effective university – industry interaction:: a multi-case evaluation of collaborative r&d...

European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 272–285, 2002 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain0263-2373/02 $22.00 + 0.00PII: S0263-2373(02)00044-0

Effective University –Industry Interaction:A Multi-case Evaluation ofCollaborative R&DProjectsTINA BARNES, University of WarwickIAN PASHBY, University of NottinghamANNE GIBBONS, University of Warwick

There is a growing world-wide trend toward greatercollaboration between academia and industry, anactivity encouraged by governments as a means ofenhancing national competitiveness and wealth cre-ation. Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) iswell known for its extensive links with industry,and provided an excellent opportunity for a studyof management practice within university–industrycollaborative research projects. This paper evalu-ates the findings of six collaborative research pro-jects. The objective was to identify factors which,if managed correctly, increase the probability of acollaboration being perceived as successful by bothacademic and industrial partners. The outcome wasa good practice model for successful university–industry research collaborations. 2002 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: University–Industry, CollaborativeResearch, Cultural Gap, Case Studies, Success Fac-tors, Project Management, Partners, Framework,Practitioner

Introduction

Against a background of increasing internationalcompetition and rapid technological change, govern-ments are actively encouraging collaboration as ameans of improving innovation efficiency and ther-eby enhancing wealth creation. Collaboration pro-vides companies with the means by which to

European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 272–285, June 2002272

advance technologically, at lower cost and with lessinherent risk. Collaboration also provides access to agreater breadth and depth of knowledge and techno-logies than would normally be possible throughinternal development. For universities the benefitsinclude additional public and private funding, andincreasingly, licensing and patenting income, as aresult of technology transfer activities.

However, these considerable potential benefits areoften not realised in practice. The major reason is thatcollaborations between, often diverse, organisations,need considerable management effort in order to besuccessful (Dodgson, 1991). Given the substantialinvestment (both public and private) currently beingmade in collaborative research activities, it is clearlyimportant to ensure that collaborations are managedeffectively, and the benefit achieved maximised.

Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), Universityof Warwick has, since its foundation in 1980, estab-lished a substantial involvement in collaborativeresearch with industry. The Group therefore pro-vided an excellent opportunity for a study of man-agement practice within university–industry collab-orative research projects. This paper discusses thefindings of six case study research projects involvingWMG and a number of industrial partners. Theobjective was to identify factors which, if managedcorrectly, increase the probability of a collaborationbeing perceived as successful by both academic and

EFFECTIVE UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY INTERACTION

industrial partners. This was achieved by conductinga thorough review of current research in this areathrough the published literature, thus providing abasic framework of success factors which were thenvalidated through empirical evidence provided bythe case study projects. The outcome was a goodpractice model for successful university–industryR&D collaborations. Furthermore, the success factorsidentified from the case study projects have beenorganised according to a number of key themes, thusproviding a useful structure to the model. This struc-ture provides some insights into the key areas whichrequire particular attention in the successful manage-ment of such ventures.

Research Approach

This research brings together the results of a thor-ough review of the published literature in the fieldof collaboration management and empirical evidenceprovided by six separate case studies. A cross-caseanalysis was subsequently conducted in order toidentify any common themes and factors to emergefrom the cases, as well as to facilitate comparisonbetween the cases and the literature. Many of theWMG’s joint research activities involve the automo-tive and aerospace industries, and it was thereforelogical to select cases within the Group’s researchportfolio with representation from these industries.Of the six cases, five projects were components of alarger research programme involving the automotiveindustry. These projects therefore formed a naturalmultiple case study; the projects had a number ofcommon characteristics thereby providing naturalboundaries for the study, limiting the extent ofenvironmental variation. At the same time, these pro-jects also differed in a number of ways, thus provid-ing scope for a significantly different outcome in eachcase. The sixth project involved the aerospace indus-try, and whilst it shared some of the characteristicsof the other five cases, it too differed in such a wayas to contribute substantially to the study.

