PDP
RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 16-P-007
Does Standardization Affect Science Linkage?
A case of artificial intelligence applied technology field
TAMURA Suguru
RIETI
IWAMI Shino
University of Tokyo
SAKATA Ichiro
RIETI
The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry
http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/
RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 16-P-007
April 2016
Does Standardization Affect Science Linkage?
A case of artificial intelligence applied technology field
TAMURA Suguru
RIETI(Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry)
IWAMI Shino
Policy Alternatives Research Institute(PARI),The University of Tokyo/Eötvös Loránd University
SAKATA Ichiro
Policy Alternatives Research Institute(PARI),The University of Tokyo/RIETI
ABSTRACT
This study examines the influence of standardization in scientific technology research. For this purpose, we
use the knowledge structure modeled by academic papers, patent filings, and standardization, and a clustering
analysis for the research method. As the research subject, we studied image-digitizing technology de jure
standard that is used to encode and decode the transmission of audio and video. The technology is widely
analyzed by artificial intelligence technologies such as machine learning. Our study contributes in several
ways. First, it provides a new knowledge structure consisting of (1) patents, (2) academic papers, and (3)
standardization. Second, it determines whether standardization (1) has the influence to change the relationship
between academic papers and patents in terms of a science linkage specifically relating to standardized
technology and (2) influences the academic productivity of researchers in the technology field.
Keywords: Standardization, Science linkage, Watermark
JEL Code: C83, D83, L15, O34
RIETI Policy Discussion Papers Series is created as part of RIETI research and aims to contribute to policy
discussions in a timely fashion. The views expressed in these papers are solely those of the author(s), and neither
represent those of the organization to which the author(s) belong(s) nor the
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry.
This study is conducted as a part of the Project at Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI). The
authors appreciate the valuable comments of Discussion Paper seminar participants at RIETI and support from Director
Nagano, Director Fukuda and Director Tokumasu at METI, support from Lecturer Junichiro Mori at The University of
Tokyo and support of Innovation Policy Research Center at The University of Tokyo. This work was supported by JSPS
KAKENHI Grant Number 15K03718.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This study examines the influence of standardization in scientific technology research. According to previous
research, there is a discrepancy in the information obtained (Blind and Gauch, 2009; Zi and Blind, 2015). It
has been pointed out that standardization, along with academic research activities, forms the primary
components of basic research (Blind and Gauch, 2009). The data also inferred that in the field of
nanotechnology, the rapid development of standards was very important at the basic research stage, as was the
case in Germany. However, it has also been pointed out that standardization activities do not necessarily
parallel academic research activities (Zi and Blind, 2016).
In general, previous research placed emphasis on the reason as to why standards are established (David,
1985). Arthur (1989) explained how historical events are more significant than economic perspective, and
how standards can produce the lock-in effect. Lately, technology standard research has focused on how
standardization influences both science and technology. The standardization policy itself has become one of
the main pillars of innovation (Edler et al., 2012). In some technological sectors such as Information and
Communications Technology (ICT), the market created by the standardization of technology has become an
essential element as the interoperability is necessary to product innovations (Egyedi and Sherif, 2010; Jakobs
et al., 2001; Sherif, 2001), as seen in the aforementioned nanotechnology case in Germany.
The aim of this study was to analyze and document the effects of standardization on research and
patenting activities. For this purpose, we made use of a clustering analysis method developed by Newman
(2004) for bibliometric citation clustering. To analyze the effects of standardization, we first used the
knowledge structure modeled by 1) academic papers, 2) patent filings, and 3) standardization. Our research
subject was MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group), since this technology is one of the most widely used and
is standardized in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) (Yasuda, 1989). The aforementioned technology is used to encode, decode, and
subsequently convey moving pictures and audio. As of now, motion pictures are predominantly seen on the
Internet. The technology is widely analyzed by artificial intelligence technologies such as machine learning.
(Albusac et al., 2009; Amato et al., 2008; Fernández et al., 2006; Fernández et al., 2007). Hence, it is a viable
component subjected to detailed examination and research.
Our study has contributed in several ways, two of which are explained in brief below. Our first contribution
was to provide a new technology knowledge structure, with respect to patents, academic papers, and
standardization. The second contribution was made through the discovery that, in the specific technology
related to MPEG, standardization can change the relation between academic papers and patents. This
ultimately influences the productivity of academic publications of researchers in such technological domains.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS FORMATION
2.1 Overview
In their bibliometric research of technology, Shibata et al., (2008) has made use of academic papers and patent
filings. However, the bibliometric data of standardization has not been used. In the previous national
innovation system, 1) academic papers and 2) patents were regarded as the primary output indicators.
