The definition of ‘transformative innovation’ is still ambiguous, making it difficult to develop more targeted strategies for steering scientific and technological innovation. In this study, taking extant academic publications as our research object, we used topic extraction and visualisation tools to explore the intersections and differences among transformative and other innovative concepts. The correlation degrees among the concepts related to ‘transformative innovation’ were used to distinguish the relationships among concepts related to ‘breakthrough innovation’ and ‘disruptive innovation’. We further analysed the definitional differences among ‘transformative innovation’, ‘emerging technology’ and ‘groundbreaking research’. The results showed that the concepts of ‘breakthrough innovation’ and ‘disruptive innovation’ can be integrated into the scope of ‘transformative innovation’. However, the definitions of ‘transformative innovation’, ‘emerging technology’ and ‘research frontier’ had their distinct characteristics. ‘Transformative innovation’ focused on major impactful technological changes. ‘Emerging technology’ focused on novel technology and its promoting. ‘Research frontier’ focused on research activities taking place at the frontiers of knowledge. Therefore, distinctive science and technology (S&T) policies are needed for the different types of innovation. This article introduces a novel multidimensional method to place the different concepts associated with ‘transformative innovation’ into a unified framework. This framework is expected to support policymakers in their S&T policymaking, and it would aid the work of S&T researchers.
XuHWinninkJYueZ, et al. Topic-linked innovation paths in science and technology. J Inform2020; 14: 101014.
3.
IsensonRS.Project hindsight. Technical report AD495905. Washington, DC: Office of the Director of Defense Research Engineering, 1969.
4.
JewkesJSawersDStillermanR.The sources of invention. London: Macmillan, 1958.
5.
IIT Research Institute. Technology in retrospect and critical events in science. Technical report 1. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, 1968.
6.
IIT Research Institute. Technology in retrospect and critical events in science. Technical report 2. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, 1969.
7.
GlobeSLevyGSchwartzC.Science, technology and innovation. Report NSF-C-667. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute, 1973.
WalshJ.Technological innovation: new study sponsored by NSF takes socioeconomic, managerial factors into account. Science1973; 180: 846–847.
10.
GruppH (ed.). Dynamics of science-based innovation. Berlin: Springer, 1992.
11.
SchmochU.Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics1993; 26: 193–211.
12.
National Science Board (US). Enhancing support of transformative research at the National Science Foundation. Report, National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA, 2007.
13.
DuJSunYZhangY, et al. Characterizing and detecting the early scientometric signs of the potential transformative research. Bull Natl Nat Sci Found China2019; 33: 88–98.
DosiG.Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy1982; 11: 147–162.
21.
ArthurWB.The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2009.
22.
WinninkJ.Early-stage detection of breakthrough-class scientific research: using micro-level citation dynamics. PhD Thesis, Leiden University, Leiden, 2017.
23.
DuJLiPHaunschildR, et al. Patent citation linkages as early signs for predicting delayed recognized knowledge: macro and micro evidence. J Inform2020; 14: 101017.
24.
ZhangJ.Identification of breakthrough innovations by using mutations in cited scientific knowledge. Beijing, China: Science Press, 2017.
25.
SchumpeterJA.History of economic analysis. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1954.
26.
TushmanMLAndersonP.Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Quart1986; 31: 439–465.
27.
FuYZhangH.Breakthrough innovation: definition and comparison of concepts. J Quant Tech Econ2004; 9: 73–83.
28.
ChristensenCM.The innovator’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 1997.
29.
MarchJG.Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Org Sci1991; 2: 71–87.
30.
AbernathyWJUtterbackJM.Patterns of industrial innovation. Techn Rev1978; 80: 40–47.
31.
DessGGBeardDW.Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm Sci Quart1984; 29: 52–73.
32.
ChandyRKTellisGJ.Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. J Mark Res1998; 35: 474–487.
33.
KotelnikovV.Radical innovation versus incremental innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
34.
LeiferRMcDermottCMO’connorGC, et al. Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Brighton: Harvard Business Press, 2000.
35.
ChenJDaiLLiL.The radical innovation and its identification. Sci Techn Manag Res2002; 22: 22–28.
36.
DahlinKBBehrensDM.When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Res Policy2005; 34: 717–737.
37.
ZhouKZYimCKTseDK.The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. J Market2005; 69: 42–60.
38.
SongMDi BenedettoCA.Supplier’s involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. J Oper Manag2008; 26: 1–22.
39.
ZhangJZhangX.Overview of breakthrough innovation indicators and identification methods based on scientific and technological resources. Libr Inform Serv2012; 56: 85–90.
40.
SunXChenJ.Review of the relationship between the intensity of innovation networks and the relationship between innovation models. Techn Innov Manag2016; 37: 134–140.
41.
FernandezF.FEATURES-How PLM helps–it gives engineers access to more information. Design News2002; 57: 60–62.
42.
WangY. Study of organizational model based on radical innovation. Master Thesis, Xidian University, Xi’an, China, 2007.