The collection of data for this research was carriedout primarily through interviews with key parti-cipants in each of the projects, with supplementaryevidence provided through project documentation,and direct observation of project meetings. The suc-cess of each project studied was evaluated primarilyon the basis of the perceptions of these key parti-cipants, i.e. the value of the research outcomes toindividual partners, and how well the expectationsof each partner had been met. To balance these sub-jective measures of success, an objective measure ofinnovation was also applied, based on measurableoutcomes such as number of journal papers pub-lished, number of patents filed and evidence of newproduct/process/technology developments. How-ever, the emphasis placed on the perceptions of thekey participants is justified on the basis that collabor-

European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 272–285, June 2002 273

ative ventures are often perceived as failures despitesome significant technological and/or tangible out-comes. Since such perceptions are likely to influencethe decision to collaborate in future, these subjectiveviews are considered worthy of further study.

Influential success factors to emerge from each indi-vidual case were tabulated together in order that thecases could be compared, and patterns of similar fac-tors could be identified. The initial cross-case analysisprovided the basis for a detailed evaluation of thecase study evidence, in order to establish the back-ground and the circumstances behind the major fac-tors to arise from these projects. The results of thisevaluation are discussed in the fourth section inorder to set the common factors and themes ident-ified in context, thus providing a clearer understand-ing of the common issues and problems experiencedacross the case study projects. Further, examinationof this detailed cross-case evidence, coupled with rel-evant findings from published research, was used asa means of identifying possible solutions to the prob-lems experienced. The result is a good practice modelwhich provides important insights into the key issuesinvolved in the successful management of univer-sity–industry collaboration on R&D projects.

Results of Cross-Case Analysis

Table 1 summarises the findings for each individualproject, listing all factors found to have had a signifi-cant impact on the success of the project, as perceivedby the participants. In each case, the factors identifiedwere found, if correctly managed, to have a signifi-cant positive effect on the perceived success of theprojects. Furthermore, the case studies also showedthat where the same factors were neglected or mis-managed, there tended to be a corresponding nega-tive impact on the perceived success of the projects.The results therefore provided clear indicators onwhich to base the development of a good practicemodel (presented in the fifith section) for the effectivemanagement of collaborative R&D projects.

Success factors in the management of collaborations,as identified from published literature in the field,can be organised into a number of key themes such aschoice of partner, environmental factors, ensuring equalityand project management. Since these key themes werealso apparent in the case study evidence, the successfactors identified were similarly categorised in Table1. As the discussion in the fourth section will show,detailed examination of the case study evidencerevealed a number of new success factors specific touniversity–industry interactions. However, the mainthemes or categories into which these success factorsfall emerged from this research largely unchanged.

It is noted from Table 1 that no one factor or set offactors is clearly indicated to have discriminated


Table 1 Success Factors Identified Through Case Study Projects as having a Significant Impact on thePerceived Success of Collaboration

Project name

Themes Project A Project B Project C Project D Project E Project F

Universal Trust Commitment Commitment Commitment Trust Continuity offactors personnel

Good personal Continuity of Good personalrelations personnel relations

Choice of No hidden Prior Prior No hidden Complementary Strategicpartner agendas collaborative collaborative agendas aims importance

experience experienceComplementary No hidden No hidden Complementary Complementary Past collaborationaims agendas agendas expertise expertise partnerComplementary Complementary Complementaryexpertise expertise expertiseCollaborative Complementaryexperience aimsPast collaborationpartner

Project Experienced Experiencedmanager project manager project managerProject Clearly defined Clearly defined Clearly defined Good progress Effective Clearly definedmanagement objectives objectives objectives monitoring communications objectives

Clear Clear Clear Good projectresponsibilities responsibilities responsibilities planningGood project Good progress Good project Good projectplanning monitoring planning monitoringRealistic aims Adequate skills & Clear reporting & Realistic aims

training meeting structureGood project Good project Adequate Adequatemonitoring planning resources resourcesClear reporting & Poor reporting & Good progress Effectivemeeting structure meeting structure monitoring communicationsGood resourceplanning

