Transcript
Page 1: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404

PROJECTMANAGEMENT

Managing collaborative R&D projects development of apractical management tool

T.A. Barnes *, I.R. Pashby 1, A.M. Gibbons

Warwick Manufacturing Group, School of Engineering, The University of Warwick, England, UK

Received 19 November 2004; received in revised form 10 June 2005; accepted 20 March 2006

Abstract

In an environment of globalisation, intense competition and rising R&D costs, collaboration has become an essential means of sus-taining technological growth. However, there are many difficulties inherent in managing projects across organisational boundaries. Whileresearch has identified a range of management ‘‘success’’ factors, little attention has been given to how such knowledge could be appliedin the everyday context of a collaborative project. Based on case studies by the authors involving the automotive and aerospace indus-tries, this paper reports on the development of a management tool designed to provide practical guidance on the effective management ofcollaborative R&D projects.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: University–industry; Collaborative R&D; Success factors; Cultural gap; Partner evaluation; Project management; Good practice model;Management framework/tool

1. Introduction

Against a background of increasing international com-petition and rapid technological change, the UK govern-ment has, since the 1980s, been actively encouragingcollaboration between academia and industry, as a meansof improving innovation efficiency and thereby enhancingwealth creation [1]. However, collaborations between oftendiverse organisations are difficult to manage [2] and the cul-tural differences between academia and industry presentparticular difficulties [3]. Thus, the contrast between anincreasing prevalence of university–industry collaborativeR&D projects and equally prevalent reports of failure,has driven considerable research in the identification ofmanagement ‘‘success’’ factors [3,4].

0263-7863/$30.00 � 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.03.003

* Corresponding author. Address: International Manufacturing Centre(IMC), University of Warwick, Coventry, West Midlands CV4 7AL, UK.Tel.: +44 24 7652 3785.

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.A. Barnes).1 Presently Professor of Manufacturing Processes at Nottingham

University.

However, very little work has been done pertaining tohow this knowledge could be applied in practice, to bringabout improvements in collaboration management. Thispaper reports on the development of a framework for theeffective management of collaborative R&D projects, basedon both this extensive body of knowledge and case studywork. The framework tool is then tested through a furthercase study involving the food and drink industry.

2. The current body of knowledge

It has been suggested that the key to successful collabo-ration lies in the way in which they are managed [5]; a viewwhich is reflected throughout the literature, in the identifi-cation of a wide range of management ‘‘success’’ factors. Areview of published research concerning industry–industry

collaboration revealed a number of ‘‘success’’ factors whichare essentially generic, being applicable across a wide rangeof collaborative formats, e.g. strategic alliances, joint ven-tures, research consortia [4–6] and industry sectors, e.g.,biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, electronics, telecommuni-cations, information technology, automotive engineering,

Page 2: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

396 T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404

aerospace, and oil-exploration [3,5,7]. These ‘‘success’’ fac-tors can be categorised into a series of themes, Fig. 1. Forexample, Fig. 1 shows that the choice of partner themeincludes ‘‘compatibility of culture and mode of operation’’as a success factor. Since incompatibilities between compa-nies often result in misunderstandings, suspicion and con-flict [7]. The theme referred to as universal success factors

differs from the others in that it is less specific, consistingof factors such as flexibility and commitment which areregarded as having an all-pervading influence across all ele-ments and all stages of the life cycle of a collaborativeproject.

By contrast, research concerning university–industry col-laboration has concentrated primarily on the existence andeffects of the so-called ‘‘cultural gap’’ [3]. The factors iden-tified included conflicts over ownership of intellectual prop-erty (IP), academic freedom to publish, and differences ofpriorities, time horizons and areas of research focus. How-ever, aside from the cultural issues, a UK study by Engi-neering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)[8], revealed findings that were similar to those reportedfor industry–industry collaborations, thus indicating thatan overlap existed between (management) factors affectingthe success of industry–industry collaborations and thoseof university–industry collaborations.

This suggests that good practice knowledge from bothfields can be combined into a comprehensive model forthe success of university–industry collaborations. However,this hypothesis needed to be tested. A series of case studieswere therefore conducted in order to identify and classifyfactors found to affect the success of university–industrytechnological collaborations.

