Research on the impact of technology taxonomy for the
tracking of technology convergence
Heongu Lee*
Office of Strategic R&D Planning, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
Korea Technology Center 8th Floor, 305 Teherano, Kangnam-Gu, Seoul 06152 Korea
* janelee@osp.go.kr, janelee_2000@kaist.ac.kr
Abstract – Even though technology convergence has been
ever expanding, the trends may not be easily caught up via
the existing technological classifications. When they are
globally influential such as IPC-Technology Concordance
Table of WIPO, The impact may be more significant since
emerging technological trends can be easily disregarded
because the existing taxonomy fails to provide adequate
explanation about technological changes and evolution. It
might be a high time to re-conceptualize, and to develop a
new technology taxonomy from the systemic perspective
on technology.
Keywords – technology convergence, technology
taxonomy, IPC-Technology Concordance Table of WIPO
1. Introduction
Since Nicholas Negroponte introduced the concept of
technology convergence in 1978, he narrowly defined
convergence ‘coming together of the technologies of
computing, printing, and broadcasting’, the expansion of the
concept of convergence have been tremendous academically
and practically. Convergence is way beyond the area of ICT,
but into every industry and academic fields .
Most of technologically advanced countries defined the
concept of convergence, and established national initiatives
for technological convergence. The US version of technology
convergence is the synergistic combination of nano-bio-info-
cogno science and technology while the EU version is
enabling technologies and knowledge systems that enable
each other in the pursuit of a common goal. The US might
stress a long-term basic research agenda in which
nanotechnology plays a critical enabler for revolutions in bio,
info, and cogno
(congo) areas while the EU might broadly allow
convergences amongst different disciplines thus it is more
concerned with the innovation coming into a market success
(Fuller 2009).
The European understanding about (of) convergence is
more problem-solving oriented (Giorgi and Luce 2007), and
includes social sciences and humanities (Nordmann 2004;
Arnaldi 2008). However, it seems that these two major
definitions have been getting closer; away from focusing basic
research (Roco and Bainbridge 2002; William Sims
Bainbridge 2006) move to encompassing (encompass) societal
convergence (Roco et al. 2013).
Likewise, the government of South Korea, in 2008,
established a five-year national plan for the development of
converging technologies, which involved a variety of
ministries. The coverage of R&D programs under this
initiative was huge that it spanned from basic science research
to applied developments such as mediated drug de-livery
(delivery),
molecular diagnostic system, and care robots. The Korean
definition of technology convergence is more technology-
centric, and stress the importance of developing
converging technologies. Technology convergence is
referred to as technologies that lead economic, societal, and
cultural changes by incorporating creative values that come
from synergic combination among various technologies.
In 2012, I researched trends of technological convergence
mostly in the area of ICT (H. Lee and Choi 2012) based on the
patents issued by the KIPO, the Korean Intellectual Property
Office, from 2007 to 2011. In the period, we found that 47%
of about 200,000 patents was in the territory of convergence
far or near. It was presumably assumed that the national
initiative for technology convergence might have impact on
the trends of technology development.
At that time, we categorized patents based on IPC-
Technology Concordance Table (Schmoch 2008). Establishing
a methodology to define and classify technology convergence
is a prerequisite to a series of researches on technology
convergence, hence we operationally classified and defined
technology convergence -monotonous, homogeneous, and
heterogeneous – according to the classification and match
criteria between IPCs and technology sectors of the IPC-
Technology Concordance Table of WIPO.
Our researches (H. Lee and zo 2013, 2016; lee, Kim, and Zo
2017) have heavily relied on this operationally-defined
classification. Monotonous convergence implies that a patent
has several IPCs but they in the same technological field,
when a patent having plural IPCs in two more different
technological field but still in the same technological area.
Homogeneous convergence means that IPCs of a patent span
in several technological fields but in a technological area.
Heterogeneous convergence means that IPCs of a patent span
in several technology areas. The three types of technology
convergence represent degree, further or near, of convergence.
