Monday
Communications bibliographies
Chasing some links, I came across Rajiv Shah's extremely comprehensive bibliography of computer-mediated communications. He also has links to other bibliographies (on internet economics, internet culture, cmc and more) here.
40 meters or 4'000 kilometers apart - how much does it matter?
Thomas J. Allen, Architecture and communication among product development engineers, Engineering Management Society, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
One of the articles on collaboration, distance and technology that is most often recommended to me is Thomas Allen's 'Architecture and communication among product engineers'. It is most famous for its finding that people separated by more than a certain distance (40m is usually cited), are far less likely to work together than people whose workspaces are closer to each other.
Probability of communication
Allen finds a dramatic decrease even within the first 50m of separation.
Plotting ... results produces a curve that to no one's surprise shows probability of communication declining with distance. ... Communication probability declines to asymptotic level within the first 50 meters of separation.
Organizational affiliation modifies the effect. The decrease in communication is still found, but
the existence of a departmental relationship adds to communication probability by a constant amount, which is independent of distance. Project relationships produce a similar, but usually stronger, effect. This is due to the interdependence of project activities and the strong need for technical communication [for coordination].
Allen goes on to identify a more comprehensive set of influences.
So the probability that a pair of scientists or engineers will engage in frequent technical communication is a function of the degree to which they share a common base of knowledge; the rate at which that knowledge base is developing' the size of their organizational unit; the degree of interdependence in their work and the distance between their workstations.
Effect of telecommunications
When we had engineers report telephone and electronic mail as well as face-to-face communications, we found that, following a 'near field' rise the use of all media decayed with distance. ... One reason for the pattern observed in our data is that all of these media, as well as the written medium, are correlated in their use. We communicate with nearly the same people through all of these media. ... The more often we see someone face-to-face, the more likely that we will telephone that person or communicate by another medium.
Allen also observes qualitative differences between various media of communications. He cites a study by Hauptman (Allen & Hauptman, 1989) that shows that the telephone was used for less complex communication. Face-to-face was used for more complex information.
Many things, particularly technical ideas and problems, are difficult to communicate verbally. We need the assistance of diagrams or sketches. In addition, we often need the feedback that often comes from looking into the other person's eyes. The eyes communicate understanding. ... Similarly, in describing an idea or technical problem to someone, you can tell whether they are following you. If the indication is negative, you are prompted to restate the information in a different way. This feedback is invaluable in guiding communication.
Needless to say, it is strongest in face-to-face communication and weaker when speaking on the phone. The use of letters or e-mail not only reduces the possibilities for this kind of feedback, but also delays it.
3 types of communication
Allen uses a typology of communication to organize his work:
Type I communication is used to coordinate work.
Type II is necessary when the knowledge base of work changes rapidly (keeping up to date).
Type III is used for creative work.
While the article only touches in parts on the differences in communication behavior by type of communication, this would certainly be an avenue to explore further.
One of the articles on collaboration, distance and technology that is most often recommended to me is Thomas Allen's 'Architecture and communication among product engineers'. It is most famous for its finding that people separated by more than a certain distance (40m is usually cited), are far less likely to work together than people whose workspaces are closer to each other.
Probability of communication
Allen finds a dramatic decrease even within the first 50m of separation.
Plotting ... results produces a curve that to no one's surprise shows probability of communication declining with distance. ... Communication probability declines to asymptotic level within the first 50 meters of separation.
Organizational affiliation modifies the effect. The decrease in communication is still found, but
the existence of a departmental relationship adds to communication probability by a constant amount, which is independent of distance. Project relationships produce a similar, but usually stronger, effect. This is due to the interdependence of project activities and the strong need for technical communication [for coordination].
Allen goes on to identify a more comprehensive set of influences.
So the probability that a pair of scientists or engineers will engage in frequent technical communication is a function of the degree to which they share a common base of knowledge; the rate at which that knowledge base is developing' the size of their organizational unit; the degree of interdependence in their work and the distance between their workstations.
Effect of telecommunications
When we had engineers report telephone and electronic mail as well as face-to-face communications, we found that, following a 'near field' rise the use of all media decayed with distance. ... One reason for the pattern observed in our data is that all of these media, as well as the written medium, are correlated in their use. We communicate with nearly the same people through all of these media. ... The more often we see someone face-to-face, the more likely that we will telephone that person or communicate by another medium.