Choice of PartnerCompatibility of culture/mode of operationMutual understandingComplementaryexpertise/strengthsPast collaboration partnersHigh quality staffShared vision/strategic importanceComplementary aimsNo hidden agendasCollaborative experience

Project ManagerProject management trainingDiplomacyTrack record & experience incollaborationMulti-functional experience

Project ManagemenClearly defined objecClearly defined respMutually agreed projRealistic aimsAdequate resourcesDefined project milesSimple collaborativeRegular progress moEffective communicaEnsuring collaborato

Ensuring EqualityMutual benefitEquality of power/deEquality of contributi

Monitoring EnvironmMarket needCorporate stability

Fig. 1. Management ‘‘success’’ facto

3. Case study research

Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) has, since itsfoundation in 1980, established a substantial involvementin and a reputation for collaborative research with indus-try. Since the primary focus of this work is on collabora-tive R&D, six collaborative research projects involvingWMG and a number of industrial partners were thereforeselected for study as part of a multiple-case researchdesign.

The study was designed to test the influence that the‘‘success’’ factors identified in the literature had on theoutcome in each case. Five of the six case studies werepart of a large collaborative programme involvingWMG and some 25 companies from the automotiveindustry. These projects were therefore set-up in a verysimilar way, but were each perceived very differently interms of ‘‘success’’ or ‘‘failure’’, making them appropriatesubjects for studying the effects of management ‘‘success’’factors. The sixth case extended the study to the aero-space industry, providing an opportunity to investigatethe influence of the management ‘‘success’’ factors acrosstwo different industries [9].

In each of the cases studied, project participants fromthe collaborating companies, academic researchers, andwhere applicable, any technical staff having direct involve-ment in the projects, were subject to questionnaire-struc-tured interviews. The interview data was supplementedby documentation in the form of minutes of progressmeetings, company records and direct observation of pro-ject progress meetings, in order to ensure adequate trian-gulation of evidence [10].

ttives

onsibilitiesect plan

tones agreementnitoringtionrs deliver

pendencyon

ental Influences

Universal Success FactorsMutual trustCommitment Good personal relationshipsCollaboration championContinuityLearningFlexibilityLeadership

rs identified from the literature.

Page 3: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404 397

3.1. Data analysis

The approach taken in organising and analysing the datawas to group responses pertaining to the same or similarissues into categories, allowing major themes to emergefrom the data collected. This technique proved effective inidentifying the main issues and patterns of similarities anddifferences within and across cases [10,11]. For clarity, theanalysis concentrated on only the most frequently citedissues, which were assumed to be the most significant, Fig. 1.

3.2. Main findings

3.2.1. Identified similaritiesThe study revealed substantial commonality between

management factors found to have an impact on collabo-ration success in the six cases, and the ‘‘success’’ factorsidentified in previous studies of industry–industry techno-logical collaborations, Fig. 2. The findings therefore sup-port the hypothesis that factors found to influence thesuccess of industry–industry collaborations also apply tothe university–industry case. Furthermore, the study alsoprovided evidence of difficulties associated with the acade-mia–industry ‘‘cultural gap’’. It can therefore be con-cluded that while managing the academia–industrycultural gap is important in university–industry collabora-tions, success relies upon a much broader range of man-agement factors.

CleaCleaMutReaAdeDefiRegEffeEnsGoo

Choice of Partner

Market need Corporate stability

Environmental Factors

MCCT

Leadership Differing time prioritiesStaff secondment Publishing in public domainIPR Academic laissez-faire

approachIndustrial lack of flexibility

“Cultural Gap”

Factors Common to Literatu

Compatibility of culture/ Complimentary expertisemode of operation Past collaborative partners Mutual understanding Strategic importanceHigh quality staff Complimentary aims

No hidden agendasCollaborative experience

Fig. 2. Commonality between the literature and

3.2.2. Identified differences

Fig. 2 also incorporates a number of success factorswhich were not found to have been critical to the successof the case study projects (those shown outside the shadedarea). This is to be expected since these success factors wereidentified from a wide range of research into a number ofdifferent types of collaboration. While these management‘‘success’’ factors are essentially generic and all-pervading,certain factors will necessarily prove more critical in sometypes of collaboration than others, as a result of the verydifferent purposes, circumstances and characteristics ofeach type. This work will therefore focus only on factorsrelevant to research collaborations involving universityand industrial partners.