However, with respect to the current national innovation system, the policy regarding standardization is
expected to play an essential role, even though it has not been adequately implemented in innovation and
R&D policy evaluations in the past(Cabinet Office, 2016). In fact, in the national innovation system in major
research regions such as the US, the EU, and Japan, the role of standardization is more significant as the
evaluation aspect of innovation policy. In the US, despite prolonged efforts to assess standardization activities
in policy evaluation, the system is not well established, and hence the evaluation system of standardization
remains insufficiently developed (Tassey, 2003). Similarly, in the EU, it has now become an inevitable
element in policy evaluation as well as R&D (Edler et al., 2012). In Japan, with respect to the national project,
the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) has adapted the results of
2
standardization, albeit only to measure the number of draft proposals. As in these cases, the analysis
methodology is qualitative and the ways to evaluate standardization in terms of knowledge formation are still
under development.
In the fifth Science and Technology Basic Plan of Japan (Cabinet Office, 2016), the importance of
standardization in innovation is emphasized. At the same time, regarding academic achievements, the
promulgation of academic paper publications is emphasized. In the current basic plan, it regards 1) academic
papers 2) patent, and 3) standardization as one of key indicator sets. Hence, the policy is going to do as,
Policy achievement = max f (academic paper, patent, standardization). Nevertheless, the endogenous
relationships between three factors are not well researched. Zi and Blind (2016) report there is the relation
between academic paper publication and standardization as
Academic paper publication = - g (standardization).
Each scientist has a limited resource pool. Hence, researchers have to manage their resources within the
allocated total. This means they need effective management of their research activities. Needless to say, the
resources are divided into allocations based on their importance with respect to the evaluated activities. Under
these conditions, are the standardization activities compatible with the publication of academic papers? This is
the fundamental research question addressed in this study. If not, there should be a form of policy support,
which enables the improvement of the standardization activities in academic institutions. In the previous
studies, researchers discussed the role of standardization primarily with respect to the industrial society, not
the academic society; hence, there is insufficient knowledge about this aspect. In the German nanotechnology
research, standardization has played a pivotal role in the improvement of basic research (Blind and Gauch,
2009). However, it was also found that, in the public institution of material science (BAM Federal Institute for
Materials Research and Testing) in Germany, the standardization activities negatively correlate with the
journal publication in basic research, because preparation of academic article is so labor intensive that
researchers can not share their time for standardization activities (Zi and Blind, 2016).
This being the case, the activities for standardization are not always welcomed by researchers, and as such,
the government needs to improve its viability as a feasible policy. This situation becomes a dilemma for both
researchers and policy-makers, since the standardization of technology becomes an essential component in
certain technological sectors, such as ICT. At the same time, this issue relates to the career development of
researchers, as it enables them to review their scope of work. If it is difficult to set up a personal career path
through the standardization activities, no one will seek to undertake this path, even if the government seems to
view the standardization policy as one of the national innovation systems for increasing competitiveness. In
Japan, the researcher’s allocated work time is reported to have decreased, and this has caused the number of
academic publications to decrease correspondingly. Hence, the Japanese government has tried to increase their
allocated research time, thereby hoping to increase the number of academic papers published. In this situation,
self-optimization between academic research activities and standardization activities will be very difficult. It is
more of a structural problem, rather than the researcher’s self-management issues. If so, there will be a need
for a policy that can effectively improve standardization activities as well as academic research publications.
In this study, in order to see the need of such a policy in research institutions, we try to establish whether
the standardization activities influence both academic publications, as well as the patenting activities. In other
words, we have tried to see whether standardization can affect the scientific linkage between patents and
academic papers. In addition to this, for the purpose of understanding the knowledge structure among patents,
academic publication and standardization, we propose the development of a model consisting of these three
innovation factors.