Allen also observes qualitative differences between various media of communications. He cites a study by Hauptman (Allen & Hauptman, 1989) that shows that the telephone was used for less complex communication. Face-to-face was used for more complex information.
Many things, particularly technical ideas and problems, are difficult to communicate verbally. We need the assistance of diagrams or sketches. In addition, we often need the feedback that often comes from looking into the other person's eyes. The eyes communicate understanding. ... Similarly, in describing an idea or technical problem to someone, you can tell whether they are following you. If the indication is negative, you are prompted to restate the information in a different way. This feedback is invaluable in guiding communication.
Needless to say, it is strongest in face-to-face communication and weaker when speaking on the phone. The use of letters or e-mail not only reduces the possibilities for this kind of feedback, but also delays it.
3 types of communication
Allen uses a typology of communication to organize his work:
Type I communication is used to coordinate work.
Type II is necessary when the knowledge base of work changes rapidly (keeping up to date).
Type III is used for creative work.
While the article only touches in parts on the differences in communication behavior by type of communication, this would certainly be an avenue to explore further.
Thursday
The role of Bangalore's returnees
Migration of highly skilled Indian: Case studies of IT and health professionals, STI Working Paper 2004/6, Binod Khadria
Currently, there is a sense that foreign investment into R&D in India is closely linked to Indians who were educated and/or worked abroad and are returning home (returnees). Key positions are often filled with returnees or expatriates, and many team leaders and individual investigators are also returnees. Understanding the importance and role of returnees is essential to assessing the growth potential of India as a destination for R&D investment.
Unfortunately, research on this phenomenon is sparse. One of the few sources I have found is Binod Khadria's recent case study IT professionals for the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.
The study is based on 45 interviews with IT professionals (only 4 of whom have PhDs) who returned to India after a stint abroad. Unfortunately, that rules out statistical significance in the study. Also, no mention is made of respondents' current occupation. Nevertheless the case study points to some useful ideas.
To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the study was the fact that over a third of respondents had stayed in their host country for less than 2 years. Also, almost half of the respondents said that their employer was the motivating factor for their trip abroad. Although Khadria doesn't provide cross-tables, I expect that these two categories are highly correlated. Khadria does mention that "projects" are an important factor in out-migration.
The question is whether someone who was sent by an India-based employer to the US on a limited project is a returnee in the same sense as someone who emigrated to the US and worked or completed their studies there independently. I would expect that the two experiences were quite different, and that the second group had greater exposure to US culture and networks. Upon their return they might play similar roles in terms of "socializing" their colleagues into global business practices, but their role in providing access to US/global clients, professional networks etc. would probably be much more limited.
On the other hand, these categories may just be an artefact of different generations' experiences. 20 years ago, most emigrants would have left India to settle elsewhere for good. Today, there are more opportunities for people to move in and out of the country, pursuing more fluid careers (a point made by Rupa Chanda).
More results
Difficulties/problems after returning from abroad: culture of professionalism
When asked about the difficulties and problems in adjusting to the present working conditions in Bangalore, as many as 32 respondents explicitly exressed that they did not face any major hurdle in adjusting to their present working organisational climate. The background of respondents and their earlier exposure to India and its culture helped them a lot in adjusting back in Bangalore after their return from abroad. [...] 13 respondents mentioned some problems [...] The major adjustment problems faced by them were caused due to the lethargic administrative procedures, inefficient handling of the day-to-day professional concerns, relatively unhealthy business ethics, poor research facilities (especially in academics) and poor work culture.
Value of overseas experience: socialization, absorptive capacity, prestige
When reacting to the question, 'which of the following do you consider the most important to your current work/business in Bangalore', thirty-seven respondents accepted that the 'knowledge and skills gained overseas through higher education and on-the-job training' is highly useful for their current jobs in Bangalore. Two-thirds of the respondents expressed that the opportunity to work abroad helped equip themselves with the recent and most appropriate technologies. Only nine respondents recognised the 'role of professional networks established overseas' in their current jobs in Bangalore. The asserted that these networks helped them in providing information on several professional issues like technology, management, outsourcing, etc. Only three respondents recognised the importance of '(financial) capital accumulated overseas' in their current occupation in Bangalore.
