM journalb

6

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS)IF: not available

4.CS/IS 6

Technovation (TECH)IF: 2.466 (17/112 in management)

1.MGTTIM journalb

6

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (ITEM)IF: 1.248 (51/112 in management)

1.MGTTIM journalb

5

Technological Forecasting and Social Change (TFSC)IF: 1.776 (28/87 in business; 4/44 in planning and dev)

1.MGTTIM journalb

5

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management (TASM)IF: 0.929 (64/112 in management)

1.MGTTIM journalb

5

Telecommunications Policy (TP)IF: 0.969 (23/55 in communication)

4.CS/IS, 6.TE/EE 5

Water Science and Technology (WST)IF: 1.094 (122/181 in environmental studies)

2.ENV 5

a IF (Impact Factor) and ranking in a subject category of journals are gained from Journal Citation Reportsof Thompson Scientificb Ten technology innovation management (TIM) specialty journals (Linton 2009)

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 269

123

Page 12: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

found for the standardization and innovation studies. The next section illustrates the two

levels of taxonomy with their exemplary illustrated papers.

Group cluster A—function and role of standardization in innovation (165 papers)

Group-cluster A totaled 165 papers in 4 Clusters (A1, A2, A3, A4), and the research on

group-cluster A drew attention to the various functions and roles of standardization

regarding technological innovation.

Cluster A1—generic relationship of standardization and innovation (60 papers)

Cluster A1 contained 60 papers and these papers mainly focused on the inter-relationship

between standardization and innovation. For instance, Allen and Sriram (2000) examined

the relationship between innovation and standards and suggested that in general the ben-

efits of standards on innovation in design and manufacturing outweigh the possible limi-

tations on creativity imposed by such standards. Teece (2006) examined the role of

standards in the innovation process for various innovation issues. Rovati et al. (2000)

analyzed and showed that MPEG-2 encoding standards do secure technology innovation—

a high picture quality, low-area, low-bandwidth, unlimited search window implementation.

Some other papers discussed the policy perspective of technological standards and inno-

vation, mainly in the environment sectors, and Parry (1998) argued that emissions taxes,

emissions permits, and performance standards were based on their potential for promoting

technological innovation positively.

Cluster A2—technology and knowledge diffusion and transfer (26 papers)

Cluster A2 contained 26 papers and focused on technology/knowledge diffusion/transfer—

these papers are primarily found in management and computer/information systems group

domains. Some of these papers focused on explaining why certain innovations diffuse

Table 5 Length and variables of keywords for clustering analysis

Classification Title Keywords Abstract

Number of original DB 6,296 (11.8/paper) 4,621 (8.7/paper) 86,305 (162/paper)

Number of indexed DB 4,359 (8.2/paper) 4,528 (8.5/paper) 45,997 (86.5/paper)

Number of indexed DB 1,729 1,828 6,092

43 Indexed variables (from abstracts,sorted by frequency)

Standard-, innov-, technolog-, develop-, system-, product-, process-,industri-, design-, model-, effect-, manag-, inform-, market-,differ-, firm-, qualit-, perform-, servic-, network-, environment-,integr-, chang-, adopt-, competit-, practic-, organ-, regul-, oper-,strategi-, commun-, implement-, polici-, properti-, busi-, econom-,produc-, patent-, regulatori-, diffus-, transfer-, intellectu-, IPR

21 Factors (by factor analysisfor clustering)

(1) Intellectu-/property-/IPR-, (2) market-/competit-/product-,(3) regul-/regulatori-, (4) adopt-/diffuse-, (5) system-/standard-/practice-, (6) implement-/industry-, (7) busi-/strategi-/oper-,(8) technolog-, (9) chang-, (10) transfer-/develop-, (11) produc-,(12) process-/integr-, (13) inform-/design-, (14) model-/commun-/firm-/differ-, (15) quality-/organ-, (16) perform-/econom-,(17) environment-/manag-, (18) polici-, (19) innov-,(20) patent-/effect-, (21) service-/network

270 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 13: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

extensively, becoming de facto standards, whereas others do so partially or not at all

(Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1997); or investigated firm processes for standards diffusion

migration from proprietary or less-open to open-standards inter-organizational system so as

to better understand innovation diffusion (Zhu et al. 2006).

