Disruptive innovation: Why vagueness in patents promotes progress!

Disruptive innovation: Why vagueness in patents promotes progress!

A new study by Gianluca Carnabuci from ESMT Berlin and Balázs Kovács from the Yale School of Management brings a breath of fresh air to the discussion about innovation and patents. According to the researchers, patents in low-contrast categories significantly promote the emergence of disruptive technologies. These findings are based on an extensive analysis of 3.1 million U.S. patents issued between 1975 and 2013. The publication is entitled “Catalyzing Categories: Category Contrast and the Creation of Groundbreaking Inventions” and was published in the Academy of Management. ESMT Berlin reports that...

The study identifies two key mechanisms that illustrate the connection between blurred categories and innovation. On the one hand, the fuzziness in the categories allows for a broader development of ideas, making knowledge from distant and different areas accessible. This leads to atypical and original combinations. On the other hand, unclear categories allow inventors to define their patents more comprehensively. This opens up new technological perspectives.

Economic impact of innovation

A notable finding of the study is the financial advantage of patents in low-contrast categories. On average, these patents are worth nearly $3 million more than comparable patents in clearly defined categories. They also have a longer duration of influence. This is particularly relevant for managers and executives who need to recognize that rigid product categorizations are often misleading. They encourage incremental improvements rather than radical innovation.

The research has far-reaching implications for business practice. Managers should create conditions that allow a certain degree of uncertainty in the knowledge organization. This can lead to groundbreaking ideas being developed more quickly.

Context of disruptive technologies

Disruptive technologies are technologies that replace existing products or services and make investments by established market participants obsolete. Clayton M. Christensen, who taught at Harvard Business School, coined this concept. Disruptive innovations can often be found in areas that initially seem uninteresting to established providers. Well-known examples include technologies such as flash memory or VoIP, which were initially perceived as inferior, but then revolutionized the market and displaced existing technologies. Wikipedia explains that...

An interesting perspective on this dynamic can be found in current research, which shows that overall there is less disruption observed in science and technology markets. This observation is attributed to limited capacities and the need for diverse collaborations. Studies have also discussed that many companies labeled as “disrupters” are actually established companies with sufficient resources. This challenges the classic assumptions about startup behavior and shows the complex reality of the innovation process. Nature shows that...

Overall, Carnabuci and Kovács' research makes a valuable contribution to understanding the mechanisms behind groundbreaking inventions. Their findings could help leaders make strategic decisions that pave the way for future innovation.