2.2 Bibliometric Analysis
This study uses a network analysis of academic articles and patents. They have been used to analyze emerging
technologies. This is in keeping with the quote, “Painting a ‘big picture’ of scientific knowledge has long been
desirable…” (Borner et al., 2003). However, the traditional approach of seeking a large quantity of articles via
a heavy workload does not necessarily result in satisfactory accuracy. As such, the citation analysis of
3
academic papers through information processing is becoming more important. That said, information is
commonly used as one of the methods to identify various relationships. Garfield pioneered the citation
analysis (Garfield, 1955) and commercialized the social science citation index (SSCI), which is now known as
the “impact factor.” As the digitization of academic documents become more common, the development of
information technology and analysis becomes correspondingly more useful and important. Recent ICT
development makes it possible to search more efficiently.
One of the applications of bibliographic clustering is to visualize the emerging concept, which is not
necessarily “made in words.” In the field of scientific research, the disruptive notion is not usually formed
intentionally. Sometimes, new conceptions are recognized and formed after the research progresses to a
certain stage, but the lack of general awareness hinders the flow of the scientific knowledge to other
researchers and practitioners. This leads to the delay of research and policy implementation. Naturally, if the
concept formation is rapid, we can share emerging and desirable knowledge seamlessly. With respect to this,
the acronym: the Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB), which is an emerging radical concept for energy
efficiency, was recently coined, and the boundary of this technology was not clear. The NZEB is studied for
an academic concept formulation, with the information provided in related academic papers (Tashiro et al.,
2012). The previous research can help provide technical conception by bibliographic clustering, thereby
shedding more light on the topic.
In addition to the formation of new concepts, finding new technology research frontiers is another
important purpose. Timely detection of such new technology frontiers leads to the obtainment of what we call,
“the first mover advantage” in terms of R&D strategy. Conventional methods of technology information
research for corporate R&D strategy are an example of patent information survey. Alternatively, Shibata et al.
(2008) proposed the following method to predict and anticipate potentially promising technology areas:
i) subtracting the patent and academic articles from patent and journal database by using intended keywords,
ii) clustering patent and academic articles by unsupervised learning in terms of citation networks,
iii) comparing the bibliographic similarities between patent and academic article clusters,
iv) selecting the pair of clusters that exhibit the least similarity, which in turn indicates the most promising
research area.
This research method can also be used to differentiate between branching innovation and incremental
innovation. These are used in the research of gallium nitride (material science) and complex networks
(computer science). In addition, by tracking the time series development of each cluster, technological
breakthroughs can be observed through topological analysis. This method is applied to the analysis of
academic papers in terms of the propagation of the research result of academic research institutions (Iwami et
al., 2015).
Nevertheless, as mentioned above, these previous studies did not deal with the issues related to standards.
As standard is regarded as one of the essential components of product innovation, especially in the field of
ICT (Egyedi and Sherif, 2010; Jakobs et al., 2001; Sherif, 2001), we propose the three-dimensional knowledge
structure, which consists of patents, academic papers, and standards, instead of the two-dimensional
knowledge structure between patents and academic papers (Shibata et al., 2008), in order to see the integrated
effect of standardization on science linkages.
2.3Standardization
One of the negative aspects of standardization activities is that it has been reported to be difficult to parallel
the said activity with other R&D activities (Zi and Blind, 2014). In the case of German R&D research
institutions, it has been pointed out that the standardization activities had a negative marginal effect on the
publishing of the research article. (Zi and Blind, 2014). The number of publications in the academic journal is
not justified by the participation in the standard development organization activities. This is explained by the
fact that, publication in the academic journal is so labor intensive, that researchers are unable to convert their
work efforts into standardizations. However, in the case of nanotechnology industry research, the importance
of basic research has been pointed out, and the standardization process will help improve subsequent scientific
research (Blind and Gauch, 2009). This leads to the paradox that, in order to improve basic research, we need
4
standardization activities, but in reality, the standardization activities themselves can hinder academic
achievements. In terms of the science linkage between academic papers and patents, the research also reported
that standardization activities increase the number of patent applications (Zi and Blind, 2014). However, under
normal circumstances, standardized technology is not allowed to be patented unconditionally.
