In particular, the study finds that cross-disciplinary and interdepartmental collaboration is fueled by basic face-to-face interaction within shared spaces. “MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSSP) and MIT Lab are called Doctor of Students in Innovation Science and Policy, if you work with someone, then you are more likely to have more conversations “A new paper writer giving details of the findings.

In the study, 40,358 published papers and 2,350 patents have been examined, which are linked to MIT research and have been shown between 2004 and 2014. The study uses network analysis: Researchers mapped a network of MIT colleagues and found that the importance of spatial relations in the premises has been found, above and beyond departmental and institutional structures.
As such, the findings help confirm the importance of proximity on a campus where, through the years, many buildings have indeed been designed to encourage cross-disciplinary research.
Thomas Allen views regarding “Collaboration and Interaction”
Generally, there is a connection between space and collaboration, “said Claude.” That is, you have a better chance of mixing, adding and working together, if you are different. “Still, they It says, “It was an exciting result of searching for documents and patents, and especially for mutual cooperation.” They say, “In many ways, this data really verifies Alan Curve.” This refers to the pioneering work by Thomas Allen, the author of several studies, about Professor Emeritus of MIT Sloan School of Management and Workspace. Allen found that collaboration and interaction decreases in the form of a distance (the way a curve is produced when making a shell on a graph); even the basic conversation between the workers located more than 10 meters is likely to be reduced. Many of Allen’s ideas are in his 1977 book, “Managing the Flow of Technology”.

Claude began researching this topic as part of his master’s thesis, which was a cross-disciplinary self, supported by Sensing City Lab and MIT’s Lab of Innovation Science and Policy. Ratty and Murray also used to work as Supervisors of the Clouded Thesis. A basic motivation for the study of architecture and collaboration, he explains, “how MIT plays it in the campus and to see that in the digital era,” when collaborators can communicate quickly with virtual means whether it’s instant messaging, text, Skype, or email.
The study takes advantage of the fact that many MIT departments and programs are located in many buildings; One result is that many MIT buildings have many academic groups at home. (For example, MIT’s building has 16 departments and programs.) Scattering in some areas of investigation means that the distance between workspace may be affected by how many times researchers in the same areas collaborate with each other we do.
The study examines the published production of 33 departments and programs in MIT, and it shows that the effect of the proximity to the papers compared to the patent is slightly different.
When it comes to co-writing letters, researchers located in the same area of work are more than three times the probability of cooperation compared with the distance of 400 meters. Researchers drop the frequency of cooperation in addition to 800 meters distance.

Patent and proximity
For patents, that curve is a little less vertical than the researchers in the same workspace, there is a possibility of more than two times in comparison to the distance of 400 meters. But the frequency of cooperation is not less quickly, and the number of researchers falls further than 1,600 meters, again in half.
As Claudel interprets the findings, this shows that proximity, even at these middle distances, still has an incremental effect on work that ends up earning patents.
“Physical space seems to be more defining for patent teams, and departmental affiliation seems to be more defining for paper-publishing,” Claudel says.

Cancer research at MIT
The study found that MIT’s Building 76, MIT is the most intra MIT co-author in the Coach Institute for Integrated Cancer Research that is, the highest percentage of total publications which have been written with other institute faculty.
When it comes to patents, the buildings in which faculty had presented more than 100 patents in this period, the highest rate of intra-MIT cooperation (31% and 27% respectively) in Building 32 (State Center) and Building 76.
To a significant degree, it has been done by the design, because it intends to promote interdisciplinary research of both structures. The Center offers faculty in eight departments and programs ranging from computer science to linguistics; the purpose of the Coach Institute was to keep researchers and bioengineering experts in close proximity as there is a way to encourage innovation in cancer-fighting techniques.
MIT has a tradition that is designed with the objectives of it, which starts with its main building and its famous “Anant Corridor”, which connects with various researchers. The former building of MIT 20 was demolished in 1997, which was also famous for providing tubular workspaces, which can be re-imagined from different sets of faculty. Meanwhile the MIT.nano building, still under construction, is also intended to bring diverse groups of researchers together.

Study can be extended
The researchers noted that the current study can be extended in many ways – for example, in other campuses, studying changes in collaborative activities, because the faculty is transferred to a new building or connected to cross-departmental initiatives has happened. In any case, Marcaro explains, “adding an architectural dimension to the field of science,” as the current letter does, it can be a valuable “step towards experimental space-planning policy that supports cooperation within institutions” is.” studying precisely how architecture can enhance innovation is still a work in progress — but a growing body of evidence suggests it truly matters.