Technological Speciation : Navigating New Needs through Trial and Error – A Rifle Case Study

Technological Speciation : Navigating New Needs through Trial and Error – A Rifle Case Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Technological Speciation : Navigating New Needs through Trial and Error – A Rifle Case Study Jiyong Kim, Jungsub Yoon, Jeong-Dong Lee This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996089/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 03 Dec, 2024 Read the published version in Journal of Evolutionary Economics → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Technological speciation is a crucial concept for understanding the emergence of new technologies and describes the adaptation of existing technologies adapt to novel application domains in response to emerging needs. Prior research has primarily utilized case-centered qualitative approaches. While some quantitative studies have been conducted, they have not fully captured the complexity of technological speciation, with the methodologies used for observation also falling short. This study aims to enhance previous discussions by rigorously validating the process of technological speciation, focusing on Levinthal (1998) through empirical evidence, and uncovering the managerial strategic implications observable in the speciation process of emerging technologies. This study emphasizes products as intermediaries between markets and technologies, developing indicators based on the similarity between antecedent and descendant technologies, considering the path dependency of technology, and applying these to real product data. It hypothesizes that significant changes at the inception of these indicators mark the beginning of technological speciation. Analysis reveals that new technologies emerge through an adaptive process, systematically addressing needs through trial and error, with shifts in needs serving as the catalyst. This aligns with detailed discussions in existing qualitative studies on the technological speciation process. This study proposes an analytical method for examining technological speciation by exploring the interaction between markets and technologies from an evolutionary perspective, using product data as a mediator. Additionally, the study highlights the importance for companies aiming to enter new markets of accurately identifying new needs, exploring adjacent technologies, and adopting iterative, small-scale productization strategies to navigate the adaptation process effectively. JEL : O32, O33 Market needs-technology interaction path dependency product phylogenetic tree technological speciation trial and error Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction In an era marked by increasing technological uncertainty, accurately identifying and utilizing the emergence of new markets in response to evolving demands is crucial (Andriani & Cattani 2022 ; Baldwin & Von Hippel 2011 ; Cattani & Malerba 2021 ; Malhotra et al. 2021 ). The emergence of such markets fundamentally requires technological discontinuities (Anderson & Tushman 1990 ; Tushman & Anderson 1986 ), which arise from the accumulation of continuous and incremental technological innovations (Bergek et al. 2011 ). Previous research efforts to understand technological discontinuity have focused on identifying emerging technologies and analyzing patterns of technological emergence. Among these endeavors, technological speciation has been highlighted as a critical concept (Adner & Levinthal 2002 ; Carignani et al. 2019 ; Levinthal 1998 ; Moehrle & Caferoglu 2019 ), addressing the adaptation of existing technologies to new application domains spurred by emerging needs (Adner & Levinthal 2002 ; Levinthal 1998 ). This concept suggests that new technologies do not emerge in an abrupt manner; instead, they evolve through a continuous adaptive process to fulfill new needs, underlining the importance of various attempts and failures within this process. These studies aim to elucidate the process of new technology emergence, offering strategic insights for decision-makers targeting new market opportunities. To explore technological discontinuity through the lens of technological speciation, numerous studies have undertaken case analyses focusing on specific technologies (Adner & Levinthal 2002 ; Carignani et al. 2019 ; Cattani 2006 ; Garnsey et al. 2008 ; Levinthal 1998 ; Mokyr 1990 ). These analyses provide in-depth insights into the adaptive process by which technologies evolve, considering the multifaceted factors influencing technology emergence. However, the difficulty in generalizing from case studies and the potential for subjective interpretation have led researchers to supplement these analyses with quantitative methods. Frenken and Nuvolari ( 2004 ) posited that demand diversity drives technological speciation, employing simulations to measure entropy as evidence. Similarly, Moehrle and Caferoglu ( 2019 ) introduced a model based on bi-gram learning from technology patents to predict the application fields where speciation is likely to occur, offering a more objective perspective on the phenomena of technological speciation. Although previous studies have utilized quantitative models to validate the occurrence of technological speciation, they have not adequately addressed how technological emergence transitions from existing to new technologies in novel environments, spurred by the rise of new needs. This gap leaves unanswered the critical question often explored in qualitative research: how does technological speciation manifest? Given that speciation is seen as a branching phenomenon within the evolutionary relationship between antecedents and descendants, these studies struggled to comprehensively explain the speciation process by considering each technology in isolation. To bridge this gap, the present study aims to clarify the mechanism of technological speciation through an evolutionary framework that supports the quantitative evaluation of this phenomenon. It adopts a methodology based on the similarity between antecedent and descendant technologies, noting a significant decrease in similarity as new technologies emerge through the evolutionary process. By tracking numerical changes at critical junctures where technological mutations occur, this approach seeks to chart the course of technological speciation from these mutations. The study analyzed 585 rifles manufactured between 1840 and 2000. The defense industry, particularly through the lens of weapons development, provides a robust framework for identifying needs via doctrine, making rifles an ideal candidate for studying the interplay between needs and technology due to their long history and diversity (Shafer 2023 ). Notably, doctrinal shifts, especially following major conflicts, offer a unique opportunity to investigate technological speciation by analyzing rifles developed before and after such paradigmatic changes. This examination within the warfare context aims to uncover strategic insights into technological emergence. The structure of this study is organized as follows: Section 2 revisits the concept of technological speciation and related literature, highlighting their importance and shortcomings. Section 3 elaborates on the definition and theoretical background of the indicators used, detailing their components and calculation methods. Section 4 presents the empirical analysis that elucidates the process of technological speciation using these indicators. Section 5 examines the distinctive features of the technological speciation process and how it diverges from prior studies. Section 6 summarizes the study's main findings and their implications, concluding with a reflection on the significance of researching technological speciation and suggesting future avenues for indicator refinement. 2. Literature review 2.1 Technological speciation as an evolutionary process Technological speciation elucidates the phenomenon of discontinuous technological change, wherein novel technologies supplant existing ones (Adner & Levinthal 2002 ; Levinthal 1998 ), delineating the adaptation of current technologies to new application domains in response to evolving needs. This process engenders the evolution of existing technologies into new forms, fostering distinct evolutionary paths or technological trajectories guided by the novel selection criteria of the application domain (Adner & Levinthal 2002 ; Carignani et al. 2019 ; Cattani 2006 ; Garnsey et al. 2008 ; Moehrle & Caferoglu 2019 ). The abundance of resources in these new domains catalyzes diverse and swift transformations, culminating in the emergence of technologies that manifest as rapid and radical shifts, emblematic of discontinuous change (Levinthal 1998 ). Investigations into the causes and patterns of technological speciation, as outlined in Table 1 , have predominantly utilized case-centered qualitative analyses. These investigations contend that the abrupt advent of new technologies does not merely forge new markets by displacing extant technologies; instead, it entails a continuous adaptive process whereby existing technologies evolve to meet the demands of the new market as novel needs surface. However, the reliance on qualitative methods, with their focus on the evolution of specific technologies, introduces a degree of subjective interpretation by researchers, presenting challenges in generalizing outcomes. To surmount these limitations, quantitative research methodologies have been integrated alongside qualitative approaches. Table 1 Overview of recent technology speciation research. Research Research objective Technology Analytic Approach Mokyr ( 1990 ) A pattern of technological change Telegraphy Qualitative analysis (Theoretical study) Levinthal ( 1998 ) A process of technology speciation Wireless communication Qualitative analysis (Case study) Adner and Levinthal ( 2002 ) Patterns of technology speciation and its implication Wireless communications & CAT scanner Qualitative analysis (Case study) Frenken and Nuvolari ( 2004 ) The impact of diversity on technological speciation Steam Engine Quantitative analysis (Entropy analysis) Cattani ( 2006 ) Extending the concept of technological speciation to firms Fiber-optics Qualitative analysis (Case study) Garnsey et al. ( 2008 ) Applying spin-off innovation to technology speciation RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) Qualitative analysis (Case study) Carignani et al. ( 2019 ) An emergence process of technology based on the "Woesian perspective" Jet-engine Qualitative analysis (Case study) Moehrle and Caferoglu ( 2019 ) A proposal of Technological speciation prediction method Camera Quantitative analysis (Semantic patent analysis) Frenken and Nuvolari ( 2004 ) advanced a theoretical framework for understanding technological speciation through simulation, adopting an evolutionary perspective akin to that of genetic evolution. Their analysis incorporated shifts in entropy and measures of information interdependence based on technological characteristic data, illuminating the foundational causes of technological speciation. Building on earlier research by Frenken et al. ( 1999 ), which investigated industry niches and characteristics using established entropy methods, this study enhances the discourse through simulations based on the NK-model, showcasing speciation propelled by new demands. However, it stops short of delving into the continuous adaptive process inherent in speciation. Another pivotal quantitative analysis by Moehrle and Caferoglu ( 2019 ) introduced a predictive framework for technological speciation, utilizing patent data and similarity analysis to anticipate changes in application fields. While this research offers forecasts based on an understanding of technological speciation as influenced by shifts in application domains, it falls short in explicating how new technologies evolve from pre-existing ones. In essence, while both studies contribute data-driven quantitative methodologies informed by the concept of technological speciation, they lack comprehensive insights into the detailed patterns of technological evolution previously addressed through qualitative inquiry. To thoroughly explore technological speciation, it is crucial to elucidate the adaptation of existing technologies to new application domains. This necessitates an examination of the emergence of new technologies from an evolutionary standpoint, acknowledging the profound impact of antecedent technologies on their successors. Moreover, the selection of research subjects that facilitate the observation of the interplay between markets and technologies is imperative. Consequently, this study proposes to develop an analytical methodology centered on products as the intermediaries between markets and technologies. Embracing a product-focused approach yields profound insights into the complex dynamics between technology and market forces. Therefore, this investigation endeavors to introduce a product-centric evolutionary analysis methodology that can quantitatively assess the speciation patterns of technology previously delineated through qualitative research, with a particular emphasis on Levinthal ( 1998 ) as a foundational reference. By applying this methodology, we aim to corroborate the patterns of technological speciation highlighted in prior studies through the lens of evolutionary trajectories observable in actual product markets. Additionally, this approach seeks to extract strategic insights into the emergence of new technologies, framed within the context of technological speciation. The process of technological speciation unfolds through distinct stages, starting with the identification of new needs that herald the creation of a new application domain, thereby stimulating the demand for innovative technologies (Levinthal, 1998 ). In response, various technologies surface to address these emerging needs, characterized by an adaptive process that fosters interaction between markets and producers, with products serving as the medium of this interaction (Adner & Levinthal 2001 ; Christensen & Rosenbloom 1995 ). At this stage, suppliers prioritize responding to evolving market needs over the exploration of technological potential, favoring the application of existing technologies (exaptation) to the invention of new ones (Adner & Levinthal 2001 ; Dosi 1982 ; Mowery & Rosenberg 1979 ). The inherent uncertainty and lack of information pose challenges for producers in predicting the market's selection criteria accurately (Adner & Levinthal 2002 ; Mokyr 1990 ; Ziman 2003 ). Consequently, producers venture into a broad exploration of alternatives within the realm of all conceivable variations, navigating their perceived space of possibilities (Ziman 2003 ). This exploration may involve utilizing existing technologies as-is or innovating through the recombination of existing knowledge. Amid significant influences from existing technologies, producers weigh various alternative approaches (Arthur 1989 ; Basalla 1988 ; Coombs & Hull 1998 ; Meyer & Schubert 2007 ; Mowery & Rosenberg 1979 ; Rosenberg 2009 ; Rycroft & Kash 2002 ; Ziman 2003 ). Upon the market release of a product, producers garner direct feedback from consumers (Coombs & Hull 1998 ; Fleck 2000 ), which serves to refine and clarify previously ambiguous market needs, thereby significantly influencing suppliers' future strategic directions (Ziman 2003 ). Through this iterative adaptation process, technologies develop a path dependence, guiding the evolution of new technologies. Ultimately, this leads to the emergence of a new technological species, characterized by designs that are aligned with market needs, while maintaining a connection to their evolutionary lineage (David 1997 ; Garnsey et al. 2008 ; Meyer & Schubert 2007 ; Rycroft & Kash 2002 ). This methodology elucidates a systematic approach to distinguishing between technological species by examining product similarities. Products evolving in a technologically congruent manner, strongly influenced by their antecedents and demonstrating path dependence, are categorized within a single species. In contrast, products that significantly deviate from their antecedent influences and establish new categories upon branching are recognized as a distinct species. Through such analysis of technological similarities among products, the phenomenon of technological speciation can be understood more clearly. The proposed approach not only corroborates the mechanisms of technological speciation outlined in prior studies but also highlights the underlying principles of technological emergence characteristic of this process. 2.2 History of speciation of rifles A historical examination of rifles shows three principal technological species indicatives of distinct eras. Up to the mid-19th century, muskets were prevalent. The early 20th century saw the ascendancy of bolt-action rifles in the firearms industry, which were subsequently superseded by automatic rifles from the mid-20th century onward (McNab 2004 ; Westwood 2005 ). These transitions between technological species often aligned with the evolving doctrinal needs during warfare periods. In the 19th century, European military doctrine favored linear infantry tactics, promoting concentrated fire from organized formations, primarily employing muskets. This strategy enhanced firing efficacy but compromised mobility. The Battle of Jena-Auerstedt in 1806, where Prussian forces encountered Napoleon's artillery-supported infantry, underscored the superiority of tactics that prioritized mobility, as exemplified by the French. This doctrinal shift underscored the emerging requirement for infantry tactics that combined firing efficacy with mobility. In response, 1841 witnessed the introduction of the Dreyse rifle, equipped with a bolt-action mechanism facilitating both “fire and maneuver.” This innovation proliferated across Europe, and by World War I (1914–1918), when such tactics had become widespread, bolt-action rifles had entirely supplanted muskets (Ford 2017 ; Zabecki 2015 ), illustrating a clear evolution in military technology reflective of changing doctrinal needs. During the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century, alongside the mass production of firearms, reserve forces were organized, emphasizing shooting and mobility. This era underscored the doctrinal need for smaller forces to effectively confront larger ones. Denmark, following its defeat in the Second Schleswig War against Germany in 1864, sought doctrinal innovation, particularly a new rifle design that could offer advantages in close combat. This demand catalyzed the development of early models of automatic rifles, marking a significant shift in military technology. World War I significantly emphasized the criticality of close combat, with battles frequently transpiring within the confines of trenches, revealing the limitations of slow-firing bolt-action rifles. The necessity for automatic rifles grew (Holmes 2006 ), a demand further underscored by World War II (1939–1945), as urban warfare and close-quarter battles became more common. The Vietnam War (1964–1972) saw extensive use of automatic rifles, demonstrating their superiority and leading to the obsolescence of bolt-action rifles (Pauly 2008 ). This evolutionary trajectory, illustrated in Fig. 1 , was predominantly driven by doctrinal shifts stemming from warfare, propelling the development of new technologies supported by national interests. This progression exemplifies technological speciation, where new technologies emerge within application domains characterized by new needs and abundant resources, serving as new selection criteria. This study introduces the technological speciation degree (TSD), utilizing actual product data to validate an index for analyzing patterns of technological speciation and to elucidate the technological evolutionary characteristics observed throughout this process. 