Mac Hird Engineering Systems Division, MIT
description
Transcript of Mac Hird Engineering Systems Division, MIT
Studying Network Effects In Complex International Science, Technology and
Innovation Partnerships: A Case Study Of The MIT Portugal Program
Mac HirdEngineering Systems Division, MIT
Committee:Dava NewmanCesar Hidalgo
Sebastian Pfotenhauer
June 24, 20141
2
Complex International STI Partnerships: A booming phenomenon
• Governments are increasingly utilizing international partnerships to build STI capacity
• Focus: Universities• Student exchanges, joint research projects, dual degrees, or
branch campuses…
• New complex forms of partnerships emerging, that go beyond previous efforts:• Portugal: International Partnership Program
• MIT, CMU, UT Austin, Harvard, Fraunhofer• Singapore: CREATE Campus, SUTD
• MIT, Cambridge, ETH, TU Munich,…• Middle East
• Masdar, KAUST…
3
Government Rationales for International University Partnerships
• Transition to innovation and knowledge-based economies
• Universities are key: Simultaneously address…• Human research development• Research• Technology development, innovation, entrepreneurship, tech
transfer• Institution-building, cultural change…
• International linkages are key:• Integration into knowledge networks (“globalizing learning
economy”)• Research networks increase productivity• Global competition: adoption/adaptation of international
best-practices• International visibility & branding: attract best and brightest• Support Institutional and Cultural Change
4
Why Study these Collaborations?
• New policy instrument• Pool expertise from external organization to build
domestic capacity• They are a new type of “tech transfer”• Transferring organizational and scientific practices
rather than physical technology• Large investments of capital
• Understudied: primarily practitioner-driven
• Broader lessons for collaborative/open innovation and economic development
5
Pilot Case study: MIT Portugal Program (MPP)
• Multi-pronged international partnership between 6 PT universities and MIT• Collaborative research in four focus areas • 7 inter-institutional graduate programs• Collaborative innovation and entrepreneurship activities• Phase 1 (2006-12), Phase 2 (2013-17)
• 4 main objectives (among others) :• Encourage PT universities to work closer together (MIT as
incentive/”glue”) to build critical mass• Encourage Portuguese collaboration with MIT• High-impact research• Increase PT visibility and attractiveness
6
MPP Systems Architecture
From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
Portugal
7
MPP Systems Architecture
From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
MIT
MPP
Portugal
8
MPP Systems Architecture
From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
MIT
MPP
Portugal
9
Research Question
• How do the collaboration networks of researchers change through the adoption of the MIT Portugal Program?• Has the collaboration network developed as policymakers
have expected?
• Future Questions: • How does the impact of CISTIPs compare across fields,
institutions, and countries?• How do collaboration networks and network dynamics
reflect partnership architectures?• How does this fit into national policy trajectories?
10
Data Sources
• Researcher-centric Collaboration Network• 297 MPP-Participating Faculty• Articles, Conference Proceedings, Books, and Book
Chapters in• ISI Web of Science• Scopus (by Elsevier)
• Focus on 1996 – 2014
11
Control Group
• 100 Non-MPP Portuguese Researchers• 4 universities (IST, Porto, Minho and Coimbra)• Select non-MPP faculty in Chemical Engineering and
Mechanical Engineering• Similar in age and pre-2006 number of publications• Not involved in the CMU or UT Austin collaborations in
Portugal
12
199419961998200020022004200620082010201220140
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Normalized Yearly Number
of Publications
MPP
Ave
rage
Pub
licat
ions
per
Res
earc
her/
Cont
rol G
roup
Pub
licat
ions
per
Res
earc
her
Confirming expectations: Portugal on the rise
• Nearly 20% increase in the number of publications per faculty above the control group for those participating in MPP
MPP Begins MPP Begins199419961998200020022004200620082010201220140
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Yearly Number of Pub-lications
Diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
MPP
and
Con
trol
(Pu
b-lic
atio
ns p
er f
acul
ty p
er y
ear)
13
MPP Begins
19961998200020022004200620082010201220140
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Normalized Yearly Number of Publications
New Researchers (<4 Years Pub-lishing in 2006)
Experienced Researchers (>15 Years Pub-lishing in 2006)
MPP
Ave
rage
Pub
licat
ions
per
Res
earc