All the respondents except one acknoledged the 'contribution of skills, experience, knowledge and ideas' which they have gained while working abroad, in their present employment/business in Bangalore. A majority of them have elaborated that their experience helps them a lot while interacting with the clients, technological innovations and coping with the rapid technological changes, improving management practices, and, above all, confidence building. Respondents from the academic world considered that it is the exposure to different work cultures and a sound academic base, which is of paramount importance and very useful in their current positions. [...] it has been expressed by almost all the respondents that their experiences abroad are well recognised and valued by their employers and by their colleagues as well. The receive more attention from their superiors and colleagues, who 'listen to them carefully on important matters'.
Currently, there is a sense that foreign investment into R&D in India is closely linked to Indians who were educated and/or worked abroad and are returning home (returnees). Key positions are often filled with returnees or expatriates, and many team leaders and individual investigators are also returnees. Understanding the importance and role of returnees is essential to assessing the growth potential of India as a destination for R&D investment.
Unfortunately, research on this phenomenon is sparse. One of the few sources I have found is Binod Khadria's recent case study IT professionals for the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.
The study is based on 45 interviews with IT professionals (only 4 of whom have PhDs) who returned to India after a stint abroad. Unfortunately, that rules out statistical significance in the study. Also, no mention is made of respondents' current occupation. Nevertheless the case study points to some useful ideas.
To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the study was the fact that over a third of respondents had stayed in their host country for less than 2 years. Also, almost half of the respondents said that their employer was the motivating factor for their trip abroad. Although Khadria doesn't provide cross-tables, I expect that these two categories are highly correlated. Khadria does mention that "projects" are an important factor in out-migration.
The question is whether someone who was sent by an India-based employer to the US on a limited project is a returnee in the same sense as someone who emigrated to the US and worked or completed their studies there independently. I would expect that the two experiences were quite different, and that the second group had greater exposure to US culture and networks. Upon their return they might play similar roles in terms of "socializing" their colleagues into global business practices, but their role in providing access to US/global clients, professional networks etc. would probably be much more limited.
On the other hand, these categories may just be an artefact of different generations' experiences. 20 years ago, most emigrants would have left India to settle elsewhere for good. Today, there are more opportunities for people to move in and out of the country, pursuing more fluid careers (a point made by Rupa Chanda).
More results
Difficulties/problems after returning from abroad: culture of professionalism
When asked about the difficulties and problems in adjusting to the present working conditions in Bangalore, as many as 32 respondents explicitly exressed that they did not face any major hurdle in adjusting to their present working organisational climate. The background of respondents and their earlier exposure to India and its culture helped them a lot in adjusting back in Bangalore after their return from abroad. [...] 13 respondents mentioned some problems [...] The major adjustment problems faced by them were caused due to the lethargic administrative procedures, inefficient handling of the day-to-day professional concerns, relatively unhealthy business ethics, poor research facilities (especially in academics) and poor work culture.
Value of overseas experience: socialization, absorptive capacity, prestige
When reacting to the question, 'which of the following do you consider the most important to your current work/business in Bangalore', thirty-seven respondents accepted that the 'knowledge and skills gained overseas through higher education and on-the-job training' is highly useful for their current jobs in Bangalore. Two-thirds of the respondents expressed that the opportunity to work abroad helped equip themselves with the recent and most appropriate technologies. Only nine respondents recognised the 'role of professional networks established overseas' in their current jobs in Bangalore. The asserted that these networks helped them in providing information on several professional issues like technology, management, outsourcing, etc. Only three respondents recognised the importance of '(financial) capital accumulated overseas' in their current occupation in Bangalore.
All the respondents except one acknoledged the 'contribution of skills, experience, knowledge and ideas' which they have gained while working abroad, in their present employment/business in Bangalore. A majority of them have elaborated that their experience helps them a lot while interacting with the clients, technological innovations and coping with the rapid technological changes, improving management practices, and, above all, confidence building. Respondents from the academic world considered that it is the exposure to different work cultures and a sound academic base, which is of paramount importance and very useful in their current positions. [...] it has been expressed by almost all the respondents that their experiences abroad are well recognised and valued by their employers and by their colleagues as well. The receive more attention from their superiors and colleagues, who 'listen to them carefully on important matters'.
Wednesday
China breaks into top 10 patent filers
One of the few areas where developing countries do tend to have reliable R&D statistics is patent numbers. And these have made news recently. Here's SciDev.Net's report:
China is, for the first time, among the top ten countries filing international patents with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
WIPO announced on 3 February that China last year filed 2,452 patents with its Patent Cooperation Treaty, which allows inventors to use a single registration to seek patents in many countries simultaneously.
This is a 44 per cent increase on 2004, and means China has overtaken Australia, Canada and Italy to become the tenth biggest user of the treaty, adopted in 2000.