3. Methodology 3.1 Overall process The analytical framework of this study, shown in Fig. 2 , begins with the collection of product data comprising technological characteristics, from which a phylogenetic tree is constructed. Subsequently, all lineages are delineated from this tree, identifying the Primary lineage that most accurately represents the evolutionary phenomenon. The TSD of products within this Primary lineage is then calculated to discern patterns of technological speciation, offering insights into the continuous adaptation and evolution of technologies in response to shifting doctrinal needs and warfare strategies. 3.2. Data In the assessment of the TSD for studying technological speciation, selecting pertinent data is fundamental. The data must accurately reflect shifts in needs and application domains, ensuring that the technological attributes of chosen products are thoroughly documented. Additionally, it is vital to choose product categories that have witnessed technological advancements over time due to sustained development. Rifles, as a product category, fulfill these criteria and are deemed appropriate for the quantitative analysis of technological speciation. Weapons such as rifles provide insights into evolving needs through military doctrines, facilitating the analysis of need changes via extensive doctrinal documentation. This framework enables the examination of how new technologies arise with the formation of new application domains (Blasko 2011 ; Holley Jr. 2004 ; Kim et al. 2021 ; Pauly 2008 ; Smith & Smith 1973 ). Moreover, rifles, relative to other weaponry, boast a vast and varied array of specimens, with comprehensive data over an extended timeframe being meticulously preserved. The historical exploration of rifles across various studies spanning over a century renders them an exemplary subject for research, where the interplay between demand and technological development is distinctly evident (Shafer 2023 ). Consequently, this study's quantitative analysis utilizes rifle data primarily from Westwood ( 2005 ), complemented by information from Jane's Defense Data Service (JDDS) and Walter ( 2006 ) to fill in any data gaps. This compilation resulted in a dataset encompassing 585 rifle data points. The technological traits of the rifles within this dataset are succinctly encapsulated, as illustrated in Table 2 . Table 2 Technological attributes of rifles detailed. Variables Description Variables Description Continuous Variables (9) Cal_mm Caliber(mm) Cart_mm Cartridge length(mm) L_mm Length(mm) Folded_L_mm Folded Length(mm) BarL_mm Barrel Length(mm) W_kg Weight(kg) Year Released year MV_ms Muzzle Velocity(m/s) Gr_n No. of grooves Categorical Variables (6) Name Name of rifle Bullpup Bullpup design OM Operating Mechanism Detailed_OM Detailed Operating Mechanism Type Feeding System Country Manufacturing Country This research specifically focuses on rifles introduced post-1841, a pivotal year marking the advent of key modern rifle features such as rifling and specialized ammunition. Data collection commenced with the introduction of the first bolt-action rifle, the Dreyse rifle, in 1841 (Westwood 2005 ), providing a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the evolution of rifle technology and its diversification over time. 3.3 Extracting phylogenetic trees for lineage extraction. To quantify the degree of path dependence for a product, it is essential to elucidate ancestor-offspring relationships. This is achieved by constructing a phylogenetic tree based on product similarities, which delineates the evolutionary trajectory of a given product. The conceptualization of a product phylogenetic tree draws parallels between products and biological organisms, facilitating the identification of ancestral and descendant relationships. This approach allows for a detailed analysis of the technological evolution process and its patterns (Basalla 1988 ; Baum & Smith 2013 ; Jeong & Lee 2024 ; Khanafiah & Situngkir 2006 ; Lee et al. 2022 ; Valverde & Solé 2015 ). Utilizing an algorithm-based phylogenetic tree visualization method, as proposed by Lee et al. ( 2022 ), this study meticulously extracted rifle lineages. In the phylogenetic tree diagram, nodes symbolize individual products (rifles), while edges denote the ancestor-offspring relationships. The relationship between antecedent and descendant products is discerned through their technical attributes. A product \({Z}_{i,t}\) introduced at time t is represented as a vector of its various technical characteristics \({x}_{j}\) . To standardize the diverse units of measurement, continuous variables underwent normalization to a scale ranging from 0 to 1 via minimum-maximum scaling. $$\begin{array}{c}{Z}_{i,t}=\left\{{x}_{j} is a distinct technical characteristic in {Z}_{i,t}\right\}.\#\left(1\right)\end{array}$$ This vector representation of product attributes enables the quantitative assessment of similarity. Considering that a product typically encompasses a mix of continuous and categorical variables, the Gower similarity metric, founded on the Gower distance, was utilized for these calculations (Gower 1971 ). The Gower similarity (S) is computed as follows: For a categorical variable, the similarity between product \({Z}_{1,t}\) from period t and \({Z}_{2,t+n}\) from period t + n is assigned a value of 1 if the technical characteristic \({x}_{i}\) matches, and 0 if it does not. For continuous variables \({x}_{j}\) , the absolute difference between the normalized variables is deducted from 1, transforming the distance metric into a similarity score. These scores across all variables are aggregated and averaged by the total number of variables defining the product, yielding an overall similarity score: $$\begin{array}{c}{S}_{{x}_{i}, categorical feature}\left({Z}_{1,t}, {Z}_{2,t+n}\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}1, if {x}_{i,{Z}_{1}}= {x}_{i,{Z}_{2}}\\ 0, if {x}_{i{,Z}_{1}}\ne {x}_{i{,Z}_{2}}\end{array}\right..\#\left(2\right) \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{c}{S}_{ {x}_{j}, continuous feature}\left({Z}_{1,t}, {Z}_{2,t+n}\right)=1-\left|{x}_{j,{Z}_{1,t}}- {x}_{j,{Z}_{2,t+n}}\right|.\#\left(3\right) \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{c}{S}_{Gower similarity}\left({Z}_{1,t}, {Z}_{2,t+n}\right)=\frac{\sum {S}_{{x}_{i}, categorical features}+\sum {S}_{ {x}_{j}, continuous features}}{N\left(Number of total features\right)}.\#\left(4\right) \end{array}$$ This systematic procedure is applied to all products, culminating in the construction of an adjacency matrix that captures the similarities between them. Following the creation of this similarity matrix, each product \({ Z}_{i,{t}_{i}}\) is linked to the product introduced prior that exhibits the highest similarity, thereby designating it as its antecedent. $$\begin{array}{c}{Antecedent Z}_{j,{t}_{j}} of descendant{ Z}_{i,{t}_{i}}=argmax\left(S\left({Z}_{j,{t}_{j}}, {Z}_{i, {t}_{i}}\right)\right) , i \ne j and {{ t}_{i}>t}_{j}\#\left(5\right) \end{array}$$ This methodology embraces the features of technological evolution, suggesting that each technology traces its origins to an antecedent within its search domain (Ziman 2003 ). By repetitively applying this process, each product identifies its direct predecessor, thereby establishing a lineage (L) that maps its evolutionary journey back to a shared ancestor. $$\begin{array}{c}L\left({Z}_{i}\right)=\left\{for \forall {Z}_{j}, {Z}_{j} are antecedents of {Z}_{i}, from origin {to Z}_{i}\right\}.\#\left(6\right) \end{array}$$ Upon applying these operational definitions, distinct evolutionary patterns emerge for each lineage. However, to address the aim of this study—which is to dissect the process of technological speciation—focusing on a singular primary lineage that accurately represents the broad evolutionary phenomena became essential. To this end, the study adopts betweenness centrality as a metric to assess the centrality of each product within the network. Betweenness centrality quantifies the proportion of all shortest paths between pairs of nodes that pass through a specific node, as encapsulated in the formula provided: \(\begin{array}{c}Betweenness Centrality\left(v\right)={C}_{B}\left(v\right)= \sum _{s\ne v\ne t}\frac{{\sigma }_{st}\left(v\right)}{{\sigma }_{st}}.\#\left(7\right) \end{array}\) * s, v, t are all different nodes in a network In this formula, the betweenness centrality of a node v, denoted \({C}_{B}\left(v\right),\) is the sum of the fraction of all shortest paths from node s to node t that pass through node v, where \({\sigma }_{st}\) ​ is the total number of shortest paths from node s to node t and \({\sigma }_{st}\) ( v ) is the number of those paths passing through node v . Products with high \({C}_{B}\left(v\right)\) values are deemed crucial within their networks, acting as conduits for information flow between nodes (Newman 2005 ; Veremyev et al. 2017 ). These pivotal products, marking significant points of evolutionary branching, delineate the technological evolutionary path within a product group, thus defining the primary lineage as expressed below: $$\begin{array}{c}Primary lineage= argmax\left(\sum _{v\in lineage}{C}_{B}\left(v\right)\right).\#\left(8\right) \end{array}$$ 3.4 Measurement of Technological Speciation Degree(TSD) Isolating the lineage that encompasses ancestral products enables the quantification of continuity, reflecting the extent of influence exerted by antecedents on a specific product. \(Path-dependency\left(L\right)\) is conceptualized as the average similarity from a common ancestor to the product under consideration. This average similarity metric serves to evaluate the central tendency within a product's lineage, offering insights into the product's evolutionary trajectory (Lee et al. 2023 ). $$\begin{array}{c}Path-dependency\left(L\right)=P\left(L\right)=\frac{{\sum }_{i= target product}^{N-1}S\left({Z}_{i},{Z}_{ancestor of {z}_{i}}\right)}{{N}_{Lineage}-1} .\#\left(9\right) \end{array}$$ For the dataset's initial product, \(Path-dependency\left(L\right)\) warrants special attention due to the lack of historical data regarding its precursors. If empirical evidence designate this product as the genesis of its species, it is attributed the lowest path-dependency value derived from the primary lineage. Conversely, if not explicitly the origin, the product is assigned the mean path-dependency value from the primary lineage, ensuring a consistent baseline for analysis. $$\begin{array}{c}P\left(L\right) of root= \left\{\begin{array}{c}argmin P\left(Primary Lineage\right), if it is the origin of its species\\ \frac{\sum P\left(Primary lineage\right)}{N-1}, otherwise\end{array}\right.\#\left(10\right) \end{array}$$ In adherence to the defined operational concept of path-dependency, the TSD for a product \({Z}_{t}\) introduced at time t is determined by the variance between the TSD of the lineage just before its introduction (t-1) and the TSD at the moment of its introduction. This calculation facilitates a detailed examination of the evolutionary divergence or continuity each product manifests within its lineage. $$\begin{array}{c}Technological Speciation Degree\left({Z}_{t}\right)=TSD\left({Z}_{t}\right)= P\left(L\left({Z}_{t-1}\right)\right)- P\left(L\left({Z}_{t}\right)\right).\#\left(11\right) \end{array}$$ If the \(TSD\left({Z}_{t}\right)\) yield a positive outcome, it indicates a diminution in lineage path-dependency relative to the period before the introduction of \({Z}_{t}\) . This scenario suggests a pronounced probability that the newly introduced product will be classified as belonging to a distinct species from its predecessors. Conversely, a negative TSD value signals an augmentation in continuity leading up to the advent of the product in question, denoting a diminished likelihood of speciation. This approach underscores the significance of path-dependency and divergence in understanding the dynamics of technological speciation. Figure 1 exemplifies the practical application of path-dependency and TSD assessments. Path-dependency for product \({Z}_{1,t}\) is determined by calculating the mean similarity across all its antecedents within lineage \(L\left({Z}_{1,t}\right)\) . This average similarity serves as an indicator of the trend in path-dependency or coherence within that lineage. Relying solely on the immediate antecedent to measure changes in similarity might not accurately capture the essence of path-dependency. For instance, consider two products, and \({Z}_{2,t}\) , introduced at the same time t and depicted as an empty circle and an empty triangle, respectively. Despite showing the same level of similarity to their immediate antecedents, a thorough analysis incorporating the mean similarity from all preceding antecedents within the lineage reveals divergent narratives. Specifically, \({L(Z}_{1,t})\) exhibits a consistently higher degree of similarity throughout its evolutionary history compared to \({L(Z}_{2,t}\) ​), indicating a greater path-dependency for \({L(Z}_{1,t}\) ​). The TSD metric quantifies fluctuations in path-dependency. A shift towards a new technological species typically indicates a novelty that reduces the product's path-dependency in relation to its predecessors. Within a lineage, a significant decrease in path-dependency with the introduction of a new product suggests a higher likelihood of triggering speciation. The magnitude of this decrease acts as an indicator of the degree of speciation. For example, in Fig. 1 , comparing product \({Z}_{3.t+1}\) (represented by a square) with \({Z}_{4.t+1}\) (represented by a diamond) demonstrates that, although both maintain identical similarity levels with their immediate antecedents, \({TSD(Z}_{3.t+1})\) is considerably higher than \({TSD(Z}_{4.t+1})\) . This indicates that the greater the existing path-dependency in a product, the more significant the impact of a new product's introduction on path-dependency. Consequently, if a product emerges as a new species within a lineage characterized by a well-established design, the change in path-dependency will be more pronounced compared to a lineage without such a design foundation. This pronounced change underscores the extent of speciation, enabling a clearer divergence from an established species. The comprehensive methodology outlined can be visually summarized as follows, which is also illustrated in Fig. 2 : Initially, data encompassing the technological attributes of various products is gathered. This data forms the basis for constructing a phylogenetic tree, mapping the products based on their technological lineage. From this tree, multiple lineages are identified, among which the primary lineage that most succinctly captures the evolutionary trends is distinguished. The TSD values for products within this primary lineage are then calculated, enabling the identification of patterns indicative of technological speciation. 4. Result 4.1. Derivation of Primary Lineage from Rifle Phylogenetic Tree In the exploration of technological speciation, the TSD framework was applied to an extensive dataset of rifles. The initial step involved creating a similarity-based phylogenetic tree diagram for rifles, as illustrated in Fig. 4 . This diagram revealed a total of 292 lineages, with each lineage encompassing between 2 to 25 products. A notable observation from the tree, particularly when rifle features were color-coded by their operating mechanism (OM), was the distinct clustering of lineages sharing the same OM color. This pattern highlights the OM's critical role in defining technological species. The transition from bolt-action rifles (blue cluster) to automatic rifles (red cluster) is marked by a specific segment connecting the Fiscal Guard Carbine and the Madsen-Rasmussen 1986 rifle, signifying a crucial point in the speciation process where automatic rifles begin to diverge from their bolt-action predecessors. Post this juncture, most of the descendants trace back to the automatic rifle lineage, indicating a significant evolutionary shift. To ascertain the primary lineage from the identified lineages, the lineage boasting the highest aggregate of betweenness centrality values across its nodes was selected. Table 3 lists six lineages ordered by their descending betweenness centrality values, each labeled by the name of its terminal descendant product. The lineage L(CGAS5-C2), with the paramount betweenness centrality sum, was identified as the primary lineage following the operational criteria. Highlighted in green in Fig. 4 , this lineage acts as the structural core from which all other lineages emanate, succinctly depicting the phylogenetic tree's overall structure. Importantly, it captures the divergence of the automatic rifle segment from bolt-action rifles, rendering it an exemplary lineage for studying the speciation phenomenon. Table 3 Lineages ranked by highest betweenness centrality. No. Lineage Betweenness centrality 1 L(CGAS5-C2) 0.0802277250907388 2 L(SR-88-A (C)), L(Zastava M85) 0.08015747570542092 3 L(SCS 70/90) 0.08009308043554621 4 L(Colt C8 (C)) 0.07995550872263203 5 L(Stgw 90 (C)), L(B2S(C)), L(AC-556F) 0.07988818639503573 6 L(Stgw90) 0.0795691371033837 4.2 Analysis of Technological Speciation Degree in Rifles The analysis of the TSD for products within the primary lineage, as presented in Table 4 , reveals critical insights into the speciation process. Table 4 TSD values for products within the primary lineage. No. Year Name of products TSD 1 1841 M1841 Dreyse needle-gun 2 1866 M1866 Chassepot rifle -0.04698 3 1869 M1869 Vetterli rifle of Swiss 0.031184 4 1871 M1871 of Swiss -0.02282 5 1878 Gras M1878 Marine Rifle -0.01147 6 1882 1882 Naval Rifle -0.00707 7 1886 Fiscal Guard Carbine -0.00187 8 1896 Madsen-Rasmussen M1896 0.038627 9 1908 Mondragon M1908 0.017765 10 1916 Browning Automatic Rifle 0.002645 11 1927 M1918A1 -0.00926 12 1930 FN M30 -0.00693 13 1932 FN TypeD -0.00595 14 1942 Mkb 42(H) -0.00334 15 1943 StG44(Sturmgewehr, called MP43) -0.00451 16 1949 AK-47 -0.0037 17 1950 AK-S 0.002558 18 1960 AKM-S -0.00351 19 1965 RK-62(F) -0.00304 20 1970 SC 70 Carbine -0.00199 21 1972 7.62mm AR / MG -0.00129 22 1973 5.56mm SAR -0.00153 23 1980 SG 543(Carbine) -0.00206 24 1989 Vektor R6 -0.00203 25 1993 CGAS5-C2 -0.0018 Notably, three distinct segments were identified where TSD values were greater than 0, with a particularly significant observation in the second segment, where a consecutive positive trend was noted over three iterations. These products, highlighted by a lime color in Fig. 4 , signify pivotal moments in the lineage's evolution. The dynamic trends of TSD changes are further visualized in Fig. 5 . Each data point represents a product from the primary lineage, plotted against the year of its release on the horizontal axis and its corresponding speciation degree on the vertical axis. The color coding of lines, indicative of the operational mechanism, serves as a crucial interpretative tool for analyzing speciation events. The analysis delineates three peaks: the first emerges in the nascent phase of bolt-action rifles, the second aligns with the introduction of automatic rifles, and the third occurs during the maturation of automatic rifle development. According to our initial framework, bolt-action rifles experience an additional speciation event following their initial divergence from the Dreyse rifle. In contrast, automatic rifles undergo three sequential speciation processes post their inception from bolt-action rifles, culminating in another distinct speciation occurrence. These speciation events are underscored by the emergence of new needs, further investigated through an examination of the technical attributes and manufacturing contexts of each pivotal product to gain a detailed understanding of the speciation dynamics. 