4. A good practice model

Based on the case study research and the literature, thegood practice model presented below (Fig. 3) represents aculmination of the total body of knowledge with respectto collaboration management, with a specific focus onresearch collaborations involving academia and industry.

Fig. 3 also indicates where links exist between the majorthemes or categories of success factors. The researchshowed that the applicability of each category of successfactors changes over the life cycle of a typical collaborativeproject. For example, ‘‘success’’ factors associated withChoice of partner are most applicable at the beginning of

rly defined objectives Simple collaborative agreementr defined responsibilities

ually agreed project planlistic aimsquate resourcesned project milestonesular progress monitoringctive communicationsuring collaborators deliverd project manager

Project Management

Mutual benefit Equality of power/Equality of contribution dependency

Ensuring Equality

utual trust Good personal relationshipsommitment Flexibilityontinuity Collaboration championeamwork Leadership

Learning

Universal Success Factors

re & Case Studies

factors identified from case study research.

Page 4: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

Project ManagementClearly defined objectivesClearly defined responsibilitiesMutually agreed project planRealistic aimsAdequate resourcesDefined project milestonesSimple collaboration agreementRegular progress monitoringEffective communicationEnsuring collaborators deliverEnsuring EqualityMutual benefitEquality of power/dependencyEquality of contributionExternal InfluencesMarket needCorporate stability

Mutual trust Continuity of personnelCommitment Good personal relation/ teamworkFlexibility Collaboration championLearning Leadership

Partner EvaluationCompatibility of culture/mode of operationMutual understandingComplementary expertise/strengthsPast collaboration partnersHigh quality staffStrategic importanceComplementary aimsNo hidden agendasCollaborative experienceProject ManagerProject management trainingDiplomacyTrack record & experience incollaborationMulti-functional experience

Proprietary benefitTechnological innovationContinued support ofresearch programmesPapers publishedPatents/IPRStudent projectsStudent recruitment

“Cultural Gap” IssuesDiffering priorities/timescales Lack of flexibility (industry)Publishing in public domain IPR & confidentialityLack of understanding of business imperatives (academics)

Project Set-up & ExecutionPartner-related Issues

Universal Success Factors

Outcomes

Fig. 3. The good practice model incorporating university–industry cultural factors.

398 T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404

a project, because they influence the formation of thecollaboration ‘‘team’’. Similarly, factors associated withProject Management become applicable during the ‘‘execu-tion’’ stage of the collaboration. University–industry spe-cific factors are also linked into the ‘‘execution’’ stage,reflecting the importance of managing the ‘‘cultural gap’’at this point in the collaboration’s life-cycle. Toward theend of a project, it is essential to assess the outcomes ofthe collaboration, in order to evaluate its relative ‘‘success’’.Therefore, the model includes an ‘‘Outcomes’’ element, toemphasise the need for performance measurement and theevaluation of the outputs.

Finally, the model also reflects the influence of the all-pervading factors of trust and commitment, etc., on a col-laborative project. However, while the management of theuniversal success factors is most critical during the ‘‘execu-tion’’ stage, their influence extends beyond this in reality.Building trust for example, should start before the projectdoes (as the team is coming together), in order to minimizeproblems during the ‘‘execution’’ stage.

5. The framework

Having developed a good practice model for effectiveuniversity–industry research collaboration, there was aneed to make the knowledge that it represents more acces-sible to the practitioner, through the development of aframework management tool.