Ensuring Evident mutualequality benefitEnvironmental Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporatefactors stability stability stability stabilityOutcomes Clear proprietary Clear proprietary Little proprietary

benefit benefit benefitTangibleoutcomes

Cultural issues Agreed Agreed Agreed Agreed Agreed Agreedtimescales timescales timescales timescales timescales timescalesBalanced Students agenda Students agenda Academic right to Academic right topriorities Academic right to publish publish

publish

between success or failure across the case study pro-jects. While there are similarities between projects ona number of levels, the overall pattern of success fac-tors in each case is markedly different. This indicatesthat the success of a collaborative project is governedby a complex interaction of factors, and the cumulat-ive result of negative and positive impacts from thosefactors. The results of the cross-case analysis there-fore indicate that, because of the individual circum-stances of each project, specific factors cannot be


identified as always causing project success or, if neg-lected or mis-managed, always causing failure.Nevertheless, where a particular factor or set of fac-tors is shown to have had an impact on a number ofprojects, this could indicate a common problem areain this type of collaborative project. This could there-fore be an indicator that such factors should be givenparticular emphasis with regard to good practice inthe management of university–industry collabor-ations of this type.

Part of the attraction for

companies entering into

collaborations is that research

can be conducted that could

not otherwise be justified

in-house


Common Themes

The categorisation of the factors to emerge as influ-ential in each of the case studies, revealed a numberof common themes (Table 1). Among the factorsunder the category Choice of partner, complementaryaims and complementary expertise were the main com-mon factors to emerge. Other common factorsincluded evidence of the negative impacts of hiddenagendas and the importance of collaborative experienceamong partners in some cases. There was thereforeevidence of a pattern emerging across case study pro-jects. Other major themes to emerge included the fre-quent occurrence of commitment as an importantcharacteristic of successful collaboration, and theimportance of trust among partners, continuity of per-sonnel (and in particular, continuity of projectmanager) and corporate stability.

The area where the greatest number of success factorswere identified was Project management, as can clearlybe seen from Table 1. Among these, it was noted thatclearly defined objectives was particularly prominent,identified in four of the six cases. The need for goodproject monitoring, good project planning and effectivecommunication were also well represented in the data.

The case study findings also placed significantemphasis on the need to manage the inevitable cul-tural differences between academia and industry,though the extent of the pro-minence placed on these issuesvaried from case to case. Themain Cultural issues to emergewere the need to agree prioritiesand timescales; these factorswere identified across all sixcases. Also prominent was theneed to manage perceptionsand issues on both sidesregarding academic right to pub-lish, and the student agenda. Thislatter factor was related to per-ceptions of the role of student researchers on suchprojects. These findings indicate the importance ofmanaging academic-industry cultural issues in col-laborative projects of this kind, and as such the atten-tion that such issues should receive in establishinggood practice guidelines for university–industryinteraction.

The pattern of common themes indicated that a gen-eralised set of guidelines could be developed for theeffective management of collaborative R&D projects.A closer examination and discussion of the issuesunderlying these common influential factors is givenin the following section.

Discussion of the Case Study Evidence

The purpose of this discussion is to show that pat-terns of similar issues were experienced across cases,


to compare the findings with published literature andwith reference to both the literature and the casestudy data, to identify key areas on which to base agood practice model with guidelines for prac-titioners. The key themes to emerge from the cross-case analysis are each discussed in detail below.

Choice of Partners

Partner Commitment and ContributionIt was evident from the case study data that theindustrial partners preferred a supporting role on theperiphery of the project, a finding which is not, infact, uncommon. It has been stated by the Engineer-ing and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),one of the UK’s main research funding bodies, thata tendency for companies to assume the role of mereobservers, commenting on the work being carried outby academics, has been observed in other projects(Sporton, 1999). Furthermore, it was stated that aca-demics do not always appreciate such remoteness onthe part of their industrial partners, complaining thatthey are generally expected to ‘make the running’ atboth the proposal stage, and in the running of theproject (Sporton, 1999). Partner contribution and com-mitment was a strong characteristic of the case studyprojects, but clearly the behaviour of the industrialpartners in this case is not one that is necessarily spe-cific to these cases, but is a factor of broader applica-

bility and significance.