Other papers in the A2 Cluster studied the function of standards in knowledge transfer

and diffusion. An exemplary paper was Hurmelinna et al. (2007), which collected data of

299 companies and revealed that the different mechanisms within the appropriateness

regime had different effects on knowledge flows within companies, the benefits derived

from positive network externalities, and standardization.

Cluster A3—a regulation and integration tool (54 papers)

Cluster A3 considers standardization as a regulation and integration tool in innovation, and

it contains papers mainly on the subject of management and telecommunications/

Table 6 Exploratory taxonomy for standardization and innovation

Group-cluster(level 1)

Clusters (level 2) Descriptions

Cluster AFunction/Role

(165)

A1 (60)Inter-relationship of

Standardization and Innovation

Interrelationship between standardization andinnovation;

Implementation of standardization as an innovationtool;

Policy perspective of technological standards andinnovation

A2 (26)Diffusion/Transfer of Tech/

Knowledge

Standards adoption, and innovation diffusion(model, factor, network);

Standards and knowledge transfer

A3 (54)Regulation/Integration

Standardization as an integration tool;

Regulatory standards and innovation in technology-based industry

A4 (25)IPR/Patent/Law

Standards and IPR in a competitive market;

Patent, standards, and legal issues

Cluster BImpact/Strategy

(181)

B1 (88)Impact and Competitive Strategy

Impact of technology standards in marketcompetition;

Standards and structure and modeling;

Standardization as a business competition strategy

B2 (93)Business Performance

Business development, performance, standards;

Standardization for innovation and technologicalperformance

Cluster C (182)Standards-Type

Orientation

C1 (86)Technology and Product

Specific technology development, standards, andinnovation;

Technology and product design and standards andinnovation

C2 (63)Quality and Management System

Quality assurance and management systemstandards for innovation;

Environmental management systems standards

C3 (33)Service

Role of standards in service innovation;

Service, network, and communication standards

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 271

123

Page 14: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

electronics as topic group domains. For example, technological standards have been used

as a means for European market integration (Bender 1999). One fine illustration is the

development of the European GSM standard. Some of the Cluster A3 studies explored how

regulatory standards influence technology-based innovation. These papers chiefly argued

how regulatory standards encourage or discourage innovation in such industries, as envi-

ronment, housing, and the food industry (Brunnermeier and Cohen 2003; Gann et al. 1998;

Unnevehr and Jensen 1996).

Cluster A4—IPR, patent, and legal issues (25 papers)

Cluster A4 included papers about standards and IPR/patent/law in competitive markets and

was mainly filled with papers in the subject areas of law, economics, and political science.

These papers were chiefly in computer/info, and environment topic group domains. Some

of these papers dealt with the relationship between IPR policy for standards-setting

organizations and its interpretation in terms of competition policy or law (Bekkers et al.2002; Encaoua and Hollander 2002; Lemley 2002; Rysman and Simcoe 2008). In addition,

they discuss how to manage innovation and IPR in knowledge-oriented economies and

how to develop public policy for innovation, competition, standards, and IPR (Drahos and

Maher 2004; Kim et al. 2006). They also highlight the policy debate on global standards,

patent infringement versus protection, R&D and national policy settings (Allred and Park

2007; Hausman and Leonard 2006).

Group Cluster B—the impact/strategy of standardization in innovation (181 papers)

Group-cluster B contained 181 papers in two Clusters (B1, B2), and the research of this

group highlights the concept of competitive strategy through standardization with its

impact on innovation and business performance.