5.1. Basic framework structure

The framework constitutes a management process forcollaborative research projects. The interrelationshipsbetween the elements reflect the step-by-step approach ofa typical project management process, whereby the collabo-ration (the project) begins with the formation of a projectteam and ends with the achievement of agreed targets (Out-comes), Fig. 3. However, whilst the good practice model pre-sents the Universal Success Factors and the Cultural Gap

categories as discrete elements, this is not the case withinthe framework structure. These factors, though important,tend not to be easily consigned to one specific stage in the lifeof a collaborative project. Furthermore, evidence suggeststhat despite the specific nature of the ‘‘cultural gap’’, themajority of the problems associated with it can be alleviatedby good collaboration/project management. From an oper-ational perspective, it is therefore more appropriate to dealwith these issues indirectly through other, related successfactors. For example, the issue of differing priorities and

timescales is addressed as a project management issue, bycreating conditions within the collaborative team conduciveto open, honest communication.

5.2. Management process for collaborative research

Having established the basic structure of the framework,management processes were then built around it to pro-duce a usable management tool.

Page 5: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404 399

5.2.1. Project manager selection

The Project Manager Selection stage reflects both theimportance placed on high quality project managers inthe literature [4,12] and case study evidence indicating thatinexperienced or ineffective project managers had a nega-tive impact on the projects studied [9]. Collaborationsrequire the project manager to harmonise the differingobjectives, perspectives and modes of operation of oftendiverse organisations. Furthermore, since collaborationsspan organisational boundaries the project manager hasno direct authority and must therefore rely on diplomacyto ensure that partners deliver and that targets are achieved[4,12]. The case study research showed that failure to main-tain control of a collaborative project quickly leads to dis-illusionment and loss of commitment to the project,particularly among industrial partners [9]. A degree oftechnical awareness and some experience of the R&D envi-ronment can also prove valuable, because familiarity withthe research subject and its inherent uncertainties, willafford the project manager credibility within the teamand enable the adoption of an appropriate managementstyle [13].

5.2.2. The University Partner

The University Partner stage is aimed at resolvingimportant issues associated with academic–industry rela-tions and project management effectiveness. The case studyresearch showed that relations were enhanced where theacademic lead investigators share project managementresponsibility with their industrial partners; an area notspecifically addressed by the literature.

Such is the responsibility implied in the role of leadinvestigator that the nature of their background experiencecan greatly influence management effectiveness within col-laborative projects. Academic experience is an obviouspre-requisite, but a degree of industrial experience is alsodesirable; an awareness of industrial issues and an appreci-ation of the different pressures and priorities to which com-panies are subject. A combination of these attributes allowacademic progress to be properly served, despite the needto accommodate industrial urgency.

While the ability to effectively organise people and pro-ject activities is important, the presence of a projectmanager within the team means that formal project man-agement training is not a necessity for a lead researcher.Effective organization of the researchers by the lead inves-tigator will however earn the confidence of the industrialpartners. Other key issues include a realistic assessmentof how much time the lead investigator is able to committo the project, taking into account other academic commit-ments. An unrealistic assessment often proves detrimentalto the project and relations with the industrial partners.

5.2.3. Partner evaluationChoosing appropriate collaboration partners is regarded

in the literature as being the most important element influ-encing collaboration success [6] and a number of factors

have been identified. For example, Harrigan [4] found thatexperienced partners were better able to understand thecapabilities and the limitations of a collaborative venture,and also tended to be more flexible.

Spekman et al. [6] however, focused on the need for a‘‘shared vision’’ among partners, leading to complementaryobjectives. This was supported by the case study research,but here shared strategic interest was also shown to be aprerequisite for senior management commitment, itself animportant success factor [3]. Conversely, Harrigan [4]describes hidden agendas as the single most important rea-son why collaborations fail since they have a profound neg-ative influence on relationships within the venture, an issuewhich was borne out in the case study research [9]. It hasalso been established that past experience of workingtogether can be helpful, where a degree of trust has alreadybeen established [6]. Where this is not the case, CEST [14]have suggested that evidence of a good previous ‘‘track

record’’ in collaboration creates a degree of initial confi-dence among partners. Other practical issues include ensur-ing that partners offer complimentary expertise so that thereare no technological gaps, and that each partner has a cleararea of responsibility (and therefore commitment) withinthe project [7,9].

