EVALUATING TECHNOLOGICAL EMERGENCE FOR STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY (ETEST) MANAGEMENT: A HYBRID MODEL OF SCIENTOMETRICS AND MCDM APPROACHES

Öz

Increasing intensity and rapid shifts on technology domain force policymakers and managers to think more on adaptive strategies by understanding the nature of emergence. However, even there were many conceptual models without consensus, understanding the nature of emergence may not lead to decision for managers or policymakers. There were some proposals aiming to design practical solutions but different fields, experts, or subjects may alter these proposed solutions and sometimes make them biased. In this study, it is aimed to propose a conceptual model by using combination of scientometrics and fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making for evaluating emerging topics holistically. By using fuzzy approach, it is thought that expert decisions can be enhanced and with applying decision making process a compromise solution can be reached.  Consequently, conceptual model is proposed and step-by-step methodology discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• emergence,emerging topics,MCDM,scientometrics,fuzzy

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, J., Chase, J., Newman, N., Porter, A., & Roessner, J. D. (2012). Emergence as a conceptual framework for understanding scientific and technological progress. Picmet '12: Proceedings - Technology Management for Emerging Technologies, 1286-1292.
2. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(4-5), 993-1022. doi:DOI 10.1162/jmlr.2003.3.4-5.993
3. Chen, C. (2006). Information visualization: Beyond the horizon: Springer Science & Business Media.
4. Chen, C. M. (2006). Citespace ii: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377. doi:10.1002/asi.20317
5. Dernis, H., Squicciarini, M., & de Pinho, R. (2016). Detecting the emergence of technologies and the evolution and co-development trajectories in science (detects): A 'burst' analysis-based approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 930-960. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9449-0
6. Ding, W. Y., & Chen, C. M. (2014). Dynamic topic detection and tracking: A comparison of hdp, c-word, and cocitation methods. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(10), 2084-2097. doi:10.1002/asi.23134
7. Fuchs, S. (1993). A sociological-theory of scientific change. Social Forces, 71(4), 933-953. doi:Doi 10.2307/2580125
8. Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas (reprinted from science, vol 122, pg 108-11, 1955). International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(5), 1123-1127. doi:10.1093/ije/dyl189

9. Garner, J., Carley, S., Porter, A. L., & Newman, N. C. (2017). Technological emergence indicators using emergence scoring. Paper presented at the Proceedings of PICMET'17: Technology Management for Interconnected World.
10. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49-72.
11. Guimera, R., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks. Nature, 433(7028), 895-900. doi:10.1038/nature03288
12. Hofmann, T. (1999). Probabilistic latent semantic analysis. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings, 289-296.
13. Iwami, S., Mori, J., Sakata, I., & Kajikawa, Y. (2014). Detection method of emerging leading papers using time transition. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1515-1533. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1380-x
14. Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2017). Customer co-creation and exploration of emerging technologies: The mediating role of managerial attention and initiatives. Long Range Planning, 50(2), 221-242. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2015.12.019
15. Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7(4), 373-397. doi:Doi 10.1023/A:1024940629314
16. Kontostathis, A., Galitsky, L. M., Pottenger, W. M., Roy, S., & Phelps, D. J. (2004). A survey of emerging trend detection in textual data mining. Survey of Text Mining, 185-224.
17. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18. Li, M., Porter, A. L., & Suominen, A. (2017). Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.032
19. Nagy, D., Schuessler, J., & Dubinsky, A. (2016). Defining and identifying disruptive innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 119-126. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.017
20. Newman, D. J., & Block, S. (2006). Probabilistic topic decomposition of an eighteenth-century american newspaper. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(6), 753-767. doi:10.1002/asi.20342
21. Pottenger, W. M., & Yang, T. H. (2001). Detecting emerging concepts in textual data mining. Computational Information Retrieval, 89-105.
22. Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827-1843. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006
23. Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., Takeda, Y., Sakata, I., & Matsushima, K. (2011). Detecting emerging research fronts in regenerative medicine by the citation network analysis of scientific publications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 274-282. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.07.006
24. Shneider, A. M. (2009). Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 34(5), 217-223. doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2009.02.002
25. Small, H., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Identifying emerging topics in science and technology. Research Policy, 43(8), 1450-1467. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.005
26. Tu, Y. N., & Seng, J. L. (2012). Indices of novelty for emerging topic detection. Information Processing & Management, 48(2), 303-325. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.07.006