Cluster B1—impact and competitive strategy (88 papers)

Cluster B1 on impact and competitive strategy included 88 papers. The primary concern of

papers in Cluster B1 was on the impact of technology standards in market competition,

namely, how technology standards affect firms in a competitive market environment. Many

of the Cluster B1 papers were published in TIM specialty journals, including ResearchPolicy, Journal of Product Innovation Management, and The International Journal ofTechnology Management. For instance, Tassey (2000) argued that industry standards might

affect the R&D, production, and market penetration stages of economic activity and,

therefore, have a significant collective effect on innovation, productivity, and market

structure (Tassey 2000). Funk and Methe (2001) argued that governments could and do

influence the forecasted and actual installed base for systems in the mobile communica-

tions industry through their influence on product demand (e.g., by determining the amount

of competition in the market) and the number of and degree of openness in the standards.

In particular, the choice of a single standard (by either a large single country or region)

dramatically and instantaneously increased the forecast for the standard’s domestic

installed base, thus causing other countries to adapt the standard as well. Other topics in

Cluster B1 involved the complementary role of dominant design and industry design; the

nature of innovation in pursuit of standards for new product development; and a com-

parison of environmental R&D incentives offered by four policy instruments-emission

standards (Gallagher 2007; Montero 2002; Sahay and Riley 2003).

272 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 15: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

Cluster B2—technology and business performance (92 papers)

Cluster B2, technology and business performance, included 93 papers. Some of the Cluster

B2 studies focused on business development, performance, and standards, investigating

how standardization influences business development and performance. Cluster B2

includes some papers published by technology innovation management specialty

researchers and published in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, R&DManagement, and Technovation (Debackere et al. 1997; Ehrhardt 2004; Link and Naveh

2006). For example Link and Naveh (2006) sought to determine if the environmental

management standard ISO 14001 helps organizations to reduce the negative impact of their

business activities, and as a result, improves their business performance. With more details,

such investigation may differentiate between developed and developing countries and how

to strategically set up standardization policy for different technology infrastructures (Braa

et al. 2007). In addition, Cluster B2 contained papers on standardization for innovation and

technological performance, examining technological performance using standardization.

Standardization based on new technology unsurprisingly may lead to advancement in

performance.

Group Cluster C—standard-type oriented innovation research (182 papers)

While Group Clusters A and B focused chiefly on the relationship, functions, and impact/

strategy of standardization and innovation, the 182 papers in Group C highlighted inno-

vation with specific orientation or orientation of standards, specifically technology and

product oriented standards, quality and management system-oriented standards, and ser-

vice-oriented standards. Within that Cluster were the following sub-categories as well:

Cluster C1—technology and product-oriented standards and innovation (86 papers)

Cluster C1 included 86 papers and focused on technology and product -oriented standards.

The majority of these papers cover standards and innovation in technology, systems, and

product design. For instance, Sedlacek and Muller (2006) examined Eurocodes as Euro-

pean-unified design rules for structures as part of the European Standard Family that also

comprises product standards, testing standards, and standards for execution. As a conse-

quence, all rules in Eurocode 3 were justified and did allow for new innovative design

approaches. Similarly, Bennett et al. (1994) discussed innovations in polymer arrester

moisture-sealing testing and proposed a novel design test that involves sensitive interfacial

leakage current measurements as its diagnostic.

Cluster C2—quality and management system standards and innovation (63 papers)

Cluster C2, addressing quality and management system standards, included 63 papers.

Some of the papers discuss the relationship of innovation to quality management standards.

They studied an innovative approach to make ISO 9000 standards more effective and when

the ISO 9000 quality assurance standard leads to performance improvement (Kanji 1998;

Naveh and Marcus 2004). On the other hand, some of the research papers considered

quality management standards as barriers, and identified the minimum level of standard-

ization (Maxwell 1998). However, although the belief that there is a positive linkage

between quality and innovation is widely shared among quality professionals, yet a doubt

was raised and discussed on whether quality standards could impede radical innovation in

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 273

123

Page 16: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

some Japanese high-tech firms (Cole and Matsumiya 2007). In addition, other experts

studied different environmental management standards. Rennings et al. (2006), for

example, discussed the influence of the different characteristics of the EU environmental

management and the auditing scheme for technical environmental innovations and eco-

nomic performance. They concluded that the learning process for environmental man-

agement systems has a positive impact on economic performance and environmental

product innovations.

