第六章 研究結論與建議
第三節 後續研究建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
第二節 管理意涵
本研究為針對發明人和作者的關係，以及其在技術發展過程中專利申請和論 文發表活動之關聯性進行的研究。總此，本研究的發現對於企業實務上可能有以 下的幾點管理意涵：
（一）企業可以視技術的發展階段調整研發人力資源的策略。
當技術發展還在萌芽期時，大多數的專利發明都是由專利品質高但數量不 多的天才發明人所生產，因此當技術發展還在萌芽期時，辨識天才發明人可能是 此時期重要的研發人力資源策略。而當技術進入成長期時，關鍵發明人將在此時 陸續投入專利研發，辨識出關鍵發明人可能是此時期研發人力資源管理的重點。
（二）企業應該重視同時有發表論文的關鍵發明人，並善用他們與學術社群的關 係。
由於關鍵發明人中同時有發表論文的發明作者，有很高的機會是頂尖作者，
使得他們可能在學術社群擁有一定的聲望。因此，企業可以善用這些發明人與學 術社群的關係，以利用學術社群的知識或資源輔助企業的研發活動。
（三）對於專利的發明人而言，參與學術研究活動必頇謹慎評估。
本研究雖然發現大部份發明作者的學術活動早於專利發明，顯示發明作者 的專利發明可能得利於參與學術活動。然而，發明作者的專利數量和品質都較一 般發明人而言變異更大。因此，同時投入研究和發明的活動可能導致研發的風險 升高，因此需要審慎評估可能的後果。
第三節 後續研究建議
根據研究的結果，本研究對後續研究提出以下幾點建議：
（一）探討發明人的專利活動與技術發展週期關聯性的原因。
本研究雖然探討了發明人的專利活動與不同技術發展階段的關聯性，但是礙 於研究方法的限制，並無法進一步對造成這種關聯性的原因進行探討。例如，究 竟是關鍵發明人「選擇」了在技術的成長期投入研發，並「創造」了自己的優勢，
或者是有其他因素影響了關鍵發明人投入發明的時間點。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
（二）探討關鍵發明人針對特定主題先申請專利、再發表論文的原因。
本研究雖然發現了關鍵發明人對主題相似的專利和論文有延後發表論文的 現象，卻無法進一步探討延後的原因。例如，究竟關鍵發明人是「故意」將論文 的發表延後，或是有其他因素影響了關鍵發明人延後發表論文的決定。
（三）分析發明作者在研究和發明上的生涯歷程，探索影響發明作者同時進行研 究和發明因素。
本研究雖然探討了部份發明作者的現象，更重要的可能是發明作者如何從學 術研究領域開始技術發明的活動，或是發明人如何與學術研究社群互動的議題。
因此，建議後續研究可以進一步深入探討相關的議題。
‧
Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation.
Technology Review, 80(7), 40-47.
Agarwal, R., & Audretsch, D. B. (2001). Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. Journal of Industrial Economics, 21-43
Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16(9), 451-468.
Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1988). Using patent information in technology business planning-I. Research Technology Management, 31(6), 42-46.
Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16(2-4), 131-141.
Beed, C., & Beed, C. (1996). Measuring the quality of academic journals: the case of economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 369-396.
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2008). Measuring science-technology interaction
‧
using rare inventor-author names. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 173-182.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2007). The scientific productivity of academic inventors: new evidence from Italian data. Economics of
Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 101-118.
Callon, M. (1980). The state and technical innovation: a case study of the electrical vehicle in France. Research Policy, 9(4), 358-376.
Campbell, R. S. (1983). Patent trends as a technological forecasting tool. World
Patent Information, 5(3), 137-143.
Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 73(8), 981-1012.
Ernst, H. (1997). The use of patent data for technological forecasting: the diffusion of CNC-technology in the machine tool industry. Small Business Economics,
9(4), 361-381.
Ernst, H., Leptien, C., & Vitt, J. (2000). Inventors are not alike: The distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 47(2), 184-199.
Ford, D., & Ryan, C. (1981). Taking technology to market. Harvard Business
Review;(United States), 59(2).
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation index for science. Science, 122(3159), 108-111.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(60), 471-479.
Garfield, E. (1973). Citation frequency as a measure of research activity and performance. Essays of an Information Scientist, 1, 406-408.
Gauthier. (1998). Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific and Technological Research: A
User's Guide to the Methodology. Science and Technology Redesign
Project, Statistics Canada.Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.
Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of
Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661-1707.
Guan, J., & Wang, G. (2010). A comparative study of research performance in
nanotechnology for China’s inventor--authors and their non-inventing peers.
Scientometrics, 84(2), 331-343.
Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. (1986). Patents and R&D: Is there a lag?
Huang, M. H., Chang, H., & Chen, D. Z. (2006). Research evaluation of
research-oriented universities in Taiwan from 1993 to 2003. Scientometrics,
‧
Järvenpää, H. M., Mäkinen, S. J., & Seppänen, M. (2011). Patent and publishing activity sequence over a technology's life cycle. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change.
Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle.
The American Economic Review, 562-583.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 81-94.
Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of
the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(1926), 317-323.
Martino, J. P. (1982). Technological indicators of market shift. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 21(1), 77-83.
Martino, J. P. (2003). A review of selected recent advances in technological
forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(8), 719-733.
Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17-27.
Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646-1662.
Morris, S., DeYong, C., Wu, Z., Salman, S., & Yemenu, D. (2002). DIVA: a visualization system for exploring document databases for technology forecasting. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 43(4), 841-962.
Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643-659.
Narin, F., & Breitzman, A. (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24(4), 507-519.
Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics/theory, practice and problems. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 65.
Norton, M. (2000). Introductory Concepts in Information Science: Information Today, Inc.
Noyons, E., Van Raan, A., Grupp, H., & Schmoch, U. (1994). Exploring the science and technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research. Research Policy, 23(4), 443-457.
Pei, R., & Porter, A. L. (2011). Profiling leading scientists in nanobiomedical science:
interdisciplinarity and potential leading indicators of research directions.
R&D Management, 41(3), 288-306.
Pilkington, A., Lee, L. L., Chan, C. K., & Ramakrishna, S. (2009). Defining key
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
inventors: A comparison of fuel cell and nanotechnology industries.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 118-127.
Plomp, R. (1990). The significance of the number of highly cited papers as an indicator of scientific prolificacy. Scientometrics, 19(3), 185-197.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of
Documentation, 25, 348.
Roussel, P. A., Saad, K. N., & Erickson, T. J. (1991). Third Generation R&D:
Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy, Harvard Business School Press.
Watts, R. J., & Porter, A. L. (1997). Innovation forecasting. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 56(1), 25-47.
Wu, F. S., Hsu, C. C., Lee, P. C., & Su, H. N. (2011). A systematic approach for integrated trend analysis - The case of etching. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 78(3), 386-407.
Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation:
Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12709.