Studying Network Effects In Complex International
Science, Technology and Innovation Partnerships:
A Case Study Of The MIT Portugal Program
Mac Hird
Engineering Systems Division, MIT
Committee:
Dava Newman
Cesar Hidalgo
Sebastian Pfotenhauer
June 24, 2014
1
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…
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
MPP Systems Architecture
Portugal

From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
6
MPP Systems Architecture
Portugal
MPP
MIT

From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
7
MPP Systems Architecture
Portugal
MPP
MIT

From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
8
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?
9
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
10
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
11
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
•
Yearly Number of
Publications
Normalized Yearly Number
of Publications
MPP Average Publications per Researcher/
Control Group Publications per Researcher
Difference between MPP and Control
(Publications per faculty per year)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
MPP Begins
2015
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
MPP Begins
12
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
•
Normalized Yearly Number of
Publications
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1995
-0.2
2000
2005
2010
-0.4
-0.6
MPP Begins
2015
MPP Average Publications per Researcher/
Control Group Average Publications per Researcher
Difference between MPP and Control (Publications
per Researcher per Year)
Effect Size on New and
Experienced Researchers
3
New Researchers
(<4 Years
Publishing in
2006)
2.5
2
1.5
Experienced
Researchers (>15
Years Publishing
in 2006)
1
0.5
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
MPP Begins
13
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
Collaboration Persistence
MPP
Contro
l
Percent of
collaborations in 19952000 that will also
collaborate in 20012006
26.9
21.5
Percent of
collaborations in
2001-2006 that will
also collaborate in
2007-2012
35.5
47.3
2001-2006
2007-2014
14
Effect on Intra-Portugal Networking
• While there has been an increasing trend in Portuguese-Portuguese
connections, MPP has accelerated this trend
New PT-PT Connections in MPP/ New PT-PT
Connections in Control
Normalized New PortugalPortugal Connections per Person
Portugal
MPP
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
MIT
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
MPP Begins
15
Intra-Portugal Networking 2001 - 2006
MPP
Portugal
MIT
16
Intra-Portugal Networking 2007 - 2012
MPP
Portugal
MIT
17
Spillover to broader collaboration network
MPP faculty are not only collaborating with other MPP faculty, but also with
the networks of other MPP faculty
•
Difference between MPP and Control
(% of new connections per year)
Percent of New Connections
through Introduction
No Introduction Introduction
MPP
MPP
Non-MPP
14
Non-MPP
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1995
-2
-4
2000
2005
2010
2015
MPP
MPP
Year
MPP Begins
18
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
19
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
20
Looking at Different
Partnerships Architectures

From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013
21
Thank you
22
Control and MPP Degree Distribution
MPP
Control
23
Control and MPP clustering coefficient
MPP
Control
24
Control and MPP Neighbourhood Connectivity
MPP
Control
25
Control and MPP
26
Control and MPP
27
Control and MPP Network Measures
MPP
Control
Clustering Coefficient
0.831
0.821
Connected Components
51
20
Network Diameter
10
9
Network Radius
1
1
Network Centralization
0.089
0.066
Characteristic Path
Length
4.226
4.175
Avg. Number of
Neighbours
11.160
10.116
Number of Nodes
21815
7710
Network Density
0.001
0.001
Network Heterogeneity
2.187
1.767
Analysis Time (sec)
28035
1139
28
MIT International Collaborations
29
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
Percentatage of New International Collaborations
100%
1600
90%
1400
80%
1200
70%
Percentage
1800
1000
800
600
All Others
Italy
60%
Brazil
50%
France
40%
Spain
30%
400
Germany
20%
200
United Kingdom
10%
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
New Collaborations per Year
New International Collaborations by Year
Year
MPP Begins
0%
199619982000200220042006200820102012
United States
Year
MPP Begins
30
New International Collaborations
New International Collaborations by Year
1800
New Collaborations per Year
1600
1400
United States
1200
United Kingdom
1000
Germany
Spain
800
France
600
Brazil
400
Italy
All Others
200
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
MPP Begins
31
Effect on Intra-Portugal Networking
Percentatage of New International Collaborations
100%
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
All Others
Italy
60%
Brazil
50%
France
40%
Spain
Germany
30%
United Kingdom
20%
United States
10%
0%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
MPP Begins
32