Heterogeneous convergence is cross-sectional convergence
which implies that further distant technologies come together
in a patent.
Scientific research publications (Haupt, Kloyer, and Lange
2007; Tijssen 1992; Hamilton 2001) and patent documents
(Curran and Leker 2011; Johannes M. Pennings 2001; Curran,
Bröring, and Leker 2010; Xing, Ye, and Kui 2011; Hamilton
2001) are two major origins of technology innovation, and
highly structured; thus, keywords (Corrocher, Malerba, and
Montobbio 2007; S. Lee, Yoon, and Park 2009), citations
(Johannes M. Pennings 2001; Leker 2010; Pinto et al. 2005),
and classification schemes (Choi, Kim, and Park 2007; Kim
2013; Joo and Kim 2009) are frequently adopted, in addition
renewal fees, families, claims, and the number of patent
applications (Hacklin, Marxt, and Fahrni 2009) are also
referenced for studying convergence
 Though the analysis of technologies is a first step in 01#, E01H, E03#, E04#, E05#, E06#, E21#, E99Z)
understanding economic activities on which technologies and
convergence between technologies have more influenced, it is In the research of year 2012, convergence between major
rarely found a comprehensive technological taxonomy that technology areas and other fields were marginal comparing
reflect technological innovation and convergence trends. to convergence among major technology areas.
From this perspective, it is necessary to allocate ‘other After six years, we decided to see what has happened to the
technological areas’ of IPC-Technology Concordance Table tendency of technological convergence between the years,
into specifically relevant technological areas and fields. By thus calculated co-relation matrix via similar dataset of patent
comparing technology co-relation matrix of year 2012 and application. The dataset is 9,101, smaller than that of 2012,
year 2018, we’d like to suggest why it is required to decrease and heterogeneous convergence is 1,154 among them. The
or remove the category of other technological fields. dataset also includes information that from what kind of
projects or R&D planning each patent is originated since the
2. Methodology of Classification of IPCs Korean government funded a certain amount of money for the
projects and the R&D activities. In addition the dataset is
The global number of patent application has ever increased slightly differently from the prior one of 2012 in that it
in 2000s , finally reached to about two millions in 2012. The includes a variety of patent applications from robotics and 3D
patent applications in the area of electrical engineering and printing projects. The results of co-relations ) matrix of 2018
chemistry were the highest globally whereas patent activities are suggested in Table 2.
of Korea were most active in the area of electrical engineering
and mechanical engineering. For Korea, the area of electrical Table 2 Technology Co-Relation Matrix of Year 2018
engineering covering electrics, electronics, information and
communication takes the biggest part of industry as well as of Technology Chem Electrical Instru Mechanical Other
R&D expenditure. Global companies such as Samsung Area istry engineering ments engineering fields
Electronics, LG Electronics, SK Hynix, LG Innotek, and Chemistry 1.00 2.02 0.67 0.82 1.08
many other R&D-intensive firms competitively apply for Electrical
2.02 1.00 1.59 1.00 0.74
patents every year. engineering
While this tendency was according to the typical Instruments 0.67 1.59 1.00 1.75 0.92
classification of technologies, a perspective of technological Mechanical
engineering 0.82 1.00 1.75 1.00 1.89
convergence might suggest a different view. We adopted co-
relation matrix, which expresses relative linkages between Other fields 1.08 0.74 0.92 1.89 1.00
technologies, in order to measure the degree of convergence in
the research in 2012 (H. Lee and Choi 2012); technologies Comparing Table 1 and Table 2, while the linkages among
between chemistry and electrical engineering, and between major technological areas appear to be similar, the linkages
instruments and electrical engineering have converged more between major areas and other fields are conspicuously
than those between chemistry and instruments, or between different. Especially, the number of the first IPC of a patent
mechanical and instruments. The results are as follows in which is classified to other fields is dramatically increased.
Table 1. Among other fields, frequently mentioned IPCs are
suggested at subclass level as follows in Table 3.
Table 1 Technology Co-Relation Matrix of Year 2012
Table 3 Subclasses of Other Fields
Technology Chemi Electrical Instrum Mechanical Other
Area stry engineering ents engineering fields
Chemistry 1 2.20 0.90 0.80 0.07
Electrical 24%
2.20 1 1.16 0.79 0.008
engineering
18%
Instruments 0.91 1.16 1 0.80 0.08
Mechanical
engineering 0.80 0.79 0.80 1 0.01