Evidence of corporate change or instability within anorganization has been shown to have a profoundly nega-tive influence on collaborative projects [7,14] and this wasclearly witnessed in the case study research. A secondaryeffect of such instability can be changes to personnelassigned by the affected organization to the project.Finally, the presence of a collaboration champion, i.e., anindividual with great enthusiasm for and commitment tothe venture, who is also influential and well-placed withinthe partner organization, has been shown to be a criticalsuccess factor [9,12].

5.2.4. Project set-up and execution

With any project, careful consideration must be given toits set-up and execution, particularly with respect to mak-ing efficient use of available time and resources. Withoutthe benefit of clearly defined objectives, projects (R&D pro-jects in particular) can become broad and unwieldy, whilstconversely, assigning clear roles and responsibilities to part-ners and developing a project workplan has been shown tohave a positive influence on the involvement and commit-ment of partners within a collaborative project. However,the case studies showed that where workplans are notadhered to, are unrealistic or lacking in sufficient detail,industrial partners in particular, quickly lose confidencein the project [9].

Collaborative projects typically involve partners whoare geographically remote from each other, making face-to-face contact on a regular basis problematic, so effective

communication is essential [3]. Whilst electronic mediacan allow ‘‘virtual’’ meetings to take place, the knownintangible benefits of face-to-face contact are difficult toreplicate. The framework tool therefore encourages a

Page 6: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

400 T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404

robust communications strategy, combining formal mecha-nisms for strategic discussion and day-to-day management,with informal communications to build team spirit andtrust.

5.2.5. OutcomesSuccess in collaborative terms is a highly subjective issue

[7], with perceptions of success varying among partnerswithin the same collaborative project [9,15]. Research hasidentified a number of criteria for success [4,7,15] whichhave subsequently been incorporated into the frameworktool, thus allowing for success to be measured by a combi-nation of objective, measurable, project outputs, and thesubjective perceptions of the partners.

The Outcomes element therefore constitutes a perfor-mance measurement stage, assessing for example, whetheror not mutual benefit has been achieved among the partnersand whether or the collaboration resulted in adequate pro-

prietary benefit, i.e. benefits commensurate with the invest-ment/risk borne by each partner. A final criteria is toestablish the likelihood that the partners would considercollaborating again (either with each other or with newpartners), thus providing an indicator of whether or notthe experience had been positive, and the motives that drivepartners in collaboration.

6. Applying the framework

Practical implementation of the framework tool wasachieved through the development of a Handbook and UserPack. The User Pack consists of a series of questionnaires,each of which focuses on a specific element of the frame-work, identifying potential risk factors and promptingthe user to take mitigating action. Since the questionnairesmerely highlight potential issues and do not explain them,the User Pack is supplemented by the Framework Hand-

book. The Handbook serves a dual purpose in that it pro-vides instructions for the application of the frameworkand a set of guide notes which provide the user with prac-tical advice on the issues raised. Each questionnaire incor-porates a scoring system which enables the user to assess

Project ManagerEvaluation

UniversityPartner

PartnerEvaluation

Q-1

Q-2& 2a

Q-3 Q-4

Fig. 4. The framework structure wit

performance against a number of criteria. The results areplotted on to a Collaboration Chart for ease of interpreta-tion, as described later. The framework can be used torepeatedly re-evaluate performance throughout the life ofthe collaboration, in order to gain some measure ofimprovement.

6.1. Applying the questionnaires

The questionnaires are applied at specific stages in thelife cycle of the collaborative project, Fig. 4.

At the earliest possible stage in the planning of a collab-orative research project, questionnaires Q-1, Q-2 (includingQ-2a) and Q-3 are applied to provide an initial assessmentof prospective partners. In many cases, collaborativeresearch projects are initiated by a university partner, pos-sibly in conjunction with an industrial partner, whotogether may seek to identify other partners to fund andparticipate in the project. The lead industrial partner willtypically take on project management responsibility andidentify a project manager. In doing so, the lead industrialpartner can be requested to use Q-1 as part of the selectionprocess to provide a risk profile.