Hence, from the above argument, we have arrived at the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1(H1): the standardization activities hinder research publication,
Hypothesis 2(H2): the standardization activities do not necessarily improve patenting.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
This study uses the clustering analysis method similar to the one used in the earlier research (Shibata et al.,
2008; Tashiro et al., 2012), as a method to view science and technology knowledge structures. Instead of the
knowledge structure used in the previous method, this study presents a new model, which consists of 1) patent
knowledge, 2) academic knowledge, and 3) standardized knowledge, using three-dimensional coordinates
(Figure 1). The model is different from the conventional one (Shibata et al., 2008), which consists of a twodimensional knowledge structure of 1) patent knowledge and 2) academic knowledge. MPEG is used as the
analysis subject, since the MPEG technologies are the typical standardized technologies. This means that we
can clearly observe the induced influence of standardization. In addition to this, through the standardization of
MPEG technology, Japanese researchers have played an essential and significant role (Yasuda, 1989). Hence,
the result will be more beneficial when one considers the industrial policy of Japan. In the case of Professor
Yasuda, his team published academic papers and did standardization. The academic publishing and the
standardization are both in the scope of the research activities in the science and technology research field.
[Fig.1]
Shibata et al. (2008) compared the clusters in their methodology to see technological similarities between
1) patent and 2) academic papers. This study follows an identical method (e.g. un-supervising machine
learning: a kind of artificial intelligence technology) and does not depend on the econometric analysis, which
is based on statistical inferences. For the clustering and consequent comparison between clusters, the system
of Academic Landscape (*) is used. As for data preparation, the academic papers and patent filings are
selected using the keywords:
i) “mpeg”
ii) “mpeg” and “standardization”
These resources are taken from the published works and patent filings between 1998 and 2014, included in
“Web of Science” and “Thomson Innovation” of the Thomson Reuters database. The “Web of science” is an
online database of academic papers, which provides comprehensive citation searches. Thomson Innovation,
on the other hand, is a patented database at the global level. We used the following bibliometric information
sources for the subtraction process:
i) “Title” (patents) in Thomson Innovation,
ii) “Title” (academic articles) in Web of science.
Based on the keyword search, 6,560 papers and 42,904 patents were selected from the databases for the
“mpeg” topic, while for the “mpeg and standardization” topic, 1,535 papers and 7,347 patents were selected.
After the clustering computation, 23 paper clusters and 111 patent clusters were obtained for the “mpeg” topic.
Similarly, 14 paper clusters and 39 patent clusters were derived for the “mpeg and standardization” topic. The
complete pictures of the formed clusters are shown in Figure 2- 5.
[Fig.2-5]
5
After the clustering process depending on the citation structure is completed, we determined and scored
important keywords from each cluster by using the method of TF-IDF (Term Frequency-Inverse Document
Frequency) mutation. Using the keywords, we compared the similarities between i) patents clusters and ii)
academic paper clusters, in order to see the technological analogy. We made use of those clusters, which had
nodes above 100.
To measure the similarities, we used the cosine similarity formula. This is given by the following
equation:
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝜃𝜃 =
����⃑∙𝑣𝑣2
����⃑
𝑣𝑣1
,
����⃑��𝑣𝑣2
����⃑�
�𝑣𝑣1
(1)
where ����⃑
𝑣𝑣1 and ����⃑
𝑣𝑣2= vectors of word frequency, for example ����⃑
𝑣𝑣1 = (frequency of word 1, frequency of word
2,⋯,frequency of word n)= (f1,f2,⋯,fn).This cosine similarity ranges in value from 0 to 1. When the similarity
is 1, these two vectors are identical and the two passages are similar. On the other hand, when the similarity is
0, these two vectors are a completely different set of words, and therefore, the two passages are not similar.
We depicted the calculated values in the heat map, using color intensity-based depiction. The area of the heat
map shows more of the red color if the similarity is high. Likewise, when there is almost no relation, the color
will be white (i.e., empty). Through the heat map, we can find i) the most related combination of clusters and
ii) the most unrelated clusters.
3.2 Patent and academic paper
It is possible to find and foresee the potentially technologic developmental area (Shibata et al., 2008), as
shown in Figure 6. If the patent is extended and the publication of academic papers is insufficient, the
industrial technology (patent) will lead the technology frontier rather than basic science (papers). Hence, we
can anticipate the progressive development of basic research in this region of technology. In other words, the
newly found technology is a potentially unexplored research theme. This means that for researchers and
corporations who are seeking radical research themes, this recently obtained information will be highly
beneficial On the other hand, if the academic papers are already being published but the patents are scarce, the
R&D applied in this region does not develop sufficiently, and hence the opportunities to obtain the patents are
predictably high. Therefore, the information obtained earlier is useful for the industrial researcher who seeks
to sow the seeds of opportunity, for improving their competitiveness by industrialization of technology.