Other fields 0.07 0.008 0.08 0.01 1.00

3% 3%
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Under the concept of the IPC Technology Concordance A41D A41G A42B A45B A45D A47B A47C A47J A47K A47L A63B A63F
Table, technologies are mainly classified into chemistry,
electrical engineering, instruments, and mechanical
engineering. When topicality of some fields is not enough or At class level, A47# including A47B, A47C, A47J, A47K
the number of applications is too small for meaningful and A47L (washing & cleaning) takes up the biggest portion,
interpretation, they are classified into “other fields”. and most of the relevant patents come from robotics projects.
The class covers technologies regarding domestic articles and
IPCs of other fields of the Concordance Table are as follows; appliances such as washing, cleaning, furniture (chairs, sofas,
beds), kitchen equipment, beverage apparatus, sanitary
① Furniture, domestic articles or appliances, (A47#)
② Sports and games (A63#)
③ Consumer goods (A24#, A41B, A41C, A41D, A41F, A41G, A42#,
A43B, A43C, A44#, A45#, A46B, A62B,
B42#, B43#, D04D, D07#, G10B, G10C, G10D, G10F,
G10G, G10H, G10K, B44#, B68#, D06F, D06N, F25D,
A99Z)
④ Civil engineering (E02#, E01B, E01C, E01D,
E01F- 001, E01F-003, E01F-005, E01F-007, E01F-009,
E01F-
1453
equipment (toilet accessories), and etc In addition , D06F with
regard to laundering, drying, ironing, pressing or folding
textiles articles, F25D for refrigerators, cold rooms, cooling or
freezing apparatus are sharply increased.
The next class is A63# including A63B, A63F, A63H and
A63J. The class is relevant to sports and entertainments such
as physical training apparatus, indoor games, toys, and
devices for theaters.
The third group of consumer goods are including outerwear,
protective garments, accessories (A41D), artificial flowers,
wigs, masks, feathers (A41G), hats, head coverings (A42B),
walking sticks, umbrella (A45B), hairdressing or shaving
equipment, cosmetic treatment (A45D), and etc .
The last group with respect to civil engineering is the
smallest but subclasses vary the most as follows;
① E04F; about finishing work on building, stairs,
floors
② E04G; scaffolding, forms, shuttering, repairing
③ E04H; other buildings relevant such as pools,
④ E02B; hydraulic engineering
⑤ E02F; dredging, soil-shifting
⑥ E01D; bridges
⑦ E01F; additional work, equipping roads,
⑧ E03B; installations or methods for obtaining water
⑨ E03F; sewers, cesspools
⑩ E05D; hinges or other suspension devices for doors
⑪ E21D; shafts, tunnels, galleries, large underground
chambers
This might suggest that a variety of home appliances which
are traditionally manual is turning into automatic with the
growth of convergence between domestic articles and
technologies regarding instruments, mechanical engineering,
or electrical engineering. In addition, sports and games are
rapidly converged with emerging and innovative technologies
such as robotics, augmented and virtual reality, wearables
and many others.
Facing ever-expanding technology convergence, we might
need a more detailed classification of technologies other than
five kinds such as chemistry, electrical engineering,
instrument, mechanical engineering, and other fields. Above
all, comprehensively defined ‘other fields’ might bring
confusion and blurring in recognizing convergence that we
fail to catch up with happening in technological convergence
around the world.
3. The impact of technology taxonomy
The 2003 OECD taxonomy of ICT have four main categories
such as Telecommunications (e.g. H01P, H03M, or H04J),
Consumer electronics (e.g. H04N, H04S, H03F), Computers
and office machinery (e.g. B41J, G06), and Other ICTs (e.g.
G02B6, G01B, G01C, G08G, G09B).
A problem of this taxonomy is that it is closely related to
ICT products, thus may not reflect ever-complex, converged,
and rapidly-obsolete and developed technological trends of
ICT sector. For an instance , G01 (measuring) needs to be
included since measuring techniques are rapidly digitized.
1454
Recently, OECD-led IP Task Force with help of JPO, Japan
Patent Office, has released a new taxonomy of ICT based on
IPCs in 2017 (Takashi and Mariagrazia, n.d.). The new
taxonomy addresses classes previously overlooked or that did