4.3 Discussion The Dreyse rifle represents the inaugural speciation from musket rifles (Westwood 2005 ), marking the first significant peak. The subsequent peak, associated with the Vetterli rifle, signifies another critical speciation event within the bolt-action rifle mechanism. The development backdrop of the Vetterli rifle during a period of rapid adoption of bolt-action rifles across Europe, with a growing emphasis on fire and maneuver tactics, highlights Switzerland's strategic intent to bolster its military capabilities. As a neutral nation amidst major powers, Switzerland sought to enhance its arsenal with advanced weaponry conducive to fire and maneuver strategies. This doctrinal imperative facilitated the Vetterli rifle's creation in 1869, combining the repeater system from lever-action mechanisms into the bolt-action framework, initially designed for single shots. This innovation, incorporating a magazine for increased ammunition capacity, significantly reduced reloading times, thus augmenting the rate of fire during maneuver and marking a notable advancement in rifle technology. The trend analysis of the TSD for bolt-action rifles post-Vetterli introduction reveals a pattern of consistent evolution with TSD values remaining below zero, indicating a steady evolutionary path that maintains similarities with prior designs. Furthermore, Fig. 4 highlights the Vetterli rifle's pivotal role in lineage longevity. Lineages incorporating the Vetterli rifle exhibit sustained survival and diversification, whereas those diverging earlier demonstrate a trend towards extinction with fewer descendants. This pattern underscores the critical impact of integrating the repeating system into the bolt-action mechanism, solidifying its status as the predominant technology within its lineage through a process of trial and error. The second significant peak in Fig. 5 marks the speciation of Automatic rifles from bolt-action rifles, characterized by three consecutive technological shifts. The Madsen-Rasmussen M1896 rifle marks the beginning of this speciation phase, introducing a novel recoil mechanism borrowed from machine guns for loading. Despite its innovative approach, the rifle saw limited use due to stability challenges associated with recoil-based loading and the technological inability to implement a fully automatic system, resulting in only semi-automatic loading capabilities. Subsequently, the Mondragon rifle from Mexico represents the second phase in this evolutionary process. Driven by similar strategic imperatives to Denmark, Mexico aimed to equip its infantry with automatic rifles. Despite technological limitations restricting it to automatic loading (Westwood 2005 ), the Mondragon rifle enhanced stability through a gas-operated mechanism, diverging from the machine gun's operational system. Although the Mondragon rifle did not achieve widespread acclaim, its production and distribution through SIG's subcontracting and sales efforts played a crucial role in disseminating automatic rifles internationally. The transition from bolt-action to automatic rifles, marked by incremental advancements and the resolution of technical challenges, reflects a broader narrative of military technology adapting to evolving doctrinal requirements and battlefield conditions. The introduction of the browning automatic rifle (B.A.R.) marked the culmination of the technological speciation process, representing the first implementation of a fully automatic firing mechanism in rifles. Developed by the United States in response to the demands of frequent close combat encountered during World War I, the B.A.R. was swiftly incorporated into the battlefield. This innovation extended beyond the existing self-loading technology to facilitate fully automatic firing, setting a new standard for automatic rifles. Despite its weight and cumbersome nature, the B.A.R. served as the archetype for future automatic rifles, integrating automatic reloading and firing in a singular operation. For approximately 50 years following the advent of the B.A.R., the speciation degree consistently registered values below zero, indicating an evolutionary phase characterized by sustained path dependency. Post-B.A.R., the primary lineage exclusively comprised gas-operated fully automatic rifles. As illustrated in Fig. 4 , lineages that diverged prior to the technological advancements leading to the B.A.R. exhibit a reduced number of descendants and diminished longevity. Conversely, lineages stemming from the B.A.R. demonstrate robust survival, reflecting a process of adaptation through trial and error that culminated in the formation of a distinct technological species tailored to specific operational needs. The third peak, despite its lower speciation degree relative to earlier speciation, showcases distinct technological advancements. This phase introduced the functionality of folding the buttstock, rendering the firearm more compact and better suited for urban warfare and close-quarters combat. This modification, aimed at enhancing portability and effectiveness in close combat scenarios, signifies another phase of technological speciation that emerged post-World War II, in line with the growing doctrinal focus on close-quarters engagement. Although the scale of this speciation was less pronounced than its predecessors, it nonetheless represents a significant evolutionary shift, driven by the tactical necessity of adapting to close combat situations. The characteristics of the speciation process, as elucidated by the study's findings, include: Continuous evolution based on doctrinal shifts: The speciation process unfolds continuously, reflecting adaptations to evolving military doctrines rather than occurring as abrupt, disjointed changes. This gradual evolution underscores the adaptive nature of technological development in response to changing tactical and operational needs. Survivability and divergence of lineages: Certain lineages that diverge without experiencing adequate continuous evolution tend to have a limited lifespan or leave behind few descendants. This observation not only corroborates the detailed portrayal of the continuous speciation process highlighted in previous qualitative research but also emphasizes the role of trial and error within this evolutionary framework. These insights reveal the dynamic interplay between technological innovation and military doctrine, where the demands of warfare drive the evolution of technology through a process of ongoing adaptation and refinement. The speciation process, characterized by both incremental advancements and periods of significant change, reflects the complex relationship between technological capabilities and operational requirements. The study's experimental results thus contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underpinning technological speciation, highlighting the importance of flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation in the evolution of military technologies. 5. Conclusion This study introduced a novel quantitative methodology to explore technological speciation, shedding light on the intricate dynamics between market forces and technological innovation. It successfully delineated the critical segments of technological speciation by examining shifts in path dependence throughout the evolution of specific product groups, offering a granular view at the level of individual technologies. The investigation conclusively demonstrated that technological speciation is intricately linked to doctrinal shifts. It revealed how the evolution of selection criteria and a rich environment conducive to experimentation are pivotal drivers of speciation. Furthermore, it was observed that the speciation process often involves the amalgamation of existing technologies, navigating through a landscape marked by trial and error to establish distinct evolutionary paths. This study not only corroborated the concept of technological speciation through quantitative analysis but also highlighted the crucial role of emerging needs as catalysts for novel technological developments within the market. It underscored the necessity of embracing trial and error as an inherent part of fulfilling these emerging needs. Moreover, the study posited that persistent productization and the exploration of technologies, beyond initial endeavors, are essential for inducing meaningful technological transformations, thereby emphasizing a critical strategy for technological advancement. A recurring theme across the identified speciation segments was the advent of new doctrinal needs, precipitating the development of novel technologies and the integration of existing external technologies into new products. Notably, this process did not transpire abruptly but evolved gradually, seeking increasingly apt solutions to meet these emerging needs (Carignani et al. 2019 ). This pattern asserts that technological speciation unfolds not as an isolated event but as a continuous evolutionary journey. This process is characterized by a process of adaptation, systematically addressing specific selection criteria through the relentless exploration of existing technologies, facilitated by the collective recognition of common needs among multiple stakeholders. Concurrently, this collective recognition engenders a multitude of trials and errors throughout the speciation process, further enriching the tapestry of technological evolution. As illustrated in Fig. 4 , following the initial divergence of bolt-action rifles from musket rifles, lineages incorporating the Vetterli rifle, which introduced a repeating system to more adeptly meet doctrinal needs, demonstrated consistent survival and produced numerous descendants. Conversely, lineages that predated the adoption of the repeating system in the Vetterli rifle either faced extinction or were limited in their proliferation. Similarly, in the context of automatic rifles, lineages emerging after the introduction of the Browning Automatic Rifle within the technological speciation segments showed sustained survival, whereas those before it either became extinct or were markedly fewer. This pattern suggests that within the evolutionary process, driven by trial and error to address changing needs, only a subset of the generated diversity is retained, selected based on practical usage criteria. Additionally, this reveals the inherent costs associated with trial and error. This finding underscores the importance of focusing on the gradual evolutionary process and its interplay with antecedent technologies, rather than solely on the advent of new technologies, to comprehensively understand the emergence of novel technological solutions. Particularly, acknowledging the role of trial and error in this evolutionary trajectory underscores the critical need for a deeper understanding of needs, coupled with a feedback mechanism to ascertain the alignment of technology with those needs through practical application. This study contributes two significant academic insights. First, it elucidates technological speciation through the lens of the evolutionary process's trial and error. Second, it highlights the importance of precisely identifying needs and employing a feedback mechanism to evaluate the suitability of technologies for those needs within the trial and error dynamics of technological evolution (Nelson 2008 ; Sosna et al. 2010 ; Wagner & Rosen 2014 ; Ziman 2003 ). Furthermore, this research adopted a novel approach to quantitatively analyze technological speciation. Methodologically, the examination of products facilitated an exploration of the interplay between market demands and technological capabilities, presenting a quantitative framework that is adaptable across various product domains. Specifically, the methodology proposed in this study elucidates technology evolution through the lens of supply and demand interactions, emphasizing the significance of market-released products. The strategic implications derived from this study encompass the following: Analyzing the process of technological speciation offers valuable insights for decision-making in generating new demand and formulating new products grounded in the dynamics of technological emergence. To introduce a technology distinct from current offerings, a thorough understanding of the selection criteria shaped by the needs within the application domain is imperative. This necessitates a process of garnering feedback through market interactions via products and devising solutions that meld with existing technologies to address these needs effectively. Furthermore, the adaptation process, which involves refining needs through market engagement, incurs trial and error costs, thus necessitating significant resources—the latter serving as a critical driver of technological speciation. Given that initial product offerings may not fully capture the market's needs, there is a heightened risk of failure in the early stages. Additionally, the challenge of pinpointing specific needs may lead to product extinction or stunted growth. However, by navigating through trial and error within the market and fostering a lineage of descendants, products can gradually carve out stable technological lineages. This iterative process, while resource-intensive, fosters diversity and sharpens the selection criteria in alignment with market needs. Sustained efforts to cater to these evolving needs pave the way for the continuous emergence of technology. Achieving this goal necessitates a shift from the pursuit of perfect products at their inception towards a strategy of releasing small-scale products more frequently to gain a deeper understanding of market needs. Proactive exploration of technologies across different lineages and their integration with existing offerings are vital. Importantly, assimilating feedback and technological insights from utilizing diverse technologies can significantly augment the efficacy of technological recombination. Actively facilitating the quest for solutions to more precisely defined needs—through the frequent recombination of small-scale products informed by past failures—becomes a cornerstone for fostering technological innovation and speciation. However, this study is subject to certain limitations. First, the construction and analysis of the phylogenetic tree are significantly contingent upon the availability, quantity, and quality of product data, demanding considerable effort to secure reliable data. To mitigate the impact of data gaps, the study undertook comprehensive data collection from diverse literature sources, ensuring that the lineage diagram resonated with widely accepted interpretations and consensus. Moreover, while the analysis was confined to rifle data, future endeavors should aim at broadening the research scope to encompass technological speciation phenomena across a variety of products, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. Second, the current methodology presupposes continuity for initial products owing to the absence of historical data on preceding innovations, necessitating inferred continuity for these products based on specific assumptions. To address this, an extensive review of relevant literature was undertaken to ascertain whether the product under consideration indeed marked the inception of speciation. Future research endeavors are imperative to establish objective and compelling continuity metrics, facilitating a more refined and precise analysis. Declarations Acknowledgement This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT).(No.NRF-2022R1A2C1091917) Funding This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT).(No.NRF-2022R1A2C1091917) Ethical Conduct This research does not involve human participants and animals. Data Availability Statement The data and code of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. (2001). Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: implications for product and process innovation. Manag. Sci., 47 , 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.5.611.10482 Adner, R., & Levinthal, D.A. (2002). The emergence of emerging technologies. Calif. Manag. Rev., 45 , 50–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166153 Anderson, P., & Tushman, M.L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Q., 35 , 604–633. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393511 Andriani, P., & Cattani, G. (2022). Functional diversification and exaptation: the emergence of new drug uses in the pharma industry. Ind. Corp. Chang. , 31(5), 1177-1201. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac023 Arthur, W.B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J., 99 , 116–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208 Baldwin, C., & Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Org. Sci., 22(6), 1399-1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618 Basalla, G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Baum, D.A., Smith, S. (2013). Tree Thinking . Roberts & Company Publishers, Greenwood Village, Colorado. Bergek, A., Berggren, C., & Magnusson, T. (2011). Creative Accumulation: Integrating New and Established Technologies in Periods of Discontinuous Change. In Knowledge Integration and Innovation: Critical Challenges Facing International Technology-Based Firms (pp. 246-273). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Blasko, D. J. (2011). ‘Technology Determines Tactics’: the relationship between technology and doctrine in Chinese military thinking. J. Strategic Stud., 34(3), 355-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2011.574979 . Carignani, G., Cattani, G., & Zaina, G. (2019). Evolutionary chimeras: a Woesian perspective of radical innovation. Ind. Corp. Chang., 28(3), 511-528. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty077 . Cattani, G. (2006). Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics. Ind. Corp. Chang., 15(2), 285-318. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtj016. Cattani, G., & Malerba, F. (2021). Evolutionary approaches to innovation, the firm, and the dynamics of industries. Strat. Sci. , 6(4), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2021.0141 Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Res. policy , 24(2), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00764-K Coombs, R., & Hull, R. (1998). Knowledge management practices' and path-dependency in innovation. Res. Policy, 27(3), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00036-5 David, P. A. (1997). Path dependence and the quest for historical economics: one more chorus of the ballad of QWERTY, Discussion papers in Economic and Social History no. 20, University of Oxford. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. policy , 11(3), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6 Fleck, J. (2000). The Artefact-Activity Couple: The Co-evolution of Artefacts and Human Skill and Knowledge in Technological Innovation. Tech. Innov. Evol. process , 248-266. Ford, M. (2017). Weapon of choice: small arms and the culture of military innovation. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. Frenken, K., & Nuvolari, A. (2004). The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory. Ind. Corp. chang. , 13(2), 419-450. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth017 Frenken, K., Saviotti, P. P., & Trommetter, M. (1999). Variety and niche creation in aircraft, helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers. Res. policy , 28(5), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00008-6 Garnsey, E., Lorenzoni, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-off: The Acorn-ARM story. Res. policy , 37(2), 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.006 Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics, 857-871. https://doi.org/10.2307/2528823 Holley Jr., I.B. (2004). Technology and Military Doctrine. Essays on a Challenging Relationship . Air University Press, Montgomery, Alabama. Holmes, R. (2006). Weapon . Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London, UK. Jeong, D., & Lee, J.-D. (2024). Where and how does a product evolve? Product innovation pattern in product lineage. Technovation , 131, 102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.102958 Khanafiah, D., Situngkir, H. (2006). Visualizing the phylomemetic tree. J. Soc. Complexity , 2 , 20–30. Kim, J., Yoon, J., & Lee, J.-D. (2021). Dominant design and evolution of technological trajectories: the case of tank technology, 1915–1998. J. Evol. Econ. 31 , 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00697-1 Lee, H., Jeong, D., & Lee, J.-D. (2023). Drivers of institutional evolution: phylogenetic inertia and ecological pressure. J. Evol. Econ. , 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-023-00813-x Lee, J.-D., Jeong, D., Jung, E.-Y., Kim, Y., Kim, J., He, Y., & Choi, S. (2022). Mapping the Evolutionary Pattern of Mobile Products: A Phylogenetic Approach, Early Access. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3214489 Levinthal, D. A. (1998). The slow pace of rapid technological change: gradualism and punctuation in technological change. Ind. Corp. Change. 7 , 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/7.2.217 Malhotra, A., Zhang, H., Beuse, M., & Schmidt, T. (2021). How do new use environments influence a technology's knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of lithium-ion battery technology. Res. policy , 50(9), 104318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104318 McNab, C. (2004). The Great Book of Guns: an Illustrated History of Military, Sporting, and Antique Firearms . Thunder Bay Press, San Diego, California. Meyer, U., Schubert, C. (2007). Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general understanding of path constitution. The role of agency and institutions in the stabilisation of technological innovations. Sci. Technol. Innov. Stud., 3, 23–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-978 Moehrle, M.G., & Caferoglu, H. (2019). Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology. Technol. Forecast . Soc. Change, 146 , 776–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.049 Mokyr, J. (1990). Punctuated equilibria and technological progress. Am. Econ. Rev., 80 , 350–354. Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Res. policy , 8(2), 102-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(79)90019-2 Nelson, R. R. (2008). Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and error learning. J. Econ. Behav. Organ ., 67(1), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.002 Newman, M. E. (2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc. Netw. , 27(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009 Pauly, R. (2008). Firearms: the life story of a technology. Greenwood Publishing Group. Rosenberg, N. (2009). Uncertainty and technological change. In The economic impact of knowledge (pp. 17-34). Routledge, London. Rycroft, R.W., & Kash, D.E. (2002). Path dependence in the innovation of complex technologies. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 14 , 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320220125865 Shafer, M. (2023). Rifle theory: Engels and the history of technology. Pol. Theor., 51 , 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231155277 Smith, W.H.B., & Smith, J.E. (1973). Small Arms of the World: a Basic Manual of Small Arms. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case. Long range Plan., 43(2-3), 383-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.003 Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative science quarterly, 439-465. Valverde, S., & Solé, R.V. (2015). Punctuated equilibrium in the large-scale evolution of programming languages. J. R. Soc. Interface. 12 , 20150249. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0249 Veremyev, A., Prokopyev, O. A., & Pasiliao, E. L. (2017). Finding groups with maximum betweenness centrality. Optim. Methods Softw. , 32(2), 369-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10556788.2016.1167892 Wagner, A., & Rosen, W. (2014). Spaces of the possible: universal Darwinism and the wall between technological and biological innovation. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(97), 20131190. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.1190 Walter, J. (2006). Rifles of the World . Krause Publications, Lola, Wisconsin. Westwood, D. (2005). Rifles: an illustrated history of their impact. ABC-CLIO. Zabecki, D.T. (2015). Military developments of World War I, in: Daniel, U., Gatrell, P., Janz, O., Jones, H., Keene, J., Kramer, A., Nasson, B. (Eds.). International Encyclopedia of the First World War . Freie Universität Berlin. https://doi.org/10.15463/ie1418.10636 Ziman, J. (2003). Technological innovation as an evolutionary process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 03 Dec, 2024 Read the published version in Journal of Evolutionary Economics → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 21 Jun, 2024 Reviews received at journal 21 Jun, 2024 Reviews received at journal 04 May, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Mar, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Mar, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 06 Mar, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 06 Mar, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Feb, 2024 First submitted to journal 28 Feb, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3996089","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":275380877,"identity":"00df577d-c51f-4581-8693-ef43d52e482e","order_by":0,"name":"Jiyong Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Seoul National University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jiyong","middleName":"","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":275380878,"identity":"f34dd6f7-4b71-4b72-929c-68b4a386bc60","order_by":1,"name":"Jungsub Yoon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Science and Technology Policy Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jungsub","middleName":"","lastName":"Yoon","suffix":""},{"id":275380879,"identity":"91936469-9ac3-401e-8a1a-4f544c85d595","order_by":2,"name":"Jeong-Dong Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Seoul National University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jeong-Dong","middleName":"","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-28 08:33:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996089/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996089/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2","type":"published","date":"2024-12-03T15:57:13+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":52025578,"identity":"20d02b76-a302-4c23-957e-0f52c0fbf842","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-05 15:48:29","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":217935,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEvolution of rifle technology in the context of key military conflicts.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3996089/v1/82d5d90a2083703d274d5cd5.png"},{"id":52025575,"identity":"af16ac94-bf65-4cc0-8a9b-eca2d876848f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-05 15:48:29","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":365830,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExperimental framework for identifying technological speciation events.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3996089/v1/3d54a834f9871762389f1f0d.png"},{"id":52025580,"identity":"3728f144-5478-40eb-a88a-eca8190d9d9a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-05 15:48:29","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":414813,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethod for calculating the technological speciation degree (TSD).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3996089/v1/2d78ab3b6c1be5c6829d7573.png"},{"id":52025581,"identity":"2ecc125e-071d-49fe-ae88-02cae43bfdde","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-05 15:48:29","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":21318291,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePhylogenetic tree of rifles highlighting the primary lineage and technological speciation process.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3996089/v1/5fe936d96eb68aec7af5bd74.png"},{"id":52025579,"identity":"b6703816-5dbc-4730-ba2f-2cf2d59b6e10","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-05 15:48:29","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":987996,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVariations in TSD across the primary lineage.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3996089/v1/d7b0b49062ccc93890c505e8.png"},{"id":70966676,"identity":"e78ba5c5-7f47-46d0-8fe4-85f6603be2f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-09 16:26:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":29024573,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3996089/v1/1033be8c-b133-45ea-94cb-82748260ec07.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Technological Speciation : Navigating New Needs through Trial and Error – A Rifle Case Study","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn an era marked by increasing technological uncertainty, accurately identifying and utilizing the emergence of new markets in response to evolving demands is crucial (Andriani \u0026amp; Cattani \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Baldwin \u0026amp; Von Hippel \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Cattani \u0026amp; Malerba \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Malhotra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The emergence of such markets fundamentally requires technological discontinuities (Anderson \u0026amp; Tushman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Tushman \u0026amp; Anderson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), which arise from the accumulation of continuous and incremental technological innovations (Bergek et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Previous research efforts to understand technological discontinuity have focused on identifying emerging technologies and analyzing patterns of technological emergence. Among these endeavors, technological speciation has been highlighted as a critical concept (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Carignani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Moehrle \u0026amp; Caferoglu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), addressing the adaptation of existing technologies to new application domains spurred by emerging needs (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). This concept suggests that new technologies do not emerge in an abrupt manner; instead, they evolve through a continuous adaptive process to fulfill new needs, underlining the importance of various attempts and failures within this process. These studies aim to elucidate the process of new technology emergence, offering strategic insights for decision-makers targeting new market opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore technological discontinuity through the lens of technological speciation, numerous studies have undertaken case analyses focusing on specific technologies (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Carignani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Cattani \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Garnsey et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Mokyr \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). These analyses provide in-depth insights into the adaptive process by which technologies evolve, considering the multifaceted factors influencing technology emergence. However, the difficulty in generalizing from case studies and the potential for subjective interpretation have led researchers to supplement these analyses with quantitative methods. Frenken and Nuvolari (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) posited that demand diversity drives technological speciation, employing simulations to measure entropy as evidence. Similarly, Moehrle and Caferoglu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) introduced a model based on bi-gram learning from technology patents to predict the application fields where speciation is likely to occur, offering a more objective perspective on the phenomena of technological speciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough previous studies have utilized quantitative models to validate the occurrence of technological speciation, they have not adequately addressed how technological emergence transitions from existing to new technologies in novel environments, spurred by the rise of new needs. This gap leaves unanswered the critical question often explored in qualitative research: how does technological speciation manifest? Given that speciation is seen as a branching phenomenon within the evolutionary relationship between antecedents and descendants, these studies struggled to comprehensively explain the speciation process by considering each technology in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo bridge this gap, the present study aims to clarify the mechanism of technological speciation through an evolutionary framework that supports the quantitative evaluation of this phenomenon. It adopts a methodology based on the similarity between antecedent and descendant technologies, noting a significant decrease in similarity as new technologies emerge through the evolutionary process. By tracking numerical changes at critical junctures where technological mutations occur, this approach seeks to chart the course of technological speciation from these mutations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study analyzed 585 rifles manufactured between 1840 and 2000. The defense industry, particularly through the lens of weapons development, provides a robust framework for identifying needs via doctrine, making rifles an ideal candidate for studying the interplay between needs and technology due to their long history and diversity (Shafer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, doctrinal shifts, especially following major conflicts, offer a unique opportunity to investigate technological speciation by analyzing rifles developed before and after such paradigmatic changes. This examination within the warfare context aims to uncover strategic insights into technological emergence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structure of this study is organized as follows: Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e revisits the concept of technological speciation and related literature, highlighting their importance and shortcomings. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e elaborates on the definition and theoretical background of the indicators used, detailing their components and calculation methods. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the empirical analysis that elucidates the process of technological speciation using these indicators. Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec14\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e examines the distinctive features of the technological speciation process and how it diverges from prior studies. Section 6 summarizes the study's main findings and their implications, concluding with a reflection on the significance of researching technological speciation and suggesting future avenues for indicator refinement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Technological speciation as an evolutionary process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological speciation elucidates the phenomenon of discontinuous technological change, wherein novel technologies supplant existing ones (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), delineating the adaptation of current technologies to new application domains in response to evolving needs. This process engenders the evolution of existing technologies into new forms, fostering distinct evolutionary paths or technological trajectories guided by the novel selection criteria of the application domain (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Carignani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Cattani \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Garnsey et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Moehrle \u0026amp; Caferoglu \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The abundance of resources in these new domains catalyzes diverse and swift transformations, culminating in the emergence of technologies that manifest as rapid and radical shifts, emblematic of discontinuous change (Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvestigations into the causes and patterns of technological speciation, as outlined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, have predominantly utilized case-centered qualitative analyses. These investigations contend that the abrupt advent of new technologies does not merely forge new markets by displacing extant technologies; instead, it entails a continuous adaptive process whereby existing technologies evolve to meet the demands of the new market as novel needs surface. However, the reliance on qualitative methods, with their focus on the evolution of specific technologies, introduces a degree of subjective interpretation by researchers, presenting challenges in generalizing outcomes. To surmount these limitations, quantitative research methodologies have been integrated alongside qualitative approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview of recent technology speciation research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch objective\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytic Approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMokyr (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA pattern of technological change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTelegraphy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Theoretical study)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevinthal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA process of technology speciation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWireless communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Case study)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdner and Levinthal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatterns of technology speciation and its implication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWireless communications\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026amp; CAT scanner\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Case study)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrenken and Nuvolari (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe impact of diversity on technological speciation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSteam Engine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Entropy analysis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattani (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtending the concept of technological speciation to firms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFiber-optics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Case study)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGarnsey et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying spin-off\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003einnovation to technology speciation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Case study)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarignani et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn emergence process of technology based on the \"Woesian perspective\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJet-engine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Case study)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoehrle and Caferoglu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA proposal of Technological speciation prediction method\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCamera\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Semantic patent analysis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrenken and Nuvolari (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) advanced a theoretical framework for understanding technological speciation through simulation, adopting an evolutionary perspective akin to that of genetic evolution. Their analysis incorporated shifts in entropy and measures of information interdependence based on technological characteristic data, illuminating the foundational causes of technological speciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on earlier research by Frenken et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), which investigated industry niches and characteristics using established entropy methods, this study enhances the discourse through simulations based on the NK-model, showcasing speciation propelled by new demands. However, it stops short of delving into the continuous adaptive process inherent in speciation. Another pivotal quantitative analysis by Moehrle and Caferoglu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) introduced a predictive framework for technological speciation, utilizing patent data and similarity analysis to anticipate changes in application fields. While this research offers forecasts based on an understanding of technological speciation as influenced by shifts in application domains, it falls short in explicating how new technologies evolve from pre-existing ones. In essence, while both studies contribute data-driven quantitative methodologies informed by the concept of technological speciation, they lack comprehensive insights into the detailed patterns of technological evolution previously addressed through qualitative inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo thoroughly explore technological speciation, it is crucial to elucidate the adaptation of existing technologies to new application domains. This necessitates an examination of the emergence of new technologies from an evolutionary standpoint, acknowledging the profound impact of antecedent technologies on their successors. Moreover, the selection of research subjects that facilitate the observation of the interplay between markets and technologies is imperative. Consequently, this study proposes to develop an analytical methodology centered on products as the intermediaries between markets and technologies. Embracing a product-focused approach yields profound insights into the complex dynamics between technology and market forces.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, this investigation endeavors to introduce a product-centric evolutionary analysis methodology that can quantitatively assess the speciation patterns of technology previously delineated through qualitative research, with a particular emphasis on Levinthal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) as a foundational reference. By applying this methodology, we aim to corroborate the patterns of technological speciation highlighted in prior studies through the lens of evolutionary trajectories observable in actual product markets. Additionally, this approach seeks to extract strategic insights into the emergence of new technologies, framed within the context of technological speciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe process of technological speciation unfolds through distinct stages, starting with the identification of new needs that herald the creation of a new application domain, thereby stimulating the demand for innovative technologies (Levinthal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). In response, various technologies surface to address these emerging needs, characterized by an adaptive process that fosters interaction between markets and producers, with products serving as the medium of this interaction (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Christensen \u0026amp; Rosenbloom \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). At this stage, suppliers prioritize responding to evolving market needs over the exploration of technological potential, favoring the application of existing technologies (exaptation) to the invention of new ones (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Dosi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e; Mowery \u0026amp; Rosenberg \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inherent uncertainty and lack of information pose challenges for producers in predicting the market's selection criteria accurately (Adner \u0026amp; Levinthal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Mokyr \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Ziman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, producers venture into a broad exploration of alternatives within the realm of all conceivable variations, navigating their perceived space of possibilities (Ziman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This exploration may involve utilizing existing technologies as-is or innovating through the recombination of existing knowledge. Amid significant influences from existing technologies, producers weigh various alternative approaches (Arthur \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Basalla \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Coombs \u0026amp; Hull \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Meyer \u0026amp; Schubert \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Mowery \u0026amp; Rosenberg \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; Rosenberg \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Rycroft \u0026amp; Kash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Ziman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpon the market release of a product, producers garner direct feedback from consumers (Coombs \u0026amp; Hull \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Fleck \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), which serves to refine and clarify previously ambiguous market needs, thereby significantly influencing suppliers' future strategic directions (Ziman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Through this iterative adaptation process, technologies develop a path dependence, guiding the evolution of new technologies. Ultimately, this leads to the emergence of a new technological species, characterized by designs that are aligned with market needs, while maintaining a connection to their evolutionary lineage (David \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Garnsey et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Meyer \u0026amp; Schubert \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Rycroft \u0026amp; Kash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis methodology elucidates a systematic approach to distinguishing between technological species by examining product similarities. Products evolving in a technologically congruent manner, strongly influenced by their antecedents and demonstrating path dependence, are categorized within a single species. In contrast, products that significantly deviate from their antecedent influences and establish new categories upon branching are recognized as a distinct species. Through such analysis of technological similarities among products, the phenomenon of technological speciation can be understood more clearly. The proposed approach not only corroborates the mechanisms of technological speciation outlined in prior studies but also highlights the underlying principles of technological emergence characteristic of this process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 History of speciation of rifles\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA historical examination of rifles shows three principal technological species indicatives of distinct eras. Up to the mid-19th century, muskets were prevalent. The early 20th century saw the ascendancy of bolt-action rifles in the firearms industry, which were subsequently superseded by automatic rifles from the mid-20th century onward (McNab \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Westwood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). These transitions between technological species often aligned with the evolving doctrinal needs during warfare periods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the 19th century, European military doctrine favored linear infantry tactics, promoting concentrated fire from organized formations, primarily employing muskets. This strategy enhanced firing efficacy but compromised mobility. The Battle of Jena-Auerstedt in 1806, where Prussian forces encountered Napoleon's artillery-supported infantry, underscored the superiority of tactics that prioritized mobility, as exemplified by the French. This doctrinal shift underscored the emerging requirement for infantry tactics that combined firing efficacy with mobility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response, 1841 witnessed the introduction of the Dreyse rifle, equipped with a bolt-action mechanism facilitating both \u0026ldquo;fire and maneuver.\u0026rdquo; This innovation proliferated across Europe, and by World War I (1914\u0026ndash;1918), when such tactics had become widespread, bolt-action rifles had entirely supplanted muskets (Ford \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Zabecki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), illustrating a clear evolution in military technology reflective of changing doctrinal needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century, alongside the mass production of firearms, reserve forces were organized, emphasizing shooting and mobility. This era underscored the doctrinal need for smaller forces to effectively confront larger ones. Denmark, following its defeat in the Second Schleswig War against Germany in 1864, sought doctrinal innovation, particularly a new rifle design that could offer advantages in close combat. This demand catalyzed the development of early models of automatic rifles, marking a significant shift in military technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorld War I significantly emphasized the criticality of close combat, with battles frequently transpiring within the confines of trenches, revealing the limitations of slow-firing bolt-action rifles. The necessity for automatic rifles grew (Holmes \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), a demand further underscored by World War II (1939\u0026ndash;1945), as urban warfare and close-quarter battles became more common. The Vietnam War (1964\u0026ndash;1972) saw extensive use of automatic rifles, demonstrating their superiority and leading to the obsolescence of bolt-action rifles (Pauly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis evolutionary trajectory, illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, was predominantly driven by doctrinal shifts stemming from warfare, propelling the development of new technologies supported by national interests. This progression exemplifies technological speciation, where new technologies emerge within application domains characterized by new needs and abundant resources, serving as new selection criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study introduces the technological speciation degree (TSD), utilizing actual product data to validate an index for analyzing patterns of technological speciation and to elucidate the technological evolutionary characteristics observed throughout this process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Overall process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analytical framework of this study, shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, begins with the collection of product data comprising technological characteristics, from which a phylogenetic tree is constructed. Subsequently, all lineages are delineated from this tree, identifying the Primary lineage that most accurately represents the evolutionary phenomenon. The TSD of products within this Primary lineage is then calculated to discern patterns of technological speciation, offering insights into the continuous adaptation and evolution of technologies in response to shifting doctrinal needs and warfare strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the assessment of the TSD for studying technological speciation, selecting pertinent data is fundamental. The data must accurately reflect shifts in needs and application domains, ensuring that the technological attributes of chosen products are thoroughly documented. Additionally, it is vital to choose product categories that have witnessed technological advancements over time due to sustained development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRifles, as a product category, fulfill these criteria and are deemed appropriate for the quantitative analysis of technological speciation. Weapons such as rifles provide insights into evolving needs through military doctrines, facilitating the analysis of need changes via extensive doctrinal documentation. This framework enables the examination of how new technologies arise with the formation of new application domains (Blasko \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Holley Jr. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Kim et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pauly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Smith \u0026amp; Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, rifles, relative to other weaponry, boast a vast and varied array of specimens, with comprehensive data over an extended timeframe being meticulously preserved. The historical exploration of rifles across various studies spanning over a century renders them an exemplary subject for research, where the interplay between demand and technological development is distinctly evident (Shafer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, this study's quantitative analysis utilizes rifle data primarily from Westwood (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), complemented by information from Jane's Defense Data Service (JDDS) and Walter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) to fill in any data gaps. This compilation resulted in a dataset encompassing 585 rifle data points. The technological traits of the rifles within this dataset are succinctly encapsulated, as illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnological attributes of rifles detailed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuous\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCal_mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCaliber(mm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCart_mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCartridge length(mm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL_mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLength(mm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFolded_L_mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFolded Length(mm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarL_mm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBarrel Length(mm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eW_kg\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeight(kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReleased year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMV_ms\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMuzzle Velocity(m/s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGr_n\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo. of grooves\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategorical\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName of rifle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBullpup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBullpup design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperating Mechanism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetailed_OM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetailed Operating Mechanism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeeding System\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManufacturing Country\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research specifically focuses on rifles introduced post-1841, a pivotal year marking the advent of key modern rifle features such as rifling and specialized ammunition. Data collection commenced with the introduction of the first bolt-action rifle, the Dreyse rifle, in 1841 (Westwood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), providing a comprehensive foundation for analyzing the evolution of rifle technology and its diversification over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Extracting phylogenetic trees for lineage extraction.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo quantify the degree of path dependence for a product, it is essential to elucidate ancestor-offspring relationships. This is achieved by constructing a phylogenetic tree based on product similarities, which delineates the evolutionary trajectory of a given product.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conceptualization of a product phylogenetic tree draws parallels between products and biological organisms, facilitating the identification of ancestral and descendant relationships. This approach allows for a detailed analysis of the technological evolution process and its patterns (Basalla \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Baum \u0026amp; Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Jeong \u0026amp; Lee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Khanafiah \u0026amp; Situngkir \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Valverde \u0026amp; Sol\u0026eacute; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Utilizing an algorithm-based phylogenetic tree visualization method, as proposed by Lee et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), this study meticulously extracted rifle lineages. In the phylogenetic tree diagram, nodes symbolize individual products (rifles), while edges denote the ancestor-offspring relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between antecedent and descendant products is discerned through their technical attributes. A product \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{i,t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e introduced at time t is represented as a vector of its various technical characteristics \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({x}_{j}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. To standardize the diverse units of measurement, continuous variables underwent normalization to a scale ranging from 0 to 1 via minimum-maximum scaling.\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}{Z}_{i,t}=\\left\\{{x}_{j} is a distinct technical characteristic in {Z}_{i,t}\\right\\}.