Q-2 and Q-3 provide equivalent risk profiles for the uni-versity and the industrial partners respectively. The litera-ture often refers to partner selection rather thanevaluation, but clearly, it is not always possible or practica-ble to select partners; partners may be self-selecting, forexample, because they are the only organisations willingto fund the research. Choice of partners may also berestricted for political reasons, e.g., to achieve criteria forpublic funding, or provide an appropriate combination ofexpertise and/or technology. However, considerable benefitcan still be gained from evaluating prospective partnerswith a view to identifying and mitigating the risks describedpreviously.

The Outputs questionnaire (Q-4) can be used to estab-lish (early on) the personal and corporate/institutionalobjectives of each partner (academic and industrial) andtheir expectations with regard to actual project deliverablesand project organisation. It has been established [9] that

ProjectSet-up &Execution

Outcomes

Q-6Q-5 Q-7

h linkages to the questionnaires.

Page 7: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404 401

partners have a highly subjective view of the success of acollaboration, and that this is based largely on how wellthe partners initial expectations are met over the courseof the project. These expectations can sometimes be unrea-sonable, and may not always fit with the project’s agreedscope and objectives. Q-4 therefore performs the importantfunction of highlighting any incongruencies among theexpectations of partners in the early stages of the project,so that they can be dealt with.

The Project Set-up and Execution questionnaire (Q-5)assesses the risks inherent primarily with regard to projectmanagement, e.g., clarity of the objectives, the robustnessof the communications strategy, etc. However, it also allowsfor the incorporation of some of the universal success fac-tors outlined previously, e.g., the presence of a collabora-tion champion. Following on from this, the Monitoring

questionnaire (Q-6) can be applied at agreed intervals toprovide a formal, on-going monitoring process. It also uti-lizes the universal success factors to monitor on-going levelsof for example, commitment and trust within the team.

A final questionnaire, Q-7, provides a means of bothmeasuring project performance/output, and an on-goingassessment of the quality of collaborative relations within

Fig. 5. A ‘‘snapshot’’ in time – u

the project, utilizing the project outcome criteria outlinedearlier.

6.2. Applying the collaboration charts

The collaboration chart is a visual tool used to illustratethe status of the collaboration at any given time; a ‘‘snap-shot’’. Colour-coded zones on the collaboration chart indi-cate a ‘‘high’’ (red, inner zone), ‘‘moderate’’ (yellow,mid-zone) or ‘‘low’’ (green, outer zone) risk status for eachfocus area, Fig. 5. The scoring system assigns scoresdepending on the presence or absence of a specific ‘‘success’’factor, or the degree to which that criterion has beenachieved. At this early stage in the development of the tool,the interpretation of what constitutes ‘‘high’’, ‘‘moderate’’and ‘‘low’’ risk scores on the chart, is based on the resultsof the six case study projects. As such, their accuracy willrequire validation through future case studies. However,this does not detract unduly from the tool’s primary func-tion of alerting collaborative partners to potentialproblems.

Responsibility for applying the chart would generally liewith the project manager, in consultation with the lead

sing the collaboration chart.

Page 8: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

402 T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404

investigators of the university partners. This consultation isimportant in guarding against misinterpretation and/orbias in the information conveyed in the chart – the differentperspectives of the industrial project manager versus theacademic lead investigator should, in this way, encouragehealthy discussion of the issues, leading to a consensuson the actual status of the project with respect to the appli-cable success factors.

The focus areas marked on the collaboration chartbroadly correspond to the areas addressed by the question-naires, though to reduce the complexity of the chart, resultsfrom the monitoring questionnaire Q-6 have been includedin the Project Set-up and Execution section, while theresults from the project outputs questionnaire Q-4, wereused as a baseline for assessing the Outcomes.

A second chart illustrates the risk profiles of individualpartners, thus limiting the amount of detailed informationthat needs to be conveyed on the collaboration chart. Thischart (Fig. 6) is based on questionnaire Q-3, and on com-pletion a single, overall score is transferred to the collabo-ration chart.