not exist in the prior versions such as nano-technology for
information processing, storage or transmission, as quantum
computing or single electron logic (B82Y10). It is technology-
based classification thus many-to-many correspondences are
possible. Thus it can represent products involved with a
variety of ICTs and non-ICTs.
In the area of ICT, products are usually involved with bunch
of technologies; typical example of technology convergence.
The newly defined taxonomy encompasses all the ICT
technologies used in the ICT products, as well as tries to
exclude non-core and marginal technologies. The impact of
the new taxonomy lies in statistical results that may be
undetected with the previous taxonomy.
Under the new taxonomy, significant contribution of China
and India to mobile communication technology is confirmed.
In addition, in the areas of emerging technologies such as
HMI, human-machine interface, and IoT, significant
contribution of Asian countries such as the China, Korea,
India and Singapore have been acknowledged while the
decreased leadership of European countries such as Finland,
Sweden, Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands in the areas
have shown.
The newly-included and excluded IPCs are as follows in
Table 4.
Table 4 Newly Included or Excluded IPCs
B07C,B41J,B41K,
G01(except G01S,G01V3,8,15) G03G, G05F,
Excluded IPCs of 2003 G06C,G06D,G06G1-5,99,G06K21,G06M,
Taxonomy G07(except G07F7/08-12,G07G1/12,14),
G09B1-3,G09B11-29,G09D, G09F,
H01J, H01L23,H01L35-41
B81B7/02, B82Y10,
Newly-Included IPCs G08B1/08,3/10,5/22-38,7/06,13/18-13/196,G08B25-27
Conclusively, the newly-defined taxonomy of ICT
technologies, which is provided in appendix , enables for us to
recognize recently or newly emerging technological trends,
and to avoid statistical misunderstanding. In order to catch up
with technological convergence trends, we might need to
renew the IPC and Technology Table of WIPO of 2008, and
which should reflect the technological convergence trends of
worldwide.
4. Suggestion and Future Plan
The IPC-Technology Concordance Table of WIPO (2008) is
a simply and powerful technology taxonomy based on IPCs,
however it may not reflect fast-emerging innovative, and
converging technology trends properly. The taxonomy has no
choice but to classifying emerging technologies such as
genome editing, bio-engineering, and quantum computing into
chemistry or other fields. A variety of technologies related to
robotics such as AI-based service robots, chat bots ,
algorithms, flying robots such as drones, and wearable
healthcare devices are categorized into electrical engineering
or instruments.
In 2017, a new taxonomy of technology reflecting
interactions between technologies (COCCIA 2017) from the
Systemic perspective was suggested. Though pretty conceptual
as it is, suggestion of the author may be a viable framework
for catching-up technology convergence trend to some extent.
This taxonomy defines four types of technological interactions
– parasitic, commensal, mutual, and symbiotic for the purpose
of predicting evolutionary pathways of technologies. It might
be a useful theoretical framework as the author mentioned to
develop more sophisticated concepts. It is beneficiary for
industry and academia to more focus on the technological
interactions, evolutions, and changes for the better of human
society.
APPENDIX
Data.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77 (3):
385–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.10.002.
Curran, Clive-Steven, and Jens Leker. 2011. “Patent Indicators
for Monitoring Convergence – Examples from NFF and ICT.”
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (2): 256–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.021.
Fuller, Steve. 2009. “Knowledge Politics and New Converging
Technologies: A Social Epistemological Perspective.”
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research
22 (1): 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610902770552.
Giorgi, Liana, and Jacquelyne Luce. 2007. “Converging Science
and Technologies.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social
Science Research 20 (4): 307–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610701775166.