[Fig.6]
3.3 Knowledge structure with standardization
In addition to patent information and academic papers, this study uses the information regarding
standardization, as shown in Figure 1. The motive behind this implementation is to observe how standards
influence the relation between technological similarities of patents and academic papers. Following the
conventional research method (Shibata et al., 2008; Iwami et al., 2015), this study uses the technological
cosine similarity formula, even under the influence of standardization.
As a part of the conception of the three-dimensional structure, we also proposed the scientific relationship
between three factors (patent, article, and standardization), as illustrated by the model in Figure 1. In Layer 1,
there is the consideration of 1) patent and 2) academic papers, and the key word is “mpeg.” Similarly, in Layer
2, there is the consideration of 1) patent, 2) academic papers and 3) standardization, and this time the
keywords are “mpeg” and “standardization.” Comparing Layers 1 and 2, we can clearly see the influence of
standardization on industrial technology development (patenting activities) and basic research (academic
research). We have calculated the cosine similarities in both Layers, and consequently drawn the heat maps
for Layer 1 and Layer 2. The difference in the heat maps is used as the basis to test the derived hypothesis.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Procedure formation
6
In addition to the previous research procedure (Shibata et al., 2008), we formed the following procedure for
determining the influence of standard:
1) Chart the cosine similarity heat map between i) patent and ii) academic paper layer (Layer 1)
2) Chart the cosine similarity heat map between i) patent and ii) academic paper, with information related to
the required standard (Layer 2)
3) Find the specific technologies, which are common or uncommon between Layer 1 and Layer 2.
4) Observe the science linkage of the detected and specified technologies.
4.2 Characteristics of Layer 1
Figure 7 shows the relationship between industry technology (patent) and academic research (paper) under the
term “mpeg.” This reveals that articled technology information is generally patented, denoting that the result
of fundamental research has been industrialized. In the given figure, left-hand side technologies in academic
articles have been patented in the first patent cluster (#1), as well as others. Conversely, as for patented
information, Cluster 16 is absent from the academic paper publications in all academic paper clusters from #1
to #6. This is because the application of the specified technology advanced well, but its fundamental research
has not been done enough.
The technology related to watermarks is found in Cluster 5 in the patent, and in Cluster 5 in the academic
papers. This means that the academic research (paper) and the industrial application (patent) rank highly in
the cosine similarity, and with their technological developments advancing simultaneously, there is a definite
science linkage between the two. As for their technological background, the watermark is a technology used
for copyright tracking of digitized images, such as photos and movies. Digitized images can be easily copied
without suffering significant quality deterioration. Hence, the pirated digital media such as videos and pictures
can be used freely, and at times illegally, if there are no measures in place to identify whether or not the usage
is permitted by the copyright holders. The watermark technology is used for the detection of copyright
infringement and thus prevents unauthorized and illegal copying of digitized media.
[Fig.7]
4.3 Characteristics of Layer 2
Figure 8 shows the relationship between industrial technology (patent) and academic research (paper), under
the terms “mpeg” and “standardization.” The academic articles and patents containing the keywords “mpeg”
and “standardization” are used to show the cosine similarity between these two factors. As for patent Cluster 7,
there are not the corresponding academic papers in terms of a “watermark,” as opposed to Layer 1. This
means that, when compared with industrial research (patent), the fundamental research result (paper) does not
indicate sufficient progress, and therefore the science linkage is low. The standardization process may not
actually improve the basic research in the specified technology, apart from hindering it. In other words, the
standardization may not improve the academic achievements in the form of academic articles. On the other
hand, the patenting process is not hindered by the standardization, because both Layer 1 and Layer 2 patent
clusters include the keyword “watermark.”
[Fig.8]
4.4 Hypothesis validation
Hypothesis 1 is supported by the specific area of watermark technology. As shown in the difference between
Layer 1 and Layer 2, the standardization process may hinder the academic achievements. In layer 1,
watermark technology forms clusters of both patents and academic articles, while in Layer 2, the watermark
forms clusters in patents but does not do so in the academic articles. This implies that the science linkage has
been altered between the two layers. The result can be interpreted as follows: in certain technology areas,
standardization can suppress academic achievement. This is in accordance with the result observed in the
research center in Germany (Zi and Blind, 2015). Our reasoning for this observation is primarily because the
formation of standardization is very labor intensive and costly for the researchers. In addition to this, the
contributions made in the standardization process are not regarded as an academic achievement. Hence, for
7
the researchers, the choice of opting for either the formation of standardization or the publication of academic
articles is a difficult one. The difference between Layer 1 and Layer 2 is thought to reflect this aspect of
standardization activities. This is what this study has shown using the bibliometric method.
