Collaborative research projects form a specific project type, aimed at organizing innovation endeavors between industry, academic, and public partners. They've become increasingly widespread and their management is challenged due to ambiguously defined goals and the heterogeneous interests of many partners. We present a situation-specific approach that enables managers to select established project management knowledge according to changing needs along the project life cycle. Making use of thematic analysis, we develop a graphical framework to describe and analyze project situations. Further we establish situation profiles as a concept to relate each situation to a management method that corresponds with its managerial needs.
AdlerN., ElmquistM., & NorrgrenF. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context.Research Policy, 38, 1136–1149.
2.
BarnesT., PashbyI., & GibbonsA. (2002). Effective university—industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects.European Management Journal, 20, 272–285.
3.
BarnesT., PashbyI., & GibbonsA. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool.International Journal of Project Management, 24, 395–404.
4.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
6.
BruceA., LyallC., TaitJ., & WilliamsR. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth Framework programme.Futures, 36, 457–470.
7.
CalamelL., DefelixC., PicqT., & RetourD. (2012). Inter-organisational projects in French innovation clusters: The construction of collaboration.International Journal of Project Management, 30, 48–59.
8.
CrawfordL., & PollakJ. (2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis.International Journal of Project Management, 22, 645–653.
9.
DavenportS., DaviesJ., & GrimesC. (1998). Collaborative research programmes: Building trust from difference.Technovation, 19, 31–40.
10.
DewulfA., FrançoisG., Pahl-WostlC., & TaillieuT. (2007). A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: Experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management.Ecology and Society, 12, 14.
11.
DuJ., LetenB., & VanhaverbekeW. (2014). Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners.Research Policy, 43, 828–840.
12.
Erno-KjolhedeE. (2000). Project management theory and the management of research projects (MPP Working Paper (Ed.)). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School.
13.
Erno-KjolhedeE. (2001). Managing collaborative research: Unveiling the microdynamics of the European triple helix.Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
14.
EtzkowitzH. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations.Social Science Information, 42, 293–337.
15.
European Commission. (2012). Guide for applicants–FP7-2013-ICT-GC. Brussels, Belgium.
16.
Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe (1995). Management of collaboration in EC R&D programmes: Element 7 of the study, “The impact of the framework programme on European Industry.”Karlsruhe, Germany: FhG-ISI.
17.
GassmannO., & von ZedtwitzM. (2003). Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams.R&D Management, 33, 243–262.
18.
GibbonsM., LimogesC., NowotnyH., SchwartzmanS., & ScotP. (1994). The new production of knowledge.London, England: Sage.
19.
GrimaldiR., & von TunzelmannN. (2002). Assessing collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: The case of the UK LINK scheme.R&D Management, 32, 165.
20.
HadornG. H. (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research.Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
21.
HagedoornJ., LinkA. N., & VonortasN. S. (2000). Research partnerships.Research Policy, 29, 567–586.
22.
HanischB., & WaldA. (2012). A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in project management research.Project Management Journal, 43, 4–23.
23.
HesselsL. K., & van LenteH. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda.Research Policy, 37, 740–760.
24.
HeupersE., van HillegersbergJ., & KatsmaC. (2011, December 4). Identifying project contingency factors for situational project management method engineering. International Research Workshop on IT Project Management 2011, Shanghai, China.
25.
HobdayM. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems.Research Policy, 29, 871–894.
26.
HowellD., WindahlC., & SeidelR. (2010). A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences.International Journal of Project Management, 28, 256–264.
InganäsM., HacklinF., & MarxtC. (2009). Sponsored, contract and collaborative research: Towards a model of science-industry knowledge transfer.Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 8, 203–228.
29.
KatzJ. S., & MartinB. R. (1997). What is research collaboration?Research Policy, 26, 1–18.
30.
KönigB., DiehlK., TscherningK., & HelmingK. (2013). A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management.Research Policy, 42, 261–272.
31.