Cluster C3—service-oriented standards and innovation (33 papers)

Cluster C3 addressed standards in the service industry and included 33 papers. Typically,

C3 papers studied strategic options of service firms between standardization and innovation

and how standards create innovation in the service industry. One typical case was Tether

et al. (2001), who studied patterns of ‘standardization versus particularization’, using

German evidence with respect to the structure of service firms and its relationship to

innovation. Firms are able to make strategic choices about their markets and how they

serve them; service firms can then focus on process innovation and standardization or on

‘product’ innovation and customization and develop their employment and technology

bases accordingly. Yoo et al. (2005) investigated the roles of standards in promoting,

enabling, and constraining innovation in broadband mobile services over a 10-year period

in South Korea and revealed that standards do play a critical role, as they mediate different

interests and motivations among the participating actors. In addition, the papers found in

C3 examined various issues of service-oriented standards and innovation, such as the

function or impact of standards in transport service, social service, disabled people and

accessibility service, service innovation, and service internationalization.

Conclusions

The role of standardization in innovation is increasing, and as a result relevant government

policy and academic research also is increasing. Since only a few standardization specialty

journals exist and no bibliometric study on standardization and innovation was done, it is

fairly difficult to keep current with research trends of this topic. This paper is designed to

conduct research profiling on standardization and ‘technology-based’ innovation by

examining the relevant research papers published over time and their publication and

citation data as indexed in Web of Science (WoS).

The bibliometric analysis of 528 research papers from WoS for standardization and

innovation criteria shows that the number of researches in this area gradually increased

from 1995 to 2008. The data investigation revealed that the majority of the researches were

published in six subject group domains, namely Management group, Economics group,

Environment group, Computer/Info group, Chemistry group, and Telecom/EE group. The

Management group domain was the largest, and nine out of the twelve major prolific

journals, publishing more than five papers, were in the Management group domain. Seven

out of the nine journals were technology innovation management (TIM) specialty journals.

Hence, TIM journals are the central and most favorable source for standardization and

innovation research efforts.

The clustering analyses of these 528 papers enabled us to put forward an exploratory

taxonomy of standardization and innovation research. The analysis efforts suggest that

there are two levels of exploratory taxonomy with nine sub-clusters grouped into three

274 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 17: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

topical clusters. The three proposed topical clusters are: (1) interrelationship/function/role

of standardization in innovation—general conceptualization, a tool for diffusion, integra-

tion, regulation, and issues with IPR and the law; (2) impact/strategy of standardization in

innovation—strategies for market competition and business development and performance;

(3) sector-specific standards and innovation—standards for technology, product, quality

and management systems, and services.

Overall, the most appropriate judgment gleaned from our investigation is the remark-

able mixture that was repeatedly found within all standardization and innovation research.

There were broad trends, which indeed reflect the three proposed topical groups, and nine

Clusters; however, there was also immense variation in research topics and arguments.

Although the proposed taxonomy could be useful as starting points, impetuous taxonomies

may mislead one into over-simplifying multidisciplinary and complex research areas.

Further research should go into more of the details related to the proposed segmented

subject group domains and the topical clusters to crystallize the taxonomies of standard-

ization and innovation more specifically.

Regardless of these limitations, however, the proposed results do deliver a brief, but

wide-ranging, picture of the ‘‘what, how, and who’’ about standardization and innovation

research. These findings may assist policy makers and business executives in the future in

distinguishing multiple strategic options and facilitate academia in better understanding

and conceptualizing the full impact of standards on innovation and generate future studies

to examine those impacts in greater depth.

Acknowledgment This work was partially supported by Mid-career Researcher Program through NRFgrant funded by the MEST (no. 2008-0058459).

References

Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion:A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8(3), 289–309.

Allen, R. H., & Sriram, R. D. (2000). The role of standards in innovation. Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, 64(2–3), 171–181.

Allred, B. B., & Park, W. G. (2007). Patent rights and innovative activity: Evidence from national and firm-level data. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6), 878–900.

Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B., & Smits, J. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standardization: The case ofGSM. Telecommunications Policy, 26(3–4), 171–188.

Bender, G. (1999). Technological innovation as a means of European integration. The development of theEuropean GSM standard. Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, 28(2), 77–92.

