1. 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

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… 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

6. MPP Systems Architecture  From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013 6 Portugal

7. MPP Systems Architecture  From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013 7 MIT MPP Portugal

8. MPP Systems Architecture  From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013 8 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? 9

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 10

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 11

12. 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 12 MPP Begins

13. 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 13

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 14 2001-20062007-2014 Collaboration Persistence MPPContro l Percent of collaborations in 1995- 2000 that will also collaborate in 2001- 2006 26.921.5 Percent of collaborations in 2001-2006 that will also collaborate in 2007-2012 35.547.3

15. Effect on Intra-Portugal Networking While there has been an increasing trend in Portuguese-Portuguese connections, MPP has accelerated this trend 15 MPP Begins MIT MPP Portugal

16. Intra-Portugal Networking 2001 - 2006 16 MIT MPP Portugal

17. Intra-Portugal Networking 2007 - 2012 17 MIT MPP Portugal

18. Spillover to broader collaboration network MPP faculty are not only collaborating with other MPP faculty, but also with the networks of other MPP faculty 18 MPP Begins No IntroductionIntroduction 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 19

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 20

21. Looking at Different Partnerships Architectures 21  From Pfotenhauer, Roos and Newman, 2013

22. Thank you 22

23. Control and MPP Degree Distribution 23 MPP Control

24. Control and MPP clustering coefficient 24 MPP Control

25. Control and MPP Neighbourhood Connectivity 25 MPP Control

26. Control and MPP 26

27. Control and MPP 27

28. Control and MPP Network Measures 28 MPPControl Clustering Coefficient0.8310.821 Connected Components5120 Network Diameter109 Network Radius11 Network Centralization0.0890.066 Characteristic Path Length 4.2264.175 Avg. Number of Neighbours 11.16010.116 Number of Nodes218157710 Network Density0.001 Network Heterogeneity2.1871.767 Analysis Time (sec)280351139

29. MIT International Collaborations 29

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 30 MPP Begins

31. New International Collaborations 31 MPP Begins

32. Effect on Intra-Portugal Networking 32 MPP Begins