her/
Co
ntro
l Gro
up A
vera
ge P
ublic
atio
ns p
er
Rese
arch
er
MPP Begins
1996199820002002200420062008201020122014
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Effect Size on New and Experienced Re-
searchers
Diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
MPP
and
Con
trol
(Pu
b-lic
atio
ns p
er R
esea
rche
r pe
r Ye
ar)
Effect on New and Experienced Researchers• Much larger effect on New Researchers, who are more than
twice as productive on a yearly basis as their control group counterparts
14
Effect on Existing Collaborations
• What happens to a researchers existing network?• Do new connections caused by MPP augment a
researcher’s collaboration network or replace it?• MPP Collaborations replace some existing network connections
2001-2006 2007-2014
Collaboration PersistenceMPP Contro
lPercent of
collaborations in 1995-2000 that will also collaborate in
2001-2006
26.9 21.5
Percent of collaborations in 2001-2006 that
will also collaborate in
2007-2012
35.5 47.3
15
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
0.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
Normalized New Portugal-Portugal Connections per
Person
Year
New
PT-
PT C
onne
ctio
ns in
MPP
/ New
PT-
PT C
onne
ctio
ns in
Con
trol
Effect on Intra-Portugal Networking
• While there has been an increasing trend in Portuguese-Portuguese connections, MPP has accelerated this trend
MPP Begins
MIT
MPP
Portugal
16
Intra-Portugal Networking 2001 - 2006
MIT
MPP Portugal
17
Intra-Portugal Networking 2007 - 2012
MIT
MPP Portugal
18
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014-4-202468
101214
Percent of New Connections through Introduction
YearDiff
eren
ce b
etw
een
MPP
and
Con
trol
(%
of
new
con
nect
ions
per
yea
r)Spillover to broader collaboration network
• MPP faculty are not only collaborating with other MPP faculty, but also with the networks of other MPP faculty
MPP Begins
No Introduction IntroductionMPP
MPPMPP
MPPNon-MPP Non-MPP
19
Conclusions
• The MIT Portugal Program:• Led to more publications with a slightly higher impact
factor• Led to more collaborations, both within Portugal, with
American researchers and with researchers around the world
• Has developed structurally as policymakers have expected
• Develops connections which replace some existing relationships
• Has positive spillovers to non-MPP faculty
20
Future Work
• Statistical Analysis of Network• Include other types of MPP interactions• Informal collaborations, acquaintance networks
• Qualitative Data• To understand why and how particular relationships are formed• Match with systems architecture analysis
• Other international partnerships• Including the other MIT collaborations and others from around
the world• Extend research to non-university partnerships
21
Looking at DifferentPartnerships Architectures
From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
22
Thank you
23
Control and MPP Degree Distribution
MPP Control
24
Control and MPP clustering coefficient
MPP Control
25
Control and MPP Neighbourhood Connectivity
MPP Control
26
Control and MPP
27
Control and MPP
28
Control and MPP Network Measures
MPP ControlClustering Coefficient 0.831 0.821Connected Components 51 20Network Diameter 10 9Network Radius 1 1Network Centralization 0.089 0.066Characteristic Path Length
4.226 4.175
Avg. Number of Neighbours
11.160 10.116
Number of Nodes 21815 7710Network Density 0.001 0.001Network Heterogeneity 2.187 1.767Analysis Time (sec) 28035 1139
29
MIT International Collaborations
30
New International Collaborations• Large initial increase in collaboration between USA and
Portugal due to MPP, but over time the diversity of collaborative connections has increased
• “New International Connection” – First time collaboration between two researchers, even if they are connected elsewhere in the network
MPP Begins
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
New International Collaborations by Year
Year
New
Col
labo
ratio
ns p
er Y
ear
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Percentatage of New International Collab-orations
All OthersItalyBrazilFranceSpainGermanyUnited KingdomUnited States
Year
Perc
enta
ge
MPP Begins
31
New International Collaborations
MPP Begins
1996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220130
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
New International Collaborations by Year
United StatesUnited KingdomGermanySpainFranceBrazilItalyAll Others
Year
New
Col
labo
ratio
ns p
er Y
ear
32
Effect on Intra-Portugal Networking
MPP Begins
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentatage of New International Collaborations
All OthersItalyBrazilFranceSpainGermanyUnited KingdomUnited States
Year
Perc
enta
ge