43.
AdnerR.When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strat Manag J2002; 23: 667–688.
44.
KotnourTFarrJV.Engineering management: past, present, and future. Eng Manag J2005; 17: 15–26.
45.
TellisGJ.Disruptive technology or visionary leadership?J Prod Innov Manag2006; 23: 34–38.
46.
DanYChiehHC. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. In: PICMET’08-2008 Portland international conference on management of engineering & technology, Portland, OR, 27–31 July 2008, pp. 402–414. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
47.
NagyDSchuesslerJDubinskyA.Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Ind Market Manag2016; 57: 119–126.
48.
BaiGZhengYWuX, et al. Research and demonstration of disruptive technology foresight methods based on literature knowledge correlation. J Intell2017; 36: 42–48.
49.
WangCXuHFangS.Research progress on disruptive technology identification and forecasting methods. Sci Techn Prog Policy2018; 35: 152–160.
50.
ZhengYJinJWuX, et al. Research on subversive technology of cellulose biodegradation based on multiple data sources. China Biotechn2018; 38: 92–103.
51.
WangJChenJ.Disruptive innovation, productive service industry and competitive advantage of latecomers. Stud Sci Sci2010; 28: 444–448.
52.
ZhangSChenJ.The research of evolution and mechanism and path selection of disruptive innovation. J Bus Econ2013; 259: 39–48.
53.
WanN.Analysis of the relationship between disruptive innovation, disruptive innovation and breakthrough innovation. Business2015; 122–123.
54.
JiangJLiXYinT, et al. Formation of breakthrough technology innovation: review and outlook. R&D Management2017; 29: 109–120.
55.
LiMPorterALSuominenA.Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: a bibliometric perspective. Techn Forecast Soc Chan2018; 129: 285–296.
56.
SunQDengXXuF.Definition and model construction of disruptive innovation. Sci Techn Manag Res2006; 8: 175–178.
57.
ReissTVignola-GagnéEKukkP, et al. ERACEP–emerging research areas and their coverage by ERC-supported projects. Technical report, European Research Council, Brussels, 2013.
58.
AdlerJBallDKrainerK, et al. Reflections on an emerging field: researching mathematics teacher education. Educ Stud Math2005; 60: 359–381.
59.
DayGSchoemakerPGuntherR.Wharton on managing emerging technology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
60.
GuoH.Exploration identifying emerging research areas based on the view of multiple science indicators. PhD Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 2013.
61.
RotoloDHicksDMartinBR.What is an emerging technology?Res Policy2015; 44: 1827–1843.
62.
Villaseñor TeránM. Philosophical explorations for a concept of emerging technologies. Techné2018; 22: 28–50.
63.
European Communities. Frontier research: the European challenge: high-level expert group report. Report, European Communities, Brussels, 2005.
64.
CecchiniP.The European challenge. Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1988.
65.
HolsteDRocheIHörlesbergerM, et al. A concept for inferring ’Frontier Research’ in research project proposals. In: 13th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, vol. 1, Durban, South Africa, 4–7 July 2011, pp.327–332. Leuven: ISSI.
66.
PriceD.Networks of scientific papers. Science1965; 149: 510–515.
67.
ZhongZ.The difference between Research Front and Research Frontier in terms of the citation structure of highly cited and zero-cited papers. Libr Inform Serv2015; 59: 87–96.
68.
SmallHGriffithBC.The structure of scientific literatures I: identifying and graphing specialties. Sci Stud1974; 4: 17–40.
69.
PerssonO.The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. J Am Soc Inform Sci1994; 45: 31–38.
70.
MorrisSAYenGWuZ, et al. Time line visualization of research fronts. J Am Soc Inform Sci Techn2003; 54: 413–422.
71.
UphamSSmallH.Emerging research fronts in science and technology: patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics2010; 83: 15–38.
72.
ZhengYXuXLiuZ.Research on frontier recognition method based on keyword co-occurrence. Libr Inform Serv2016; 60: 85–92.
73.
ChenCChenYHouJ.CiteSpace : ‘Identification and Visualization of New Trends and Dynamics in Scientific Document’. J China Soc Sci Techn Inform2009; 28: 401–421.
74.
BochkaryovPGusevaAI. Identification of the stage of the life cycle of the scientific direction with the help of the research front. In: 2019 IEEE conference of Russian young researchers in electrical and electronic engineering (EIConRus), St. Petersburg, Russia, 28–31 January 2019, pp. 1884–1887. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
75.
XuHWinninkJYueZ, et al. Multidimensional scientometric indicators for the detection of emerging research topics. Techn Forecast Soc Chan2021; 163: 120490.
BastianMHeymannSJacomyM. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, San Jose, CA, 17–20 May 2009. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
78.
GouJLiJRuanP. Strategic research of the crossing of the---Death Valley in Newly-Emerging Industry. In: ASSHM 2013, Guangzhou, China, 14–15December2013, pp. 718–724. Paris: Atlantis Press.