Hypothesis 2, on the other hand, is not supported by the specific area of watermark technology. As shown
in the difference between Layer 1 and Layer 2, the standardization process may not necessarily hinder the
patenting procedure. This occurrence does not seem to be along the general understanding that standardized
technology cannot be patented without restraints. This is because the patent grants ownership rights to the
inventor, while standardization makes available the technology to all users free of charge. Hence, the observed
relationship does not seem to indicate that the common understanding is applicable to the watermark
technology. Another reason is that the patented technology obtained is not directly related to the
standardization, but the said technology is formed around the standardized technologies of MPEG. Hence, the
affiliated technologies can be patented.
4.5 Policy implications
We have illustrated the findings observed in this study in Figure 9. By considering the MPEG patent
knowledge as an integrated one, academic paper knowledge can be converted into patent knowledge. However,
there is a knowledge void created by observing the academic paper in a more detailed manner. When we
divide the total academic knowledge into two areas, i.e. “mpeg” and “mpeg” and “standardization,” the
academic knowledge has a null region of watermark under the influence of standardization. This means that,
performing both the standardization activities and academic research activities at the same time is difficult.
This is reflected in the fact that the standardization activities require a lot of effort, and in some cases, it
consumes the time and resources that would otherwise be used for academic publications. Hence, this result
implies that there is a need for an active policy in some technology area as:
1) standardization and academic research are not necessarily compatible,
2) the compensation for the standardization activities, in terms of academic career perspective is essential,
3) To be feasible, the standardization activities need to be recognized as the main component for researcher’s
academic achievement in the concerned institutions in the fields of science and technology research.
These points are not addressed in the fifth Science and Technology Basic Plan of Japan (Cabinet Office, 2016).
[Fig.9]
5. THEORETICAL AND MANAGERIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
5.1 Theoretical contribution
This study presents the knowledge structure, which contains the standardization in addition to the
conventional patent and academic paper structure, necessary for the analysis. The structure is in the threedimensional coordinates (Figure 1), and by comparing between the standard related and no-standard related
layers, we can single out the technology, which lacks academic research, and is therefore responsible for the
loss of science linkage. We had studied MPEG technology using this method, and found this methodology is
also applicable to other technological regions.
5.2 Managerial contribution
We have found that the technology region, which does not show enough researched results in the form of
academic publications, is extended by dividing the whole knowledge sphere into two areas. This is because of
the fact that it is generally difficult to achieve both academic activities and standardization at the same time
(Zi and Blind 2015). This is especially true in the case of individual researchers, as well as those educational
institutions where academic achievement is important. This study highlights the possibility that the research
publication and standardization activities are not autonomously optimized. To adjust these two elements, it is
necessary to implement a management system that treats the standardization activities on equal terms with the
academic achievement.
8
6. CONCLUSION
The aim of this research is to examine the influence of standardization on knowledge formation. Our main
observations and contributions include:
1) a new knowledge model is presented, consisting of a) patents, b) academic papers, and c) standardization;
2) it was found that under the influence of standardization, science linkage is altered in certain technological
areas.
As such, this study suggests a new analytical framework, one that analyzes the bibliographical structure of the
three knowledge worlds (i.e., patent knowledge, academic knowledge, and knowledge of standardization), all
of which are modeled in three-dimensional coordinates. This model is different from the conventional model,
which consists of a two-dimensional structure, comprising 1) patent knowledge and 2) academic knowledge
(Shibata et al., 2008). MPEG, in which standardization plays an important role in its marketization, was used
as the analysis subject. The technology is widely studied in terms of artificial intelligence technology
application such as machine learning. As a result, in the case of the watermark technology which is used for
copyright tracking, we found a disparity, and this was identified between the academic paper knowledge and
patented knowledge, which shows the influence of standardization. This reflects in the notion that
standardization surpasses the academic achievement in the form of journal papers in a technological region
relating “watermark”. This result conclusively recommends the managerial treatment not diminish the
researcher’s standardization activities in the fields of science and technology research.
REFERENCES
Albusac,J., Castro-Schez,J.J., Lopez-Lopez,L.M., Vallejo,D., and Jimenez-Linares,L. (2009). A supervised
learning approach to automate the acquisition of knowledge in surveillance systems. Journal Signal
Processing: 89(12), pp.2400-2414.