The charts provide a clear, visual indicator of the statusof a collaborative project at a given time, and can also be

Fig. 6. Example of the use of th

used to maintain an on-going record of the life of a project,which could prove useful in a post-project analysis. How-ever, the framework tool and charts require extensive test-ing for validation purposes.

7. Implementation case study

7.1. The research approach

An additional case study was used to begin testing theeffectiveness of the framework tool, and its applicabilityto other industries. The SUCCESS project (SUpply ChainCost Efficiency and Swift Service in the food and drinkindustry) shares a number of characteristics with the casestudy projects on which the tool is based, but is positionedin the food and drink industry. The industry differs fromautomotive and aerospace in a number of respects, beingcharacterised by specific logistical issues relating to thehandling of fresh, perishable material, and a general ten-dency to collaborate on advancements in management/pro-cess research rather than on technological developments.

The framework tool was applied in this case by theauthor. Throughout the project, findings derived from

e partner evaluation chart.

Page 9: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404 403

the use of the framework tool were fed back to the team, toencourage awareness and mitigating action (in accordancewith an action research methodology). Evaluation of theframework tool primarily centred on a comparison of pre-dictions made by the tool, with subsequent data collectedas part of on-going project monitoring.

8. Evaluation of the framework tool

Implementation of the framework tool in the SUCCESSproject was aimed at both evaluating the effectiveness ofthe framework, and testing its applicability to anotherindustry. In practice, the differences between this industryand that of aerospace and automotive were small withrespect to managing a collaborative R&D project. How-ever, the focus on developing innovative management pro-cesses rather than technological development resulted in agreater need for on-site data collection and interaction withthe industrial partners, which in turn lead to valuableinsights with respect to human factors, the influence ofthe collaboration champion and the effects of corporateinstability on the commitment of industrial partners.

8.1. Partner evaluation

8.1.1. The Management Team

The project manager and the academic lead investiga-tors formed the management team for the SUCCESS pro-ject, and thus the evaluation focused on the combinedattributes and actions of this team. The evaluation showedthat while the project manager had a high degree of man-agement skills/experience (including relevant collaborativeexperience), he had no direct experience of the R&D envi-ronment. This was identified as a potential risk as the pro-ject manager would have difficulty predicting accuratetimescales for the academic work required. However, thisrisk was mitigated in this case by close co-operationbetween the project manager and the academic lead inves-tigators, thus serving to emphasise the importance ofstrong communications and team work; both of which aresuccess factors identified in the framework model, Fig. 1.

The lead investigators of both participating universitieswere assessed as being relatively low risk, primarily becauseboth had a good level of industrial experience. Their under-standing of the realities of the business environmentappears, as predicted by the framework, to have had apositive influence with regard to relations with the indus-trial partners.

Overall, the complementary nature of the combinedattributes of the management team resulted in effectiveday-to-day management of the project and the collabora-tion, but this case also makes clear the importance of man-aging personal differences. On-going monitoring of thecollaboration highlighted a degree of conflict between thelead investigators, due to personal differences (of personal-ity and professional outlook). In practice, the interventionof the project manager minimized the negative impacts of

these conflicts on the project (further supporting the impor-tance of diplomacy and good management skills), but therisk posed to the collaboration was, at times, significant.

This is not an issue which is currently explicitlyaddressed by the framework, or indeed to any great extentby the literature. This evaluation however suggests thatpersonal differences must be taken into account and mustbe dealt with through careful mediation if the collaborationis not to suffer.

8.2. Industrial partner evaluation

The framework predicts that the commitment of its part-ners (and specifically the presence of a collaboration cham-pion) is a key success factor, and that conversely, corporate

instability and a lack of continuity of personnel can be dis-ruptive and damaging to collaborations [9]. These predic-tions were borne out in the SUCCESS project. Corporateintransigence toward the project by Partner 1 was over-come only by the personal commitment of its representa-tive (a collaboration champion).