\\#\\left(1\\right)\\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis vector representation of product attributes enables the quantitative assessment of similarity. Considering that a product typically encompasses a mix of continuous and categorical variables, the Gower similarity metric, founded on the Gower distance, was utilized for these calculations (Gower \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e). The Gower similarity (S) is computed as follows: For a categorical variable, the similarity between product \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{1,t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e from period t and \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{2,t+n}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e from period t\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;n is assigned a value of 1 if the technical characteristic \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({x}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e matches, and 0 if it does not. For continuous variables \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({x}_{j}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, the absolute difference between the normalized variables is deducted from 1, transforming the distance metric into a similarity score. These scores across all variables are aggregated and averaged by the total number of variables defining the product, yielding an overall similarity score:\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}{S}_{{x}_{i}, categorical feature}\\left({Z}_{1,t}, {Z}_{2,t+n}\\right)=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{c}1, if {x}_{i,{Z}_{1}}= {x}_{i,{Z}_{2}}\\\\ 0, if {x}_{i{,Z}_{1}}\\ne {x}_{i{,Z}_{2}}\\end{array}\\right..\\#\\left(2\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equc\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equc\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}{S}_{ {x}_{j}, continuous feature}\\left({Z}_{1,t}, {Z}_{2,t+n}\\right)=1-\\left|{x}_{j,{Z}_{1,t}}- {x}_{j,{Z}_{2,t+n}}\\right|.\\#\\left(3\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equd\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equd\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}{S}_{Gower similarity}\\left({Z}_{1,t}, {Z}_{2,t+n}\\right)=\\frac{\\sum {S}_{{x}_{i}, categorical features}+\\sum {S}_{ {x}_{j}, continuous features}}{N\\left(Number of total features\\right)}.\\#\\left(4\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis systematic procedure is applied to all products, culminating in the construction of an adjacency matrix that captures the similarities between them. Following the creation of this similarity matrix, each product \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({ Z}_{i,{t}_{i}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eis linked to the product introduced prior that exhibits the highest similarity, thereby designating it as its antecedent.\u003cdiv id=\"Eque\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Eque\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}{Antecedent Z}_{j,{t}_{j}} of descendant{ Z}_{i,{t}_{i}}=argmax\\left(S\\left({Z}_{j,{t}_{j}}, {Z}_{i, {t}_{i}}\\right)\\right) , i \\ne j and {{ t}_{i}\u0026gt;t}_{j}\\#\\left(5\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis methodology embraces the features of technological evolution, suggesting that each technology traces its origins to an antecedent within its search domain (Ziman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). By repetitively applying this process, each product identifies its direct predecessor, thereby establishing a lineage (L) that maps its evolutionary journey back to a shared ancestor.\u003cdiv id=\"Equf\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equf\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}L\\left({Z}_{i}\\right)=\\left\\{for \\forall {Z}_{j}, {Z}_{j} are antecedents of {Z}_{i}, from origin {to Z}_{i}\\right\\}.\\#\\left(6\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUpon applying these operational definitions, distinct evolutionary patterns emerge for each lineage. However, to address the aim of this study\u0026mdash;which is to dissect the process of technological speciation\u0026mdash;focusing on a singular primary lineage that accurately represents the broad evolutionary phenomena became essential. To this end, the study adopts betweenness centrality as a metric to assess the centrality of each product within the network. Betweenness centrality quantifies the proportion of all shortest paths between pairs of nodes that pass through a specific node, as encapsulated in the formula provided:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\begin{array}{c}Betweenness Centrality\\left(v\\right)={C}_{B}\\left(v\\right)= \\sum _{s\\ne v\\ne t}\\frac{{\\sigma }_{st}\\left(v\\right)}{{\\sigma }_{st}}.\\#\\left(7\\right) \\end{array}\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003e* s, v, t are all different nodes in a network\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this formula, the betweenness centrality of a node v, denoted \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({C}_{B}\\left(v\\right),\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is the sum of the fraction of all shortest paths from node s to node t that pass through node v, where \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\sigma }_{st}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e​ is the total number of shortest paths from node \u003cem\u003es\u003c/em\u003e to node \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\sigma }_{st}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e(\u003cem\u003ev\u003c/em\u003e) is the number of those paths passing through node \u003cem\u003ev\u003c/em\u003e. Products with high \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({C}_{B}\\left(v\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e values are deemed crucial within their networks, acting as conduits for information flow between nodes (Newman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Veremyev et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These pivotal products, marking significant points of evolutionary branching, delineate the technological evolutionary path within a product group, thus defining the primary lineage as expressed below:\u003cdiv id=\"Equg\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equg\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}Primary lineage= argmax\\left(\\sum _{v\\in lineage}{C}_{B}\\left(v\\right)\\right).\\#\\left(8\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Measurement of Technological Speciation Degree(TSD)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsolating the lineage that encompasses ancestral products enables the quantification of continuity, reflecting the extent of influence exerted by antecedents on a specific product. \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Path-dependency\\left(L\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is conceptualized as the average similarity from a common ancestor to the product under consideration. This average similarity metric serves to evaluate the central tendency within a product's lineage, offering insights into the product's evolutionary trajectory (Lee et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003cdiv id=\"Equh\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equh\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}Path-dependency\\left(L\\right)=P\\left(L\\right)=\\frac{{\\sum }_{i= target product}^{N-1}S\\left({Z}_{i},{Z}_{ancestor of {z}_{i}}\\right)}{{N}_{Lineage}-1} .\\#\\left(9\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the dataset's initial product, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(Path-dependency\\left(L\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e warrants special attention due to the lack of historical data regarding its precursors. If empirical evidence designate this product as the genesis of its species, it is attributed the lowest path-dependency value derived from the primary lineage. Conversely, if not explicitly the origin, the product is assigned the mean path-dependency value from the primary lineage, ensuring a consistent baseline for analysis.\u003cdiv id=\"Equi\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equi\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}P\\left(L\\right) of root= \\left\\{\\begin{array}{c}argmin P\\left(Primary Lineage\\right), if it is the origin of its species\\\\ \\frac{\\sum P\\left(Primary lineage\\right)}{N-1}, otherwise\\end{array}\\right.\\#\\left(10\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn adherence to the defined operational concept of path-dependency, the TSD for a product \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e introduced at time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e is determined by the variance between the TSD of the lineage just before its introduction (t-1) and the TSD at the moment of its introduction. This calculation facilitates a detailed examination of the evolutionary divergence or continuity each product manifests within its lineage.\u003cdiv id=\"Equj\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equj\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\begin{array}{c}Technological Speciation Degree\\left({Z}_{t}\\right)=TSD\\left({Z}_{t}\\right)= P\\left(L\\left({Z}_{t-1}\\right)\\right)- P\\left(L\\left({Z}_{t}\\right)\\right).\\#\\left(11\\right) \\end{array}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf the \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(TSD\\left({Z}_{t}\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e yield a positive outcome, it indicates a diminution in lineage path-dependency relative to the period before the introduction of \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. This scenario suggests a pronounced probability that the newly introduced product will be classified as belonging to a distinct species from its predecessors. Conversely, a negative TSD value signals an augmentation in continuity leading up to the advent of the product in question, denoting a diminished likelihood of speciation. This approach underscores the significance of path-dependency and divergence in understanding the dynamics of technological speciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e exemplifies the practical application of path-dependency and TSD assessments. Path-dependency for product \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{1,t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is determined by calculating the mean similarity across all its antecedents within lineage \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(L\\left({Z}_{1,t}\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. This average similarity serves as an indicator of the trend in path-dependency or coherence within that lineage. Relying solely on the immediate antecedent to measure changes in similarity might not accurately capture the essence of path-dependency. For instance, consider two products, and \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{2,t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, introduced at the same time \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e and depicted as an empty circle and an empty triangle, respectively. Despite showing the same level of similarity to their immediate antecedents, a thorough analysis incorporating the mean similarity from all preceding antecedents within the lineage reveals divergent narratives. Specifically, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({L(Z}_{1,t})\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e exhibits a consistently higher degree of similarity throughout its evolutionary history compared to \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({L(Z}_{2,t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e​), indicating a greater path-dependency for \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({L(Z}_{1,t}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e​).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe TSD metric quantifies fluctuations in path-dependency. A shift towards a new technological species typically indicates a novelty that reduces the product's path-dependency in relation to its predecessors. Within a lineage, a significant decrease in path-dependency with the introduction of a new product suggests a higher likelihood of triggering speciation. The magnitude of this decrease acts as an indicator of the degree of speciation. For example, in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, comparing product \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{3.t+1}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e(represented by a square) with \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({Z}_{4.t+1}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (represented by a diamond) demonstrates that, although both maintain identical similarity levels with their immediate antecedents, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({TSD(Z}_{3.t+1})\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is considerably higher than \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({TSD(Z}_{4.t+1})\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. This indicates that the greater the existing path-dependency in a product, the more significant the impact of a new product's introduction on path-dependency. Consequently, if a product emerges as a new species within a lineage characterized by a well-established design, the change in path-dependency will be more pronounced compared to a lineage without such a design foundation. This pronounced change underscores the extent of speciation, enabling a clearer divergence from an established species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comprehensive methodology outlined can be visually summarized as follows, which is also illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e: Initially, data encompassing the technological attributes of various products is gathered. This data forms the basis for constructing a phylogenetic tree, mapping the products based on their technological lineage. From this tree, multiple lineages are identified, among which the primary lineage that most succinctly captures the evolutionary trends is distinguished. The TSD values for products within this primary lineage are then calculated, enabling the identification of patterns indicative of technological speciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Result","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Derivation of Primary Lineage from Rifle Phylogenetic Tree\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the exploration of technological speciation, the TSD framework was applied to an extensive dataset of rifles. The initial step involved creating a similarity-based phylogenetic tree diagram for rifles, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. This diagram revealed a total of 292 lineages, with each lineage encompassing between 2 to 25 products. A notable observation from the tree, particularly when rifle features were color-coded by their operating mechanism (OM), was the distinct clustering of lineages sharing the same OM color. This pattern highlights the OM's critical role in defining technological species. The transition from bolt-action rifles (blue cluster) to automatic rifles (red cluster) is marked by a specific segment connecting the Fiscal Guard Carbine and the Madsen-Rasmussen 1986 rifle, signifying a crucial point in the speciation process where automatic rifles begin to diverge from their bolt-action predecessors. Post this juncture, most of the descendants trace back to the automatic rifle lineage, indicating a significant evolutionary shift.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ascertain the primary lineage from the identified lineages, the lineage boasting the highest aggregate of betweenness centrality values across its nodes was selected. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e lists six lineages ordered by their descending betweenness centrality values, each labeled by the name of its terminal descendant product. The lineage L(CGAS5-C2), with the paramount betweenness centrality sum, was identified as the primary lineage following the operational criteria. Highlighted in green in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, this lineage acts as the structural core from which all other lineages emanate, succinctly depicting the phylogenetic tree's overall structure. Importantly, it captures the divergence of the automatic rifle segment from bolt-action rifles, rendering it an exemplary lineage for studying the speciation phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLineages ranked by highest betweenness centrality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLineage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetweenness centrality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eL(CGAS5-C2)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.0802277250907388\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL(SR-88-A (C)), L(Zastava M85)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08015747570542092\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL(SCS 70/90)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08009308043554621\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL(Colt C8 (C))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07995550872263203\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL(Stgw 90 (C)), L(B2S(C)), L(AC-556F)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07988818639503573\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eL(Stgw90)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0795691371033837\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Analysis of Technological Speciation Degree in Rifles\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the TSD for products within the primary lineage, as presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, reveals critical insights into the speciation process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTSD\u003c/span\u003e values for products within the primary lineage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eName of products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1841\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM1841 Dreyse needle-gun\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1866\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM1866 Chassepot rifle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.04698\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1869\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM1869 Vetterli rifle of Swiss\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.031184\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1871\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM1871 of Swiss\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1878\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGras M1878 Marine Rifle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.01147\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1882\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1882 Naval Rifle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00707\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1886\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFiscal Guard Carbine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00187\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1896\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMadsen-Rasmussen M1896\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.038627\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1908\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMondragon M1908\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.017765\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1916\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrowning Automatic Rifle\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.002645\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1927\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM1918A1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00926\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1930\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFN M30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00693\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1932\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFN TypeD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00595\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1942\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMkb 42(H)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00334\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1943\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStG44(Sturmgewehr, called MP43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00451\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1949\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAK-47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1950\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAK-S\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.002558\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1960\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAKM-S\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00351\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1965\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRK-62(F)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00304\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1970\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSC 70 Carbine\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00199\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1972\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.62mm AR / MG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00129\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1973\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.56mm SAR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1980\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSG 543(Carbine)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00206\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1989\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVektor R6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.00203\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1993\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCGAS5-C2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.0018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, three distinct segments were identified where TSD values were greater than 0, with a particularly significant observation in the second segment, where a consecutive positive trend was noted over three iterations. These products, highlighted by a lime color in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, signify pivotal moments in the lineage's evolution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dynamic trends of TSD changes are further visualized in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach data point represents a product from the primary lineage, plotted against the year of its release on the horizontal axis and its corresponding speciation degree on the vertical axis. The color coding of lines, indicative of the operational mechanism, serves as a crucial interpretative tool for analyzing speciation events. The analysis delineates three peaks: the first emerges in the nascent phase of bolt-action rifles, the second aligns with the introduction of automatic rifles, and the third occurs during the maturation of automatic rifle development. According to our initial framework, bolt-action rifles experience an additional speciation event following their initial divergence from the Dreyse rifle. In contrast, automatic rifles undergo three sequential speciation processes post their inception from bolt-action rifles, culminating in another distinct speciation occurrence. These speciation events are underscored by the emergence of new needs, further investigated through an examination of the technical attributes and manufacturing contexts of each pivotal product to gain a detailed understanding of the speciation dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Dreyse rifle represents the inaugural speciation from musket rifles (Westwood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), marking the first significant peak. The subsequent peak, associated with the Vetterli rifle, signifies another critical speciation event within the bolt-action rifle mechanism. The development backdrop of the Vetterli rifle during a period of rapid adoption of bolt-action rifles across Europe, with a growing emphasis on fire and maneuver tactics, highlights Switzerland's strategic intent to bolster its military capabilities. As a neutral nation amidst major powers, Switzerland sought to enhance its arsenal with advanced weaponry conducive to fire and maneuver strategies. This doctrinal imperative facilitated the Vetterli rifle's creation in 1869, combining the repeater system from lever-action mechanisms into the bolt-action framework, initially designed for single shots. This innovation, incorporating a magazine for increased ammunition capacity, significantly reduced reloading times, thus augmenting the rate of fire during maneuver and marking a notable advancement in rifle technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe trend analysis of the TSD for bolt-action rifles post-Vetterli introduction reveals a pattern of consistent evolution with TSD values remaining below zero, indicating a steady evolutionary path that maintains similarities with prior designs. Furthermore, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e highlights the Vetterli rifle's pivotal role in lineage longevity. Lineages incorporating the Vetterli rifle exhibit sustained survival and diversification, whereas those diverging earlier demonstrate a trend towards extinction with fewer descendants. This pattern underscores the critical impact of integrating the repeating system into the bolt-action mechanism, solidifying its status as the predominant technology within its lineage through a process of trial and error.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second significant peak in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e marks the speciation of Automatic rifles from bolt-action rifles, characterized by three consecutive technological shifts. The Madsen-Rasmussen M1896 rifle marks the beginning of this speciation phase, introducing a novel recoil mechanism borrowed from machine guns for loading. Despite its innovative approach, the rifle saw limited use due to stability challenges associated with recoil-based loading and the technological inability to implement a fully automatic system, resulting in only semi-automatic loading capabilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubsequently, the Mondragon rifle from Mexico represents the second phase in this evolutionary process. Driven by similar strategic imperatives to Denmark, Mexico aimed to equip its infantry with automatic rifles. Despite technological limitations restricting it to automatic loading (Westwood \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), the Mondragon rifle enhanced stability through a gas-operated mechanism, diverging from the machine gun's operational system. Although the Mondragon rifle did not achieve widespread acclaim, its production and distribution through SIG's subcontracting and sales efforts played a crucial role in disseminating automatic rifles internationally. The transition from bolt-action to automatic rifles, marked by incremental advancements and the resolution of technical challenges, reflects a broader narrative of military technology adapting to evolving doctrinal requirements and battlefield conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe introduction of the browning automatic rifle (B.A.R.) marked the culmination of the technological speciation process, representing the first implementation of a fully automatic firing mechanism in rifles. Developed by the United States in response to the demands of frequent close combat encountered during World War I, the B.A.R. was swiftly incorporated into the battlefield. This innovation extended beyond the existing self-loading technology to facilitate fully automatic firing, setting a new standard for automatic rifles. Despite its weight and cumbersome nature, the B.A.R. served as the archetype for future automatic rifles, integrating automatic reloading and firing in a singular operation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor approximately 50 years following the advent of the B.A.R., the speciation degree consistently registered values below zero, indicating an evolutionary phase characterized by sustained path dependency. Post-B.A.R., the primary lineage exclusively comprised gas-operated fully automatic rifles. As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, lineages that diverged prior to the technological advancements leading to the B.A.R. exhibit a reduced number of descendants and diminished longevity. Conversely, lineages stemming from the B.A.R. demonstrate robust survival, reflecting a process of adaptation through trial and error that culminated in the formation of a distinct technological species tailored to specific operational needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third peak, despite its lower speciation degree relative to earlier speciation, showcases distinct technological advancements. This phase introduced the functionality of folding the buttstock, rendering the firearm more compact and better suited for urban warfare and close-quarters combat. This modification, aimed at enhancing portability and effectiveness in close combat scenarios, signifies another phase of technological speciation that emerged post-World War II, in line with the growing doctrinal focus on close-quarters engagement. Although the scale of this speciation was less pronounced than its predecessors, it nonetheless represents a significant evolutionary shift, driven by the tactical necessity of adapting to close combat situations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe characteristics of the speciation process, as elucidated by the study's findings, include:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eContinuous evolution based on doctrinal shifts: The speciation process unfolds continuously, reflecting adaptations to evolving military doctrines rather than occurring as abrupt, disjointed changes. This gradual evolution underscores the adaptive nature of technological development in response to changing tactical and operational needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvivability and divergence of lineages: Certain lineages that diverge without experiencing adequate continuous evolution tend to have a limited lifespan or leave behind few descendants. This observation not only corroborates the detailed portrayal of the continuous speciation process highlighted in previous qualitative research but also emphasizes the role of trial and error within this evolutionary framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese insights reveal the dynamic interplay between technological innovation and military doctrine, where the demands of warfare drive the evolution of technology through a process of ongoing adaptation and refinement. The speciation process, characterized by both incremental advancements and periods of significant change, reflects the complex relationship between technological capabilities and operational requirements. The study's experimental results thus contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underpinning technological speciation, highlighting the importance of flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation in the evolution of military technologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study introduced a novel quantitative methodology to explore technological speciation, shedding light on the intricate dynamics between market forces and technological innovation. It successfully delineated the critical segments of technological speciation by examining shifts in path dependence throughout the evolution of specific product groups, offering a granular view at the level of individual technologies. The investigation conclusively demonstrated that technological speciation is intricately linked to doctrinal shifts. It revealed how the evolution of selection criteria and a rich environment conducive to experimentation are pivotal drivers of speciation. Furthermore, it was observed that the speciation process often involves the amalgamation of existing technologies, navigating through a landscape marked by trial and error to establish distinct evolutionary paths.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study not only corroborated the concept of technological speciation through quantitative analysis but also highlighted the crucial role of emerging needs as catalysts for novel technological developments within the market. It underscored the necessity of embracing trial and error as an inherent part of fulfilling these emerging needs. Moreover, the study posited that persistent productization and the exploration of technologies, beyond initial endeavors, are essential for inducing meaningful technological transformations, thereby emphasizing a critical strategy for technological advancement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA recurring theme across the identified speciation segments was the advent of new doctrinal needs, precipitating the development of novel technologies and the integration of existing external technologies into new products. Notably, this process did not transpire abruptly but evolved gradually, seeking increasingly apt solutions to meet these emerging needs (Carignani et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This pattern asserts that technological speciation unfolds not as an isolated event but as a continuous evolutionary journey. This process is characterized by a process of adaptation, systematically addressing specific selection criteria through the relentless exploration of existing technologies, facilitated by the collective recognition of common needs among multiple stakeholders. Concurrently, this collective recognition engenders a multitude of trials and errors throughout the speciation process, further enriching the tapestry of technological evolution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, following the initial divergence of bolt-action rifles from musket rifles, lineages incorporating the Vetterli rifle, which introduced a repeating system to more adeptly meet doctrinal needs, demonstrated consistent survival and produced numerous descendants. Conversely, lineages that predated the adoption of the repeating system in the Vetterli rifle either faced extinction or were limited in their proliferation. Similarly, in the context of automatic rifles, lineages emerging after the introduction of the Browning Automatic Rifle within the technological speciation segments showed sustained survival, whereas those before it either became extinct or were markedly fewer. This pattern suggests that within the evolutionary process, driven by trial and error to address changing needs, only a subset of the generated diversity is retained, selected based on practical usage criteria. Additionally, this reveals the inherent costs associated with trial and error. This finding underscores the importance of focusing on the gradual evolutionary process and its interplay with antecedent technologies, rather than solely on the advent of new technologies, to comprehensively understand the emergence of novel technological solutions. Particularly, acknowledging the role of trial and error in this evolutionary trajectory underscores the critical need for a deeper understanding of needs, coupled with a feedback mechanism to ascertain the alignment of technology with those needs through practical application.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes two significant academic insights. First, it elucidates technological speciation through the lens of the evolutionary process's trial and error. Second, it highlights the importance of precisely identifying needs and employing a feedback mechanism to evaluate the suitability of technologies for those needs within the trial and error dynamics of technological evolution (Nelson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Sosna et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Wagner \u0026amp; Rosen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Ziman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this research adopted a novel approach to quantitatively analyze technological speciation. Methodologically, the examination of products facilitated an exploration of the interplay between market demands and technological capabilities, presenting a quantitative framework that is adaptable across various product domains. Specifically, the methodology proposed in this study elucidates technology evolution through the lens of supply and demand interactions, emphasizing the significance of market-released products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe strategic implications derived from this study encompass the following: Analyzing the process of technological speciation offers valuable insights for decision-making in generating new demand and formulating new products grounded in the dynamics of technological emergence. To introduce a technology distinct from current offerings, a thorough understanding of the selection criteria shaped by the needs within the application domain is imperative. This necessitates a process of garnering feedback through market interactions via products and devising solutions that meld with existing technologies to address these needs effectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the adaptation process, which involves refining needs through market engagement, incurs trial and error costs, thus necessitating significant resources\u0026mdash;the latter serving as a critical driver of technological speciation. Given that initial product offerings may not fully capture the market's needs, there is a heightened risk of failure in the early stages. Additionally, the challenge of pinpointing specific needs may lead to product extinction or stunted growth. However, by navigating through trial and error within the market and fostering a lineage of descendants, products can gradually carve out stable technological lineages. This iterative process, while resource-intensive, fosters diversity and sharpens the selection criteria in alignment with market needs. Sustained efforts to cater to these evolving needs pave the way for the continuous emergence of technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchieving this goal necessitates a shift from the pursuit of perfect products at their inception towards a strategy of releasing small-scale products more frequently to gain a deeper understanding of market needs. Proactive exploration of technologies across different lineages and their integration with existing offerings are vital. Importantly, assimilating feedback and technological insights from utilizing diverse technologies can significantly augment the efficacy of technological recombination. Actively facilitating the quest for solutions to more precisely defined needs\u0026mdash;through the frequent recombination of small-scale products informed by past failures\u0026mdash;becomes a cornerstone for fostering technological innovation and speciation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, this study is subject to certain limitations. First, the construction and analysis of the phylogenetic tree are significantly contingent upon the availability, quantity, and quality of product data, demanding considerable effort to secure reliable data. To mitigate the impact of data gaps, the study undertook comprehensive data collection from diverse literature sources, ensuring that the lineage diagram resonated with widely accepted interpretations and consensus. Moreover, while the analysis was confined to rifle data, future endeavors should aim at broadening the research scope to encompass technological speciation phenomena across a variety of products, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. Second, the current methodology presupposes continuity for initial products owing to the absence of historical data on preceding innovations, necessitating inferred continuity for these products based on specific assumptions. To address this, an extensive review of relevant literature was undertaken to ascertain whether the product under consideration indeed marked the inception of speciation. Future research endeavors are imperative to establish objective and compelling continuity metrics, facilitating a more refined and precise analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT).(No.NRF-2022R1A2C1091917)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT).(No.NRF-2022R1A2C1091917)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003eEthical Conduct\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003eThis research does not involve human participants and animals.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;The data and code of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan lang=\"\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdner, R., \u0026amp; Levinthal, D. (2001). Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: implications for product and process innovation. \u003cem\u003eManag. Sci., 47\u003c/em\u003e, 611\u0026ndash;628. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.5.611.10482\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdner, R., \u0026amp; Levinthal, D.A. (2002). The emergence of emerging technologies.\u003cem\u003e Calif. Manag. Rev., 45\u003c/em\u003e, 50\u0026ndash;66. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/41166153\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, P., \u0026amp; Tushman, M.L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. \u003cem\u003eAdmin. Sci. Q., 35\u003c/em\u003e, 604\u0026ndash;633. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2393511\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndriani, P., \u0026amp; Cattani, G. (2022). Functional diversification and exaptation: the emergence of new drug uses in the pharma industry. \u003cem\u003eInd. Corp. Chang.\u003c/em\u003e, 31(5), 1177-1201. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtac023 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArthur, W.B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. \u003cem\u003eEcon. J., 99\u003c/em\u003e, 116\u0026ndash;131. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2234208\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaldwin, C., \u0026amp; Von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation.\u003cem\u003e Org. Sci.,\u003c/em\u003e 22(6), 1399-1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBasalla, G. (1988). \u003cem\u003eThe Evolution of Technology\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaum, D.A., Smith, S. (2013). \u003cem\u003eTree Thinking\u003c/em\u003e. Roberts \u0026amp; Company Publishers, Greenwood Village, Colorado.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBergek, A., Berggren, C., \u0026amp; Magnusson, T. (2011). Creative Accumulation: Integrating New and Established Technologies in Periods of Discontinuous Change. In \u003cem\u003eKnowledge Integration and Innovation: Critical Challenges Facing International Technology-Based Firms\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 246-273). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlasko, D. J. (2011). \u0026lsquo;Technology Determines Tactics\u0026rsquo;: the relationship between technology and doctrine in Chinese military thinking. \u003cem\u003eJ. Strategic Stud.,\u003c/em\u003e 34(3), 355-381. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2011.574979\u003c/u\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarignani, G., Cattani, G., \u0026amp; Zaina, G. (2019). Evolutionary chimeras: a Woesian perspective of radical innovation. \u003cem\u003eInd. Corp. Chang.,\u003c/em\u003e 28(3), 511-528. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty077\u003c/u\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCattani, G. (2006). Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics. \u003cem\u003eInd. Corp. Chang.,\u003c/em\u003e 15(2), 285-318. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtj016.\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCattani, G., \u0026amp; Malerba, F. (2021). Evolutionary approaches to innovation, the firm, and the dynamics of industries. \u003cem\u003eStrat. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e, 6(4), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2021.0141\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristensen, C. M., \u0026amp; Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker\u0026apos;s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. \u003cem\u003eRes. policy\u003c/em\u003e, 24(2), 233-257. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00764-K\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoombs, R., \u0026amp; Hull, R. (1998). Knowledge management practices\u0026apos; and path-dependency in innovation. \u003cem\u003eRes. Policy,\u003c/em\u003e 27(3), 237-253. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00036-5\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavid, P. A. (1997). Path dependence and the quest for historical economics: one more chorus of the ballad of QWERTY, Discussion papers in Economic and Social History no. 20, University of Oxford.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. \u003cem\u003eRes. policy\u003c/em\u003e, 11(3), 147-162. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFleck, J. (2000). The Artefact-Activity Couple: The Co-evolution of Artefacts and Human Skill and Knowledge in Technological Innovation. \u003cem\u003eTech. Innov. Evol. process\u003c/em\u003e, 248-266. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFord, M. (2017). Weapon of choice: small arms and the culture of military innovation. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrenken, K., \u0026amp; Nuvolari, A. (2004). The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory. \u003cem\u003eInd. Corp. chang.\u003c/em\u003e, 13(2), 419-450. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth017\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrenken, K., Saviotti, P. P., \u0026amp; Trommetter, M. (1999). Variety and niche creation in aircraft, helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers. \u003cem\u003eRes. policy\u003c/em\u003e, 28(5), 469-488. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00008-6\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarnsey, E., Lorenzoni, G., \u0026amp; Ferriani, S. (2008). Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-off: The Acorn-ARM story. \u003cem\u003eRes. policy\u003c/em\u003e, 37(2), 210-224. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.006\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. \u003cem\u003eBiometrics,\u003c/em\u003e 857-871. https://doi.org/10.2307/2528823\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolley Jr., I.B. (2004). \u003cem\u003eTechnology and Military Doctrine. Essays on a Challenging Relationship\u003c/em\u003e. Air University Press, Montgomery, Alabama.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolmes, R. (2006). \u003cem\u003eWeapon\u003c/em\u003e. Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeong, D., \u0026amp; Lee, J.-D. (2024). Where and how does a product evolve? Product innovation pattern in product lineage. \u003cem\u003eTechnovation\u003c/em\u003e, 131, 102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.102958\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhanafiah, D., Situngkir, H. (2006). Visualizing the phylomemetic tree. \u003cem\u003eJ. Soc. Complexity\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e 2\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, J., Yoon, J., \u0026amp; Lee, J.-D. (2021). Dominant design and evolution of technological trajectories: the case of tank technology, 1915\u0026ndash;1998. \u003cem\u003eJ. Evol. Econ. 31\u003c/em\u003e, 661\u0026ndash;676. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-020-00697-1\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, H., Jeong, D., \u0026amp; Lee, J.-D. (2023). Drivers of institutional evolution: phylogenetic inertia and ecological pressure. \u003cem\u003eJ. Evol. Econ.\u003c/em\u003e, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-023-00813-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, J.-D., Jeong, D., Jung, E.-Y., Kim, Y., Kim, J., He, Y., \u0026amp; Choi, S. (2022). Mapping the Evolutionary Pattern of Mobile Products: A Phylogenetic Approach, \u003cem\u003eEarly Access. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.\u003c/em\u003e, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3214489\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevinthal, D. A. (1998). The slow pace of rapid technological change: gradualism and punctuation in technological change. \u003cem\u003eInd. Corp. Change. 7\u003c/em\u003e, 217\u0026ndash;247. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/icc/7.2.217\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalhotra, A., Zhang, H., Beuse, M., \u0026amp; Schmidt, T. (2021). How do new use environments influence a technology\u0026apos;s knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of lithium-ion battery technology. \u003cem\u003eRes. policy\u003c/em\u003e, 50(9), 104318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104318\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcNab, C. (2004). \u003cem\u003eThe Great Book of Guns: an Illustrated History of Military, Sporting, and Antique Firearms\u003c/em\u003e. Thunder Bay Press, San Diego, California.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, U., Schubert, C. (2007). Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general understanding of path constitution. The role of agency and institutions in the stabilisation of technological innovations. \u003cem\u003eSci. Technol. Innov. Stud.,\u003c/em\u003e 3, 23\u0026ndash;44. http://dx.doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-978\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoehrle, M.G., \u0026amp; Caferoglu, H. (2019). Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology. \u003cem\u003eTechnol. Forecast\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e Soc. Change, 146\u003c/em\u003e, 776\u0026ndash;784. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.049\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMokyr, J. (1990). Punctuated equilibria and technological progress. \u003cem\u003eAm. Econ. Rev., 80\u003c/em\u003e, 350\u0026ndash;354.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMowery, D., \u0026amp; Rosenberg, N. (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies.\u003cem\u003e Res. policy\u003c/em\u003e, 8(2), 102-153. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(79)90019-2\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNelson, R. R. (2008). Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and error learning. \u003cem\u003eJ. Econ. Behav. Organ\u003c/em\u003e., 67(1), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, M. E. (2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Netw.\u003c/em\u003e, 27(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePauly, R. (2008). Firearms: the life story of a technology. Greenwood Publishing Group. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosenberg, N. (2009). Uncertainty and technological change. In \u003cem\u003eThe economic impact of knowledge\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 17-34). Routledge, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRycroft, R.W., \u0026amp; Kash, D.E. (2002). Path dependence in the innovation of complex technologies. \u003cem\u003eTechnol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 14\u003c/em\u003e, 21\u0026ndash;35. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09537320220125865\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShafer, M. (2023). Rifle theory: Engels and the history of technology. \u003cem\u003ePol. Theor., 51\u003c/em\u003e, 597\u0026ndash;617. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231155277\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, W.H.B., \u0026amp; Smith, J.E. (1973). \u003cem\u003eSmall Arms of the World: a Basic Manual of Small Arms. \u003c/em\u003eStackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, R. N., \u0026amp; Velamuri, S. R. (2010). Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The Naturhouse case. Long range Plan., 43(2-3), 383-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTushman, M. L., \u0026amp; Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative science quarterly, 439-465. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValverde, S., \u0026amp; Sol\u0026eacute;, R.V. (2015). Punctuated equilibrium in the large-scale evolution of programming languages. \u003cem\u003eJ. R. Soc. Interface. 12\u003c/em\u003e, 20150249. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0249\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVeremyev, A., Prokopyev, O. A., \u0026amp; Pasiliao, E. L. (2017). Finding groups with maximum betweenness centrality. \u003cem\u003eOptim. Methods Softw.\u003c/em\u003e, 32(2), 369-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10556788.2016.1167892\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWagner, A., \u0026amp; Rosen, W. (2014). Spaces of the possible: universal Darwinism and the wall between technological and biological innovation. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(97), 20131190. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.1190\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalter, J. (2006). \u003cem\u003eRifles of the World\u003c/em\u003e. Krause Publications, Lola, Wisconsin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestwood, D. (2005). Rifles: an illustrated history of their impact. ABC-CLIO. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZabecki, D.T. (2015). Military developments of World War I, in: Daniel, U., Gatrell, P., Janz, O., Jones, H., Keene, J., Kramer, A., Nasson, B. (Eds.). \u003cem\u003eInternational Encyclopedia of the First World War\u003c/em\u003e. Freie Universit\u0026auml;t Berlin. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15463/ie1418.10636\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZiman, J. (2003). Technological innovation as an evolutionary process. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-evolutionary-economics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jeec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Evolutionary Economics](http://link.springer.com/journal/191)","snPcode":"191","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/191/3","title":"Journal of Evolutionary Economics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Market needs-technology interaction, path dependency, product phylogenetic tree, technological speciation, trial and error","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996089/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996089/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTechnological speciation is a crucial concept for understanding the emergence of new technologies and describes the adaptation of existing technologies adapt to novel application domains in response to emerging needs. Prior research has primarily utilized case-centered qualitative approaches. While some quantitative studies have been conducted, they have not fully captured the complexity of technological speciation, with the methodologies used for observation also falling short. This study aims to enhance previous discussions by rigorously validating the process of technological speciation, focusing on Levinthal (1998) through empirical evidence, and uncovering the managerial strategic implications observable in the speciation process of emerging technologies. This study emphasizes products as intermediaries between markets and technologies, developing indicators based on the similarity between antecedent and descendant technologies, considering the path dependency of technology, and applying these to real product data. It hypothesizes that significant changes at the inception of these indicators mark the beginning of technological speciation. Analysis reveals that new technologies emerge through an adaptive process, systematically addressing needs through trial and error, with shifts in needs serving as the catalyst. This aligns with detailed discussions in existing qualitative studies on the technological speciation process. This study proposes an analytical method for examining technological speciation by exploring the interaction between markets and technologies from an evolutionary perspective, using product data as a mediator. Additionally, the study highlights the importance for companies aiming to enter new markets of accurately identifying new needs, exploring adjacent technologies, and adopting iterative, small-scale productization strategies to navigate the adaptation process effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJEL : O32, O33\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Technological Speciation : Navigating New Needs through Trial and Error – A Rifle Case Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-03-05 15:48:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3996089/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-06-21T09:59:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-06-21T09:04:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-05-04T13:25:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"18a4f999-5ba7-4828-afbc-ae0e9e069bb8","date":"2024-03-08T11:49:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"26abee73-5f0a-400f-9016-b8fd337206ea","date":"2024-03-06T09:41:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-03-06T08:04:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-03-06T07:16:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-02-28T11:59:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Journal of Evolutionary Economics","date":"2024-02-28T07:54:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"journal-of-evolutionary-economics","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jeec","sideBox":"Learn more about [Journal of Evolutionary Economics](http://link.springer.com/journal/191)","snPcode":"191","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/191/3","title":"Journal of Evolutionary Economics","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d06d7afa-5646-46db-8f52-845eeba66d72","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-12-09T16:08:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3996089","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2","journal":{"identity":"journal-of-evolutionary-economics","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Journal of Evolutionary Economics"},"publishedOn":"2024-12-03 15:57:13","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 3rd, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-03-05 15:48:24","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-024-00878-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3996089","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3996089","identity":"rs-3996089","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}