Since joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2001, there has been mounting pressure on Chinese companies to file international patents, says Sun Guorui, a professor of intellectual property at Beihang University in Beijing.
He says that this, together with China's rapid growth in research and development, could explain the increase in international patents reported by WIPO.
China is the world's largest producer of DVD players, and under WTO rules has agreed to pay royalties worth 23 billion yuan (US$2.9 billion) to the holders of relevant international patents — such as Dutch multinational Philips Electronics and Japan's Sony.
"These fees for DVDs and other products have forced Chinese businesses to be more conscious of the importance of international patent filing," says Sun.
In 2005, the total number of patents filed with WIPO's Patent Cooperation Treaty exceeded 134,000, representing a 9.4 per cent increase over 2004.
The number of patents filed by developing countries grew by 20 per cent between 2004 and 2005, and now represent 6.7 per cent of the total.
Leading this growth are China (with 2,452 patents in 2005), India (648), South Africa (336), Brazil (283) and Mexico (136).
China's State Intellectual Property Office says it received more than 476,000 patent applications in 2005, an increase of nearly 35 per cent over 2004.
Resources on India's patents are:
- The website of the patent office
- Patent search
- Patent facilitating centre
- Summary of TRIPS-related changes with sources
More generally: The OECD's patents page with useful links.
China is, for the first time, among the top ten countries filing international patents with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
WIPO announced on 3 February that China last year filed 2,452 patents with its Patent Cooperation Treaty, which allows inventors to use a single registration to seek patents in many countries simultaneously.
This is a 44 per cent increase on 2004, and means China has overtaken Australia, Canada and Italy to become the tenth biggest user of the treaty, adopted in 2000.
Since joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2001, there has been mounting pressure on Chinese companies to file international patents, says Sun Guorui, a professor of intellectual property at Beihang University in Beijing.
He says that this, together with China's rapid growth in research and development, could explain the increase in international patents reported by WIPO.
China is the world's largest producer of DVD players, and under WTO rules has agreed to pay royalties worth 23 billion yuan (US$2.9 billion) to the holders of relevant international patents — such as Dutch multinational Philips Electronics and Japan's Sony.
"These fees for DVDs and other products have forced Chinese businesses to be more conscious of the importance of international patent filing," says Sun.
In 2005, the total number of patents filed with WIPO's Patent Cooperation Treaty exceeded 134,000, representing a 9.4 per cent increase over 2004.
The number of patents filed by developing countries grew by 20 per cent between 2004 and 2005, and now represent 6.7 per cent of the total.
Leading this growth are China (with 2,452 patents in 2005), India (648), South Africa (336), Brazil (283) and Mexico (136).
China's State Intellectual Property Office says it received more than 476,000 patent applications in 2005, an increase of nearly 35 per cent over 2004.
Resources on India's patents are:
- The website of the patent office
- Patent search
- Patent facilitating centre
- Summary of TRIPS-related changes with sources
More generally: The OECD's patents page with useful links.
Tuesday
R&D in China and India: Great image, few reliable numbers
I’ve been working on a round-up of Indian and Chinese R&D statistics. The first thing that caught my attention was that (foreign) R&D in China seemed to be getting much more scholarly attention than Indian R&D.
A quick Google search provides some backup for this hunch. Searching Google Scholar for <India “R&D”> returns 21’600 hits. A search for <China “R&D”> returns 32’200 hits. Of course, there may be all kinds of junk in those hits, but a factor of 1.5 does show some difference. Another back of the envelope technique I used was to search for India and China in the journal “R&D management.” Searching for India returned 30 citations; searching for China returned 44. (Again, this needs to be taken cautiously since most of the differential is due to a special issue on R&D management in China).
On the other hand, in regular (business) news, the two countries are about even. The same Google searches as above in Google News returned 1’130 hits for India and 1’110 for China today.
Further searching showed that it’s quite difficult to put together a rough and ready overview of R&D statistics for India from the comfort of your desk. Few numbers are available online, and various databases contradict each other. (For example, the reported number of engineering and technology doctorates awarded in 1989 varies from 238 to 586, depending on the source.) The most useful numbers (for an outside investor) are provided by the software industry association, NASSCOM – and even these are meager and purely industry focused.
China, on the other hand, publishes a handy bunch of figures on the website of the Ministry of Science and Technology. Of course, Chinese government statistics are notoriously unreliable; but at least they appear to publish a uniform set of numbers and provide easy access to them.