The SUCCESS project also illustrated the highly unsta-ble nature of modern organizations, and the damage whichcan be done where such instability brings about changes inthe personnel involved in the venture. A marked reductionin the involvement of Partner 3’s representative lead todelays and problems, despite the on-going commitment ofthat individual and the assignment of an able replacement.Furthermore, the loss of Partner 4’s representative (and col-laboration champion) lead to the complete withdrawal ofthat partner from the project, thus illustrating the extremeconsequences of these combined factors. The loss of a col-

laboration champion has therefore been shown to be ofgreater importance than has previously been acknowledgedin existing literature. It is therefore concluded that the pres-ence (and retention) of the collaboration champion within acollaboration needs to be given significantly greater empha-sis within the framework evaluation process.

9. Conclusions

Whilst considerable research has been devoted to identi-fying management ‘‘success’’ factors for collaborative pro-jects, to date the literature provides no guidance as to howthe full range of these success factors could be applied inthe every day context of managing a collaboration. Theframework, a management tool for practitioners developedon the basis of case studies and published research, aims tofill this gap.

The framework encourages an awareness of the keyissues affecting the success of collaborations and promptsthe manager to take appropriate and timely action to pre-vent problems before they arise. Evaluation of the tooldemonstrated some preliminary support for its ability topredict weaknesses and potential risks, thus enabling effec-tive mitigating action to be taken by the project team.Developed initially for use in automotive and aerospace

Page 10: Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool

404 T.A. Barnes et al. / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 395–404

R&D projects, implementation in the food and drinkindustry indicates that it is more widely applicable.

In addition, the work provided important additionalinsights into the dynamics of collaborative R&D projects,most notably that strong collaboration is based on strongpersonal as well as organizational relationships. Relatedto this is the conclusion that the collaboration champion

should be treated as a higher-level factor within the frame-work, in recognition of the influence it has been shown toexert on the dynamics of collaboration.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank EPSRC for funding this re-search and all those involved in the SUCCESS projectwho gave freely of their time in contributing to this study:Norman Wilson, Masterfoods UK; Edwin Pearson, Ber-nard Matthews; Paul Robinson, McCormick; Chris Ro-wat and Jim Rowley, Chartered Institute of Logisticsand Transport (CILT); Linda Whicker and Carlos Mena,Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), University ofWarwick; Mike Bernon and Simon Templar, CCLT,Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield Universityand Ron Aspinall, Guaranteed Business Improvement.

References

[1] UK Government, White Paper, Our Competitive Future: Building theKnowledge Driven Economy, HMSO, 1998.

[2] Dodgson M. The future for technological collaboration. Futures1992:459–70.

[3] Business & Higher Education Forum (BHEF), Working Together,Creating Knowledge: The University-Industry Research Collabora-tion Initiative, American Council on Education (ACE). Availablefrom: http://www.acenet.edu/programs/bhef/, 2001.

[4] Harrigan KR. Managing for joint venture success. 1st ed. Lexington;1986.

[5] Dodgson M. Technological collaboration in industry. 1st ed. London:Routledge; 1993.

[6] Spekman RE, Isabella LA, MacAvoy TC, Forbes III T. Creatingstrategic alliances which endure. Long Range Plann 1996;29(3):346–357.

[7] Littler D, Leverick F, Bruce M. Factors affecting the process ofcollaborative product development: A study of UK manufacturers ofinformation and communications technology products. J ProductInnovat Manage 1995;12:16–32.

[8] Martin B. University/Industry Interactions. EPSRC, 1996.[9] Barnes T, Pashby IR, Gibbons AM. Effective university–industry

interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects.Eur Manage J 2002;20(3):272–85.

[10] Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. London:Sage; 1994.

[11] Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. AcadManage Rev 1989;14(4):532–50.

[12] Dawson P. From technology research to the practice of group-basedmanufacturing under multi-partner projects. Human System Manage1997;16:35–42.

[13] Coombs R, Richards A, Saviotti PP, Walsh V. Toward thedevelopment of benchmarking tools for R&D project management.R&D Manage 1998;28(3):175–86.

[14] CEST, The Management of Technological Collaboration, report bythe Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex forthe Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology (CEST),1991.

[15] Davenport S, Davies J, Grimes C. Collaborative research pro-grammes: Building trust from difference. Technovation 1999;19(1):31–40.


Top Related