Bennett, J. A., Mackevich, J. P., & Mosso, R. (1994) Innovations in polymer arrester moisture sealingtesting. In Transmission and Distribution Conference, 10–15 Apr 1994 (pp. 404–410).

Blind, K. (2009). Standardisation: A catalyst for innovation. Inaugural Address Series—Research inManagement. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Blind, K., & Hipp, C. (2003). The role of quality standards in innovative service companies: An empiricalanalysis for Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(7), 653–669.

Bourreau, M., & Dogan, P. (2001). Regulation and innovation in the telecommunications industry. Tele-communications Policy, 25(3), 167–184.

Braa, J., Hanseth, O., Heywood, A., Mohammed, W., & Shaw, V. (2007). Developing health informationsystems in developing countries: The flexible standards strategy. Mis Quarterly, 31(2), 381–402.

Braun, T., & Schubert, A. (2007). The growth of research on inter-and multidisciplinarity in science andsocial science papers, 1975–2006. Scientometrics, 73(3), 345–351.

Brunnermeier, S. B., & Cohen, M. A. (2003). Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufac-turing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(2), 278–293.

Choung, J. Y., & Hwang, H. R. (2000). National systems of innovation: Institutional linkages and perfor-mances in the case of Korea and Taiwan. Scientometrics, 48(3), 413–426.

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 275

123

Page 18: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

Cole, R. E., & Matsumiya, T. (2007). Too much of a good thing? Quality as an impediment to innovation.California Management Review, 50(1), 77–93.

de Vries, H. J. (2001). Standardization-a new discipline? In Standardization and innovation in informationtechnology, 2001 2nd IEEE conference (pp. 91–105).

Debackere, K., VanLooy, B., & Vliegen, J. (1997). A process view on managing quality during the creationof technical innovations: Lessons from field research. R & D Management, 27, 197–211.

DIUS (2009). The UK government public policy interest in standardisation 2009 (URN 224-09-IN-ON). InDepartment for Innovation, Universities and Skills, UK (Ed.). http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publications/S/standardisation_public_policy_paper_may_09.

Drahos, P., & Maher, I. (2004). Innovation, competition, standards and intellectual property: Policy per-spectives from economics and law. Information Economics and Policy, 16(1), 1–11.

Egyedi, T. M. J., & Sheriff, M. H. (2008) Standards’ dynamics through an innovation lens: Next generationethernet networks. In Innovations in NGN: Future Network and Services, 2008. K-INGN 2008. FirstITU-T Kaleidoscope Academic Conference, 12–13 May 2008 (pp. 127–134).

Ehrhardt, M. (2004). Network effects, standardisation and competitive strategy: How companies influencethe emergence of dominant designs. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(2–3),272–294.

Encaoua, D., & Hollander, A. (2002). Competition policy and innovation. Oxford Review of EconomicPolicy, 18(1), 63–79.

European Commission (2008). Towards an increased contribution from standardisation to innovation inEurope. In Enterprise and Industry, European Commission (Ed.). Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0133:FIN:en:PDF.

Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The RAND Journal ofEconomics, 16(1), 70–83.

Funk, J. L., & Methe, D. T. (2001). Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusionof global industry standards: The case of mobile communication. Research Policy, 30(4), 589–610.

Gallagher, S. (2007). The complementary role of dominant designs and industry standards. IEEE Trans-actions on Engineering Management, 54(2), 371–379.

Galvin, P., & Rice, J. (2008). A case study of knowledge protection and diffusion for innovation: Managingknowledge in the mobile telephone industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 42(4),426–438.

Gamber, T., Friedrich-Nishio, M., & Grupp, H. (2008). Science and technology in standardization: Astatistical analysis of merging knowledge structures. Scientometrics, 74(1), 89–108.

Gann, D. M., Wang, Y. S., & Hawkins, R. (1998). Do regulations encourage innovation?—The case ofenergy efficiency in housing. Building Research and Information, 26(5), 280–296.

Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities.New York, NY: Wiley.

Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P., Maye, I., Roulin-Perriard, A., & von Ins, M. (2007). Publication, cooperation andproductivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics, 73(2), 175–214.

Hausman, J., & Leonard, G. K. (2006). Real options and patent damages: The legal treatment of non-infringing alternatives, and incentives to innovate. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(4), 493–512.

Hurmelinna, P., Kylaheiko, K., & Jauhiainen, T. (2007). The Janus face of the appropriability regime in theprotection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27(3), 133–144.

Junquera, B., & Mitre, M. (2007). Value of bibliometric analysis for research policy: A case study ofSpanish research into innovation and technology management. Scientometrics, 71(3), 443–454.

Kanji, G. K. (1998). An innovative approach to make ISO 9000 standards more effective. Total QualityManagement, 9(1), 67–78.

Kano, S. (2000). Technical innovations, standardization and regional comparison—a case study in mobilecommunications. Telecommunications Policy, 24(4), 305–321.

Kim, J. B., Choi, C. J., & Chen, S. (2006). Innovation management and intellectual property in knowledge-oriented economies. International Journal of Technology Management, 36(4), 295–304.

King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation.Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261.

Kostoff, R. N., Stump, J. A., Johnson, D., Murday, J. S., Lau, C. G. Y., & Tolles, W. M. (2006). Thestructure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,8(3–4), 301–321.

Kostoff, R., Johnson, D., Bowles, C., Bhattacharya, S., Icenhour, A., Nikodym, K., et al. (2007). Assessmentof India’s research literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1574–1608.

Lee, C., & Percivall, G. (2008). Standards-based computing capabilities for distributed geospatial appli-cations. Computer, 41(11), 50–57.

276 D. G. Choi et al.

123

Page 19: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

Lemley, M. A. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations. California LawReview, 90(6), 1889–1980.

Lim, A. S. (2008). Inter-consortia battles in mobile payments standardisation. Electronic CommerceResearch and Applications, 7(2), 202–213.

Lin, C. H., & Jang, S. L. (2010). The impact of M&As on company innovation: Evidence from the USmedical device industry. Scientometrics, 84(1), 119–131.

Link, S., & Naveh, E. (2006). Standardization and discretion: Does the environmental standard ISO 14001lead to performance benefits? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(4), 508–519.

Linton, J. (2006). Ranking of technology and innovation management journals. Technovation, 26(3),285–287.

Linton, J. (2009). Technology innovation management’s growing influence and impact. Technovation,29(10), 643–644.

Linton, J., & Embrechts, M. (2007). MOT TIM journal rankings 2006. Technovation, 27(3), 91–94.M’Barek, S., Lopez-Gonzalez, I., Andreotti, N., di Luccio, E., Visan, V., Grissmer, S., et al. (2003). A

maurotoxin with constrained standard disulfide bridging—Innovative strategy of chemical synthesis,pharmacology, and docking on K? channels. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 278(33), 31095–31104.

Markus, L., Steinfield, C. W., Wigand, R. T., & Minton, G. (2006). Industry-wide information systemsstandardization as collective action: The case of the US residential mortgage industry. Mis Quarterly,30, 439–465.

Maxwell, J. W. (1998). Minimum quality standards as a barrier to innovation. Economics Letters, 58(3),355–360.

McKeown, M. (2008). The truth about innovation. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. http://www.amazon.com/Truth-about-Innovation-Max-McKeown/dp/0273719122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296540309&sr=8-1#_

Merrill, T. W., & Smith, H. E. (2000). Optimal standardization in the law of property: The numerus Claususprinciple. Yale Law Journal, 110(1), 1–70.

Montero, J. P. (2002). Permits, standards, and technology innovation. Journal of Environmental Economicsand Management, 44(1), 23–44.

Murmann, J. P., & Frenken, K. (2006). Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs,technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy, 35(7), 925–952.

Naveh, E., & Marcus, A. A. (2004). When does the ISO 9000 quality assurance standard lead to perfor-mance improvement? Assimilation and going beyond. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-ment, 51(3), 352–363.

Parry, I. W. H. (1998). Pollution regulation and the efficiency gains from technological innovation. Journalof Regulatory Economics, 14(3), 229–254.