Amato, G., Savino, P., and Magionami, B. (2008). Use of weighted visual terms and machine learning
techniques for image content recognition relying on mpeg-7 visual descriptors. MS '08 Proceedings of the 2nd
ACM workshop on Multimedia semantics,pp.60-63.
Arthur, W. B., (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-In by historical events. Economic
Journal, 99: pp.116–131.
Blind,K., and Gauch,S. (2009). Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3):pp.320-342.
Borner, K., Chen, C., and Boyack, K. W. (2003) .Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology,37:pp. 179–255.
Cabinet Office. (2016). The Fifth Science and Technology Basic Plan. Tokyo.
David,P.A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economics Review,75:pp332-337.
Edler, J., Georghiou, L., Blind, K., and Uyarra, E. (2012). Evaluating the demand side: new challenges for
evaluation. Research Evaluation, 21:pp.33–47.
Egyedi, T.M., and Sherif, M.H. (2010). Standards dynamics through an innovation lens: next-generation
ethernet networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 48(10): pp.166-171.
9
Fernández,G., Cuenca,P., Orozco-Barbosa,L., and Kalva.H. (2006).Very low complexity MPEG-2 to H.264
transcoding using machine learning. MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on
Multimedia: pp.931-940.
Fernández,G., Kalva, H., Cuenca, P., and Orozco-Barbosa, L. (2007). A first approach to speeding-up the inter
mode selection in MPEG-2/H.264 transcoders using machine learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 35
(2): pp.225-240.
Garfield, E. (1955).Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of
ideas. Science, 122: pp. 108–111.
Iwami, S., Kogo, K., Tacoa, F., Mori, J., Kajikawa, Y., and Sakata,I. (2015).Cross-disciplinary methodology
for detection of collaborative and competitive candidates. In the Proc.the 24th International Conference for
Management of Technology (IAMOT 2015),South Africa.
Jakobs, K., Procter, R., and Williams, R. (2001). Standardisation, innovation and implementation of
information technology. Computers and Networks in the Age of Globalization, 57:pp.201-217.
Newman, M. (2004), Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(6).
Sherif, M.H. (2001). A framework for standardization in telecommunications and information technology.
IEEE Communications Magazine, 39(4): pp.94-100.
Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., and Sakata, I. (2010).Extracting and technologies -case study of a solar cell-.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7): pp. 1147-1155.
Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., Takeda, Y., and Matsushima, K. (2008). Detecting emerging research fronts based
on topological measures in citation networks of scientific publications. Technovation, 28: pp. 758–775.
Tashiro, A., Tashiro, H., Iwami, S., and Sakata, I. (2012). Bibliometric analysis of net zero energy building. in
Proc. PICMET ’12 Conf., Vancouver, Canada.
Tassey, G. (2003). Method for assessing the economic impacts of government R&D. National Institute of
Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg.
Yasuda, H.(1989).Standardization activities on multimedia coding in ISO. Signal Processing : Image
Communication,1:pp.3-16.
Zi, K., and Blind, K. (2015). Researchers’ participation in standardisation: a case study from a public research
institute in Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2): pp.346-360.
NOTE
(*)Copyright © 2010-2013 Innovation Policy Research Center, The University of Tokyo, and Copyright ©
2012-2013 Kajikawa laboratory, Graduate School of Innovation Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology
10
Tables and Figures:
Standardization
Layer2
Topic:“mpeg” and
“standardization”
Topic:“mpeg” and
“standardization”
Topic:“mpeg”
Topic:“mpeg”
Layer1
Patenting
Academic Paper
Figure 1. Three-dimensional knowledge structure model
Figure 2. Cluster of academic articles
([mpeg])
11
Figure 3. Cluster of academic articles
( [mpeg] and [standardization])
Figure 4. Cluster of patents
([mpeg])
12
Figure 5. Cluster of patents
([mpeg] and [standardization])
Science-linkage
Chance for
industrialization
Chance for basic
research
Reference: Shibata et al. (2010).
The authors added comments in the referenced original figure.
