Temporary colocation and collaborative discovery: Who confers at conferences

• Author: Richard B. Freeman,Sen Chai
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3062
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Published date: 01 December 2019

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Temporary colocation and collaborative discovery:

Who confers at conferences

Sen Chai

1

| Richard B. Freeman

2

1

Management Department, ESSEC

Business School, Cergy-Pontoise, France

2

Department of Economics, Harvard

University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Correspondence

Sen Chai, Management Department,

ESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pontoise,

France.

Email: chai@essec.edu

Funding information

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; European

Commission; Chemical Heritage

Foundation

Abstract

Research Summary:The flow of knowledge is closely

linked to proximity. While extensive works show that

long-term geographic proximity affects work behavior, lit-

tle is known about the effect of short-term colocation, such

as conferences. Using participant data at Gordon Research

Conferences, we estimate difference-in-differences and

instrumental variable models, which show that attendees

who have no prior within-conference collaborations are

more likely to collaborate with other attendees, and that

the researchers who have worked previously with other

attendees are more likely to continue their collaborations.

We also find that researchers who are junior, are located

closer to the conference venue, and have established prior

ties to the conference draw more collaborative benefits

from temporary colocation across organizations. Thus,

going to a conference alters the creation of collaborations.

Managerial Summary:Managers face important deci-

sions with long-term strategic ramifications regarding

where to locate offices, plants, and R&D centers, as well

as how to lay out workspaces inside the firm to enhance

knowledge spillover and collaboration. Permanent prox-

imity, however, may be difficult and sometimes impossi-

ble to attain. One potential way of overcoming the

distance disadvantage in knowledge spillover and tie for-

mation is through temporary colocation events that bring

together individuals from distant locations in an environ-

Received: 2 February 2018 Revised: 28 May 2019 Accepted: 14 June 2019 Published on: 5 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/smj.3062

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

© 2019 The Authors. Strategic Management Journal published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2138 Strat Mgmt J. 2019;40:2138–2164.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/smj

ment of temporary proximity. We find that individuals who

attend temporary colocation events across organizational

boundaries are more likely to collaborate with one another

subsequently. Hence, managers of firms should pledge sub-

stantial funds for employees to participate in these events

so as to impact the subsequent direction of R&D activities.

KEYWORDS

conferences, distant ties, knowledge co-creation, temporary colocation

1|INTRODUCTION

Geographic proximity has been shown to reduce the costs of meeting and interacting with others,

and therefore to enhance the flow of information and the formation of collaborative ties. This has

been found to be true in various research traditions and levels of analysis. Regional studies on

agglomeration find substantial knowledge transfer among firms located near one another (Jaffe,

Trajtenberg, & Henderson, 1993; Thompson & Fox-Kean, 2005), as well as between firms and

nearby universities (Anselin, Varga, & Acs, 1997; Jaffe, 1989; Sohn, 2019). Management chooses

firm location in part to tap into the knowledge stock from clusters of regional spillover (Alcacer &

Chung, 2007; Chung & Alcacer, 2002). Within firms, information diffuses better than across firms

because organizational boundaries act as a physical barrier that hinders the transmission of ideas

between them (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Consequently, setups such as headquarters (Kleinbaum &

Stuart, 2014), company towns (Agrawal, Cockburn, & Rosell, 2010), and corporate campuses

(Becker, Sims, & Schoss, 2003) facilitate contact and interactions between organizational members.

At the microlevel, within buildings, the layout of offices (Allen, 1977; Oldham & Brass, 1979) and

laboratories (Catalini, 2018) can influence the level of interaction among members. Hence, managers

face important decisions with long-term strategic ramifications (Ghemawat, 1991) regarding where

to locate firms, plants, and R&D centers, as well as how to lay out workspaces inside the firm to

enhance knowledge spillover and collaboration.

Permanent proximity, however, may be difficult and sometimes impossible to attain due to loss of

productivity and prohibitive costs associated with moving, as well as the lack of available space. One

potentially important way of overcoming the distance disadvantage in knowledge spillover and tie for-

mation is through temporary colocation events that bring together individuals from distant locations in

an environment of temporary proximity. Examples of temporary colocation events abound. Within

firms, mixers (Ingram & Morris, 2007), informal activities (Liu, Srivastava, & Stuart, 2015), site visits,

and rotational programs are organized to allow colleagues from different locations to become familiar

with one another (Hinds & Cramton, 2013). Locate a lunchroom (Sommer, 1959), a photocopier

(Fayard & Weeks, 2007), or other forums (Chown & Liu, 2015) between two work groups, and the

interactions that ensue may lead to information spread and collaborative projects stemming from ad

hoc exchanges around the proverbial water cooler. Similarly, in academic institutions, research events

(Boudreau, Ganguli,Gaule, Guinan, & Lakhani, 2017) and semiformal structures that meet temporarily

(Biancani, McFarland, & Dahlander, 2014) also facilitate interactions and collaborations.

However, most of this research on temporary colocation has been limited to studying individuals

in the same organization located within a small physical radius. Although examples of temporary

CHAI AND FREEMAN 2139