Hacklin, Fredrik, Christian Marxt, and Fritz Fahrni. 2009.

“Coevolutionary Cycles of Convergence: An Extrapolation from
the ICT Industry.” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 76 (6): 723–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.03.003.

Hamilton, Diana Hicks; Tony Breitzman; Dominic Olivastro;

Kimberly. 2001. “The Changing Composition of Innovative
Activity in the US — a Portrait Based on Patent Analysis.”

Haupt, Reinhard, Martin Kloyer, and Marcus Lange. 2007.

“Patent Indicators for the Technology Life Cycle Development.”
Research Policy 36 (3): 387–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.12.004.

Johannes M. Pennings, Phanish Puranam. 2001. “Market

Convergence and Firm Strategy.” ECIS Conference, The Future
of Innovation Studies.

Joo, Si Hyung, and Yeonbae Kim. 2009. “Measuring

Relatedness between Technological Fields.” Scientometrics 83
(2): 435–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0108-9.

Kim, Pang Ryong. 2013. “Characteristics of ICT-Based

Converging Technologies.” ETRI Journal 35 (6): 1134–43.
REFERENCES https://doi.org/10.4218/etrij.13.0113.0043.
Arnaldi, Simone. 2008. “Converging Technologies in the Italian
Daily Press 2002–2006: Preliminary Results of an Ongoing Lee, Heongu, and Munkee Choi. 2012. “5 Year Trends of ICT
Research Project.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Convergence Based on KIPO Issued Patents.”
Science Research 21 (1): 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC.2012.6387128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610802002304.
Lee, Heongu, Pang Ryong Kim, and Hangjung Zo. 2017.
Choi, Changwoo, Seungkyum Kim, and Yongtae Park. 2007. “A “Impact of Cooperative R&D Projects on ICT‐Based
Patent-Based Cross Impact Analysis for Quantitative Estimation Technology Convergence.”
of Technological Impact: The Case of Information and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.4218/etrij.17.0116.
Communication Technology.” Technological Forecasting and 0874.
Social Change 74 (8): 1296–1314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.10.008. Lee, Heongu, and Hangjung zo. 2013. “Technological
Convergence in ICT and Determinants of Convergence from the
COCCIA, Mario. 2017. “A New Classification of Perspective of R&D Alliance.”
Technologies,” 27. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC.2013.6675488.

Corrocher, Nicoletta, Franco Malerba, and Fabio Montobbio. ———. 2016. “R&D Allies: How They Impact Technology
2007. “Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovative Activity in the ICT Convergence in the Area of ICT.”
Field.” Research Policy 36 (3): 418–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC.2016.7763492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.002.
Lee, Sungjoo, Byungun Yoon, and Yongtae Park. 2009. “An
Curran, Clive-Steven, Stefanie Bröring, and Jens Leker. 2010. Approach to Discovering New Technology Opportunities:
“Anticipating Converging Industries Using Publicly Available

1455
Keyword-Based Patent Map Approach.” Technovation 29 (6–
7): 481–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.006.

Nordmann, Alfred. 2004. “Converging Technologies –Shaping

the Future of European Societies.”

Pinto, Dalila, Elsa Delaby, Daniele Merico, Mafalda Barbosa,

Alison Merikangas, Lambertus Klei, Bhooma
Thiruvahindrapuram, et al. “Convergence of Genes and
Cellular Pathways Dysregulated in Autism Spectrum
Disorders.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 94 (5):
677–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.03.018.

“R&D Allies: How They Impact Technology Convergence in

the Area of ICT.” n.d.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTC.2016.7763492.

Roco, Mihail C., William S. Bainbridge, Bruce Tonn, and

George Whitesides. 2013. “Convergence of Knowledge,
Technology, and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-
Info-Cognitive Technologies.”

Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge. 2002.

“Converging Technologies for Improving Human
Performance.”

Schmoch, Ulrich. 2008. “Concept of a Technology

Classification for Country Comparisons: Final Report to the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).”

Takashi, Inaba, and Squicciarini Mariagrazia. n.d. “ICT: A

New Taxonomy Based on the International Patent
Classification.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry
Working Papers 2017/01. https://doi.org/10.1787/18151965.

Tijssen, Robert J.W. 1992. “A Quantitative Assessment of

Interdisciplinary Structures in Science and Technology: Co-
Classification of Energy Research.” Research Pohcy, no. 21:
27–44.

William Sims Bainbridge, Mihail C. Roco. 2006. “Managing

Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations; Converging Technologies
in Society.”

Xing, Wan, Xuan Ye, and Lv Kui. 2011. “Measuring

Convergence of China’s ICT Industry: An Input–Output
Analysis.” Telecommunications Policy 35 (4): 301–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.02.003.

1456