Figure 6. Relationships between science and technology. (a) Four types of relationship;
(b) gap between science and technology
13
14
0.1048
0.2963
0.2867
#4
#5
>0
>0.1
>0.2
0.2237
0.2404
0.2902
0.2747
0.3377
#2
0.1492
#3
0.436
#1
#2
0.0756
0.0348
0.0193
0.0486
0.0578
#3
0.1883
0.0771
0.2954
0.1722
0.1333
#4
0.3788
0.0351
0.0787
0.1827
0.0974
#5
0
0.0982
0
0
0
#6
0.0729
0.0394
0.0772
0.0895
0.0633
#7
0
0
0
0.0471
0
#8
0.0465
0.0154
0.134
0.0162
0
#9
0.0099
0
0.0626
0.0807
0
#10
0
0.027
0
0
0
#11
0.2285
0.0961
0.2532
0.2852
0.1805
#12
0.1807
0.1712
0.1858
0.2664
0.2078
#13
0
0.1307
0.0301
0
0
#14
0.1978
0.0785
0.3611
0.1874
0.1929
#15
0
0
0
0
0
#16
0.0195
0
0.0297
0
0
#17
0.0099
0.0143
0.2047
0.0328
0
#18
0.1501
0.0945
0.1454
0.2274
0.1564
#19
0.1593
0.1694
0.1636
0.2737
0.2685
#20
0.1102
0.0546
0.0803
0.1399
0.1173
#21
Figure 7. Heat map(Layer 1): cosine similarity between patent cluster and academic
paper cluster
Academic paper
cluster
#1
Patent
cluster
15
Academic paper
cluster
0.4131
#3
>0.2
>0.1
>0
0.21
0.0862
0.0484
0.0774
#2
0.0789
0.0439
0.1087
0.0206
0.0266
0.0624
#4
0.0731
0.1421
#3
0.0355
0.0997
0.0835
0.0964
#5
0.0316
0.1995
0.1112
0.1624
#6
0.1006
0.0546
0.0404
0.0486
#7
0.0151
0
0
0
#8
0.0627
0
0
0
#9
Figure 8. Heat map(Layer 2): cosine similarity between patent cluster
and academic paper cluster (with standardization)
0.032
0.1875
#2
#4
0.2964
#1
#1
Patent
cluster
Patent knowledge
Academic paper knowledge
MPEG
MPEG+Standardization
MPEG
MPEG + Standardization
Figure 9. Corresponding relation between patents and academic papers in Layer 2
16
Table 1. Keywords in academic paper cluster and patent cluster(Layer 1)
Academic paper
cluster
#1
coding, video, bit, algorithm, video coding
#2
video, object, image, motion, descriptor
#3
video, traffic, network, atm, error
#4
motion estimation, estimation, search, motion, video
#5
watermarking, video, watermark, quality, watermarking scheme
Patent cluster
#1
video, block, frame, encoding, image
#2
content, medium, video, program, user
#3
audio, medium, file, content, player
#4
packet, stream, video, transport, data
#5
content, watermark, digital, file, medium
#6
memory, memory device, memory cell, flash, flash memory
#7
information storage medium e.g, information storage medium, specific unit, information storage, dvd ram
#8
touch, user, touch screen, sensor, electronic
#9
packet, broadcast, digital, stream, data
#10
content, sponsor, communication facility, mobile communication facility, user
#11
card, electronic, case, electronic device, cover
#12
network, audio, image, video, remote
#13
stereoscopic, dimensional, video, image, picture
#14
power, charging, wireless power, power transmission, battery
#15
packet, video, stream, transmission, frame
#16
interferometric, light, interferometric modulator, microelectromechanical, modulator
#17
caption, caption service, transmitting digital broadcast, transmitting digital broadcast signal, closed caption service
#18
wireless, network, communication, node, access
#19
volume descriptor, recording, volume descriptor sequence, descriptor sequence, descriptor
#20
encoding, image, picture, frame, shot
#21
image, light, organic light emitting display, emitting display, light emitting display
17
Table 2. Keywords in academic paper cluster and patent cluster (Layer2)
Academic paper
cluster
#1
#2
#3
#4
Patent cluster
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
mode, video, h.264/avc, transcoding, rate
audio, mdct, audio coding, transform, dct
object, segmentation, motion, motion estimation, block
descriptor, retrieval, content, multimedia, shape
video, block, picture, motion, frame
content, program, network, video, advertisement
video, packet, recording, stream, time
encrypted, content, key, packet, encryption
dimensional, video, image, picture, stereoscopic
artifact, block, filtering, pixel, video
watermark, content, document, blanking interval, blanking
enhanced data, trellis, vestigial, traffic information data, traffic information
connector, interface, medium, file, card
18