Pfisterer, J., & du Bois, A. (2007). Therapeutic standards for ovarian cancer. Pathologe, 28(3), 222–228.Porter, A. L., Kongthon, A., & Lu, J.-C. (2002). Research profiling: Improving the literature review.

Scientometrics, 53(3), 351–370.Ranalli, A., Gomes, T., Delcuratolo, D., Contento, S., & Lucera, L. (2003). Improving virgin olive oil

quality by means of innovative extracting biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem-istry, 51(9), 2597–2602.

Rennings, K., Ziegler, A., Ankele, K., & Hoffmann, E. (2006). The influence of different characteristics ofthe EU environmental management and auditing scheme on technical environmental innovations andeconomic performance. Ecological Economics, 57(1), 45–59.

Rillio, C. A. F. (2009). Standards and innovation: What relationship? A literature review. In 2009 EURASconference, France (pp. 279–290).

Rovati, F. S., Pau, D., Piccinelli, E., Pezzoni, L., & Bard, J. M. (2000). An innovative, high quality andsearch window independent motion estimation algorithm and architecture for MPEG-2 encoding. IEEETransactions on Consumer Electronics, 46(3), 697–705.

Rysman, M., & Simcoe, T. (2008). Patents and the performance of voluntary standard-setting organizations.Management Science, 54(11), 1920–1934.

Sahay, A., & Riley, D. (2003). The role of resource access, market considerations, and the nature ofinnovation in pursuit of standards in the new product development process. In Sep 2003 (Vol. 20,pp. 338–355). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Sedlacek, G., & Muller, C. (2006). The European standard family and its basis. Journal of ConstructionalSteel Research, 62, 1047–1059.

Sun, Y., & Negishi, M. (2010). Measuring the relationships among university, industry and other sectors inJapan’s national innovation system: A comparison of new approaches with mutual information indi-cators. Scientometrics, 82(3), 677–685.

Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’ 277

123

Page 20: Research profiling for ‘standardization and innovation’

Sung, T. K. (2008). The relationship between standardization and innovative activity: An exploratory studyon Korean service firms. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 16(2), 153–166.

Swann, G. (2000). The economics of standardization: Final report for Standards and Technical RegulationsDirectorate. Manchester Business School: Department of Trade and Industry.

Tassey, G. (2000). Standardization in technology-based markets. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 587–602.Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on ‘‘Profiting from Innovation’’. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131–1146.Tether, B. S., Hipp, C., & Miles, I. (2001). Standardisation and particularisation in services: Evidence from

Germany. Research Policy, 30(7), 1115–1138.Unnevehr, L. J., & Jensen, H. H. (1996). HACCP as a regulatory innovation to improve food safety in the

meat industry. In Aug 1996 (Vol. 78, pp. 764–769). Ames, IA: Amer Agricultural EconomicsAssociation.

Uzun, A. (2006). Science and technology policy in Turkey. National strategies for innovation and changeduring the 1983–2003 period and beyond. Scientometrics, 66(3), 551–559.

Vallance, C. (2005). Innovations in cavity ringdown spectroscopy. New Journal of Chemistry, 29(7),867–874.

Veglio, F., Esposito, A., & Reverberi, A. P. (2003). Standardisation of heavy metal biosorption tests:Equilibrium and modelling study. Process Biochemistry, 38(6), 953–961.

Verman, L. (1973). Standardization, a new discipline. Hamden, CO: Archon Books.Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., & Yang, H. D. (2005). The role of standards in innovation and diffusion of broadband

mobile services: The case of South Korea. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 323–353.Yuen, H. (2000). A Cluster-Based Approach for identifying East Asian Economies: A foundation for

monetary integration. National University of Singapore Department of Economics Working PaperSeries. http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM03/Volume_03/B14/04_Yuen.pdf.

Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., Gurbaxani, V., & Xu, S. X. (2006). Migration to open-standard interorganizationalsystems: Network effects, switching costs, and path dependency. Mis Quarterly, 30, 515–539.

278 D. G. Choi et al.

123