KoopmanP. L., & van OffenbeekM. A. G. (1996). Scenarios for system development: Matching context and strategy.Behaviour and Information Technology, 15(4), 250–265.
32.
KratzerJ., GemündenH. G., & LettlC. (2008). Balancing creativity and time efficiency in multi-team R&D projects: The alignment of formal and informal networks.R&D Management, 38, 538–549.
33.
LaudelG. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships?Research Evaluation, 11, 3–15.
34.
LevineS. S., & PrietulaM. J. (2014). Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance.Organization Science, 25(5), 1414–1433.
35.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NobeliusD. (2004). Towards the sixth generation of R&D management.International Journal of Project Management, 22, 369–375.
38.
OesterleH., & OttoB. (2010). Konsortialforschung: Eine Methode für die Zusammenarbeit von Forschung und Praxis in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatikforschung.Wirtschaftsinformatik, 52, 273–285.
39.
PerminovaO., GustafssonM., & WiksträmK. (2008). Defining uncertainty in projects: A new perspective.International Journal of Project Management, 26, 73–79.
40.
ProccaA. E. (2008). Development of a project management model for a government research and development organisation.Project Management Journal, 39, 33–57.
41.
ProtogerouA., CaloghirouY., & SiokasE. (2010). Policy-driven collaborative research networks in Europe.Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19, 349–372.
42.
RuuskaI., & TeiglandR. (2009). Ensuring project success through collective competence and creative conflict in public-private partnerships: A case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish triple helix e-government initiative.International Journal of Project Management, 27, 323–334.
43.
SauserB. J., ReillyR. R., & ShenharA. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights: A comparative analysis of NASA's mars climate orbiter loss.International Journal of Project Management, 27, 665–679.
44.
ShenharA. J. (2001). Contingent management in temporary, dynamic organizations: The comparative analysis of projects.Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12, 239–271.
45.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (2007a). The lost link: Why successful innovation needs sound project management.Portland, OR: Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland International Center.
46.
ShenharA. J., & DvirD. (2007b). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
47.
ShoreB., & CrossB. J. (2005). Exploring the role of national culture in the management of large-scale international science projects.International Journal of Project Management, 23, 55–64.
48.
ThamhainH. J. (2003). Managing innovative R&D teams.R&D Management, 33, 297–311.
49.
TodevaE., & KnokeD. (2006). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration.Management Decision, 43, 123–148.
50.
TurnerJ. R., & CochraneJ. R. (1993). Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them.International Journal of Project Management, 11, 93–102.
51.
van der MeerW., & TrommelenG. (1996). Collaborative R&D and European industry.Research Technology Management, 39, 15–25.
52.
van DonkD. P., & MolloyE. (2008). From organising as projects to projects as organisations.International Journal of Project Management, 26, 129–137.
53.
van SlootenK., & HodesB. (1996). Characterizing is development projects. In BrinkkemperS., LyytinenK., & WelkeR. J. (Eds.), Method engineering: Principles of method construction and tool support (pp. 29–44). Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media.
54.
vom BrockeJ., & LippeS. (2010). Towards management guidelines for collaborative research projects in information systems: Learning from project management contingency theory. In D'AtriA., De MarcoM., BracciniA. M., & CabidduF. (Eds.), Management of the interconnected world.Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag HD.
55.
vom BrockeJ., & LippeS. (2011). Towards a situational approach in managing collaborative research projects in IS: Finding the right contingency factors. 5th pacific Asia conference on information systems (PACIS 2011), Brisbane, Australia.
56.
vom BrockeJ., & LippeS. (2013). Identifying and managing creative tasks in collaborative IS research projects.Project Management Journal, 44, 94–113.
57.
VulturescuV., DumitracheV., VasileD., & BodeaC. (2012). Challenges in implementing FP7 projects in the public institutions.Economia: Seria Management, 15, 129–141.
58.
WinterM., SmithC., Cooke-DaviesT., & CicmilS. (2006). The importance of “process” in rethinking project management: The story of a UK government-funded research network.International Journal of Project Management, 24, 650–662.
