The Effects of Physical Location on Communication Patterns (Continued)

May 5, 2007

Some Obvious Points

P(C)

DistanceS1S2S3

<S2 S1p2 p1<

p3 p1>

<S3 S1

p1p2

p3

A Typical Grouping of Offices Around a Secretarial Area.

Same Area Converted to the 'Cave and Commons' Concept.

Office Configuration to Vary Privacy and Accessibility.

Exterior WallWith Window

Floor to

CeilingPanels

High PanelsSliding Glass Panels

Combining Physical & OrganizationalBarriers & Bonds

The Effects and Organizational Separation as Measured in One Organization

DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTSAND PROJECTS

SAMEDEPARTMENT

DIFFERENT PROJECTS

SAME PROJECT DIFFERENT

DEPARTMENTS

SAMEDEPARTMENT AND PROJECT

SAME WING 0.16 0.69 0.71 0.95

SAME FLOORDIFFERENT

WINGS

0.05 0.53 0.80 ___

SAME BUILDING DIFFERENT

FLOORS

0.05 0.60 ___ ___

SAME SITE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS

0.02 0.35 0.33 0.50

DIFFERENT SITES

0.002 0.15 0.23 0.38

Two Departments in Separate Locations

LOCATION I LOCATION II

A

B CBB

CAA

CAB

The Effect of Transferring Staff Between Locations

LOCATION I LOCATION II

Aa

Bb

CBB

CAACaB

CAa

CAb Cab

CAB

CbB

Cbb

Caa

Moving Staff Between Sites to Increase Interdepartmental Communication

(Examples from Laboratories ‘H’ & ‘I’)

0.60.650.7

0.750.8

0.850.9

0.951

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

Proportional Increase in Interdepartmental Communication

Prop

ortio

nal D

ecre

ase

in

Intr

adep

artm

enta

l C

omm

unic

atio

n 10%

20%

30%

40%50%

Proportion Moved

10%

20%

30%

40% 50%

Lab 'I'Lab 'H'

Moving Staff Between Buildings to Increase Interdepartmental Communication(An Example from Laboratory ‘H’)

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1 1.5 2 2.5

Proportional Increase in InterdepartmentalCommunication

Prop

ortio

nal D

ecre

ase

inIn

trad

epar

tmen

tal

Com

mun

icat

ion 10%

20%

30%

40% 50%

Proportion Moved

Moving Staff Between Floors of a Building to Increase Interdepartmental Communication

(An Example from Laboratory ‘I’)

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5

Proportional Increase in InterdepartmentalCommunication

Prop

ortio

nal D

ecre

ase

inIn

trad

epar

tmen

tal

Com

mun

icat

ion 10%

20%

30%

40% 50%

Proportion Moved

Communication Within a Biotech Cluster

The Cambridge/Boston Biotechnology Cluster

• An extensive literature has developed in recent years arguing for the benefits of firms sharing a common technology to cluster geographically.– Aids in attracting specialized staff.– May attract venture capital, suppliers, support services, etc.

• Claims have also been made for the synergistic benefits of firms sharing scientific knowledge, especially if there are university laboratories near the cluster.

• Prior studies have inferred inter-firm communication from the evidence of co-publishing and co-patenting across firms, however, a good amount of scientific exchange may occur that does not appear in such publicly accessible records – No one has ever actually measured whether less formal scientific

exchange across firms really occurs, to what degree what the actual dynamics look like and what the results are.

Earlier Research

• As discussed earlier, we developed a method for measuring the structure of scientific communication networks within firms.

• Why not adapt that method for the study of scientific communication among firms and other organizations.

Experimental and Control Groups

• Geographic limits of the cluster are defined in terms of location within a limited set of postal (Zip) code regions.

• Scientists reporting from similar Biotech firms outside of the postal code regions of the main study but within 100 km of Boston.– Comparative density of communication– Connections between the two groups– Connections with the universities and with local

‘Big Pharma’ companies.

Communication in The Biotech Cluster

Length of connecting links is inverselyproportional to the amount of communication reported.

74 102

194

5658 57118

84 35 87 40 70137

41 175 16017264 5 213 20 124

52 90 68 4338 155

209205 143 134 106

179 120 116 16344

49 4248 101117 210 132

92 182

187

453 1 131190 18 4

200 69 2 10482

199 19

192

50

Figure by MIT OCW.

________

A Super Cluster?

87

41

74

194

102

56 5758

40

175

70

160

15590

137

1244368

106163116

42132

182

101

187

48

209

134205

92

117 210

44

213

118

35

64 5

84

172

38 5220

143120179

49

192199

1903 1 131 18

26920019

410482

45

50

Figure by MIT OCW.

Inside The Super Cluster

21048

10

44120

134

209

15590

4

10482

2

18

69

3

200

4520

19

17949

14322192

199

190

52

213175

1 131

Figure by MIT OCW.

Where are the Universities?

Universities

21048

10

44120

134

209

15590

4

10482

2

18

69

3

200

4520

19

17949

14322192

199

190

52

213175

1 131

= University

Figure by MIT OCW.

What About ‘Big Pharma’?

The Major Pharmaceutical Firms

• A number of ‘Big Pharma’ companies have located R&D operations in the region.– Their purpose, obviously is to tap into the

network.• Search to license candidates for their new

product pipeline.• Search for potential acquisitions.

– Are they successful in joining the network?

Where is ‘Big Bio’?

Large Bio Firms

• Some of the Biotech firms have grown quite large.–How do they fit into the network

now?

‘Big Bio’

44 199

13469190 155120

4

104

45

19 22

213

200 131 3 2

2051 11

20

2

Figure by MIT OCW.

Where To From Here?

• What more can we learn?– Analyses of the network to relate network position to firm

performance.• Comparison between cluster ‘members’ and firms in the

control group.• Long term growth.

– Size, valuation, etc.• Patent filings• Investigatory New Drug Applications• Etc.

– Follow-up interviews to flesh out the network results.– Advice to the many geographic regions attempting to stimulate

the growth of similar Biotech clusters.

• Is this the new model for doing R&D?– How do individual firms capture the gains?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mean Distance From Other Organizations (Miles)

Leve

l of C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith O

ther

Org

aniz

atio

ns

Where are the Universities?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mean Distance From Other Organizations (Miles)

Leve

l of C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith O

ther

Org

aniz

atio

ns

Where is Big Pharma?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mean Distance From Other Organizations (Miles)

Leve

l of C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith O

ther

Org

aniz

atio

ns

Where is Big Pharma?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Mean Distance From Other Organizations (Miles)

Leve

l of C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith O

ther

Org

aniz

atio

ns

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4 6 8 10 12 14

Mean Distance From Other Organizations (Miles)

Leve

l of C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith

Oth

er O

rgan

izat

ions

OtherUniversitiesBig PharmaBig Bio

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

4 9 14 19 24 29 34

Mean Distance From Other Organizations (Miles)

Leve

l of C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ithO

ther

Org

aniz

atio

ns

OtherUniversitiesBig PharmaBig Bio