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