The point here is less one of scholarly research than of marketing. India and China are competing for foreign R&D dollars (and spillovers). To do this, they need to demonstrate the availability of research talent. Conversations I have had, suggest that neither country is building its R&D strength on available resources. In both countries (though more so in China), proximity to a huge customer base is an important reason for firms to conduct R&D there. Lower costs also help. Both benefit from the West’s realization that India and China have very large college-educated populations.
However, “college-educated” does not equal “research-trained.” Several MNC labs have found that only a handful of elite schools provide the same kind of research training as they expect from researchers elsewhere in the world. As I heard time and again, development talent is plentiful; the research talent pool is very small.
Given a less than ideal labor pool, how do Bangalore and Beijing achieve their status of Asia’s R&D hubs? How can they expect to outperform Japan in terms of research?
China’s strategy has apparently been to muscle its way into the field by requiring foreign firms to set up labs if they wish to get permits for their low-cost factories – and by investing heavily in state-of-the-art infrastructure.
Bangalore seems to be benefiting from a halo effect: As the go-to spot for software development it becomes a natural location for IT research as well. In both countries, the case has also been made that returnees play a crucial role. As more interesting jobs open up (e.g. team leader in an R&D lab), more highly qualified emigrants find it worth their while to return home. Of course, more opportunities and market demand will eventually also have an effect on research training – whether in universities or in industry.
In the end, excellence in a field may translate into R&D prowess. And an image as an R&D hub may help sustain the current boom long enough for an adequate talent pool to develop. Until we have reliable numbers, though, nobody will be able to tell for sure.
A quick Google search provides some backup for this hunch. Searching Google Scholar for <India “R&D”> returns 21’600 hits. A search for <China “R&D”> returns 32’200 hits. Of course, there may be all kinds of junk in those hits, but a factor of 1.5 does show some difference. Another back of the envelope technique I used was to search for India and China in the journal “R&D management.” Searching for India returned 30 citations; searching for China returned 44. (Again, this needs to be taken cautiously since most of the differential is due to a special issue on R&D management in China).
On the other hand, in regular (business) news, the two countries are about even. The same Google searches as above in Google News returned 1’130 hits for India and 1’110 for China today.
Further searching showed that it’s quite difficult to put together a rough and ready overview of R&D statistics for India from the comfort of your desk. Few numbers are available online, and various databases contradict each other. (For example, the reported number of engineering and technology doctorates awarded in 1989 varies from 238 to 586, depending on the source.) The most useful numbers (for an outside investor) are provided by the software industry association, NASSCOM – and even these are meager and purely industry focused.
China, on the other hand, publishes a handy bunch of figures on the website of the Ministry of Science and Technology. Of course, Chinese government statistics are notoriously unreliable; but at least they appear to publish a uniform set of numbers and provide easy access to them.
The point here is less one of scholarly research than of marketing. India and China are competing for foreign R&D dollars (and spillovers). To do this, they need to demonstrate the availability of research talent. Conversations I have had, suggest that neither country is building its R&D strength on available resources. In both countries (though more so in China), proximity to a huge customer base is an important reason for firms to conduct R&D there. Lower costs also help. Both benefit from the West’s realization that India and China have very large college-educated populations.
However, “college-educated” does not equal “research-trained.” Several MNC labs have found that only a handful of elite schools provide the same kind of research training as they expect from researchers elsewhere in the world. As I heard time and again, development talent is plentiful; the research talent pool is very small.
Given a less than ideal labor pool, how do Bangalore and Beijing achieve their status of Asia’s R&D hubs? How can they expect to outperform Japan in terms of research?
China’s strategy has apparently been to muscle its way into the field by requiring foreign firms to set up labs if they wish to get permits for their low-cost factories – and by investing heavily in state-of-the-art infrastructure.
Bangalore seems to be benefiting from a halo effect: As the go-to spot for software development it becomes a natural location for IT research as well. In both countries, the case has also been made that returnees play a crucial role. As more interesting jobs open up (e.g. team leader in an R&D lab), more highly qualified emigrants find it worth their while to return home. Of course, more opportunities and market demand will eventually also have an effect on research training – whether in universities or in industry.
In the end, excellence in a field may translate into R&D prowess. And an image as an R&D hub may help sustain the current boom long enough for an adequate talent pool to develop. Until we have reliable numbers, though, nobody will be able to tell for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