The interview data across all sixcase study projects revealedthat the industrial partners per-ceived their roles within theproject as providing technicalsupport, specifications, andexpert knowledge, with littleindication that they intended totake an active role in theresearch itself. Such viewsfurther support the finding that

there was a clear tendency by the companiesinvolved in the projects studied to rely on the univer-sity researchers to do the majority of the work.

However, it was also evident that the industrial part-ners involved in one of the projects were not alwaysable to react to the demands of the researchers asquickly as the researchers expected. Comments bythe industrial partners with regard to resourcingindicated that despite a genuine strategic interest inthe project, some of the partners were unable to offersufficient support. Part of the attraction for compa-nies entering into collaborations is that research canbe conducted that could not otherwise be justified in-house, since it provides a means of sharing the costand risk of the work. It is therefore suggested that,in this particular case, some of the companies mayhave over-extended themselves – becoming involvedin the project in order to benefit from the researchfindings, whilst at the same time being unable to


offer any great degree of support beyond fundingand occasional technical advice.

However, there are other factors to take into account.As a research project, it is possible that the industrialpartners perceived their academic counterparts as theexperts and therefore did not expect to make a sub-stantial contribution beyond financial and occasionaltechnical support. As the sponsors, the industrialpartners may have had the perception that they werepaying the researchers to do the work, i.e. as a formof contract research. Such issues can be readily dealtwith by ensuring that the role of each partner in acollaboration (either academic or industrial) and theirresponsibilities to the venture are clearly communi-cated and agreed from the very beginning. Theexpectations of both academic and industrial partnersneed to be managed throughout.

Partner Evaluation – Implications for Good PracticeIt can be concluded that a tendency for the partnercompanies to make only a limited contribution to theresearch work and to not respond quickly enough tothe needs of their academic counterparts, was a com-mon theme evident to varying degrees throughoutall six cases studied. The above discussion clearlyindicates that it is important to evaluate collaborativepartners carefully. In particular, it is important to,where possible, select partners who share a strategicinterest in the research and are willing and able tofulfil their intended role. This finding supports theconsiderable emphasis placed on selecting appropri-ate partners in the literature (Bailey et al., 1998;Champness, 2000; Dodgson, 1991; Kale et al., 2001;Spekman et al., 1996).

Clearly however, it is not possible or practicable inmany cases to select partners; partners may be larg-ely self-selecting on the grounds that they are theonly organisations interested in and willing to fundthe research. Further, choice of partners may berestricted for reasons of politics, to achieve criteriafor public funding, or by requirements for partnerswith the appropriate combination of expertiseand/or technology. However, even where this is thecase, considerable benefit can be gained by evaluat-ing prospective partners in order that a collaborationcan be built around the particular circumstances andpreferred way of working of all those involved. Suchinformation can be used to inform project leaders andthose with the task of project managing such collab-orations, of the most effective way to set up and man-age a new collaborative venture. The case study pro-jects indicate that the criteria for evaluation of a newpartner should include: evidence that the research isof significant strategic importance to the partner,identification of complementary skills & expertise thatthe partner would contribute, evidence of past collab-orative experience, and an indication that the new part-ner’s objectives are complementary to those of the col-laboration as a whole.


Project Management Issues

Issues relating to project management were evidentin the literature (Youker, 1999), and also commonacross all six cases, with varying degrees of emphasisbeing placed on objective setting, project planning,progress monitoring, instituting realistic project aims,the importance of the project manager’s role, andeffective communications.

Clearly Defined Objectives and Realistic AimsClearly defined objectives are extremely important inthe management of any project as an essential firstplanning stage. Without the benefit of clearly definedobjectives projects can become broad and unwieldy,yielding results which are not what the participantsintended or expected. While the nature of researchprojects is such that often the end results are difficultto predict, clearly defined objectives (even if theychange as the project progresses) provide the basisfor a robust and focused research process. Further-more, the need for clearly defined objectives becomeseven more important in the context of a collaborativeproject because there are inevitable differences in theindividual perspectives of collaborative partners, andhence partners bring with them their own specificobjectives and expectations. Without clearly definedand explicitly communicated objectives, a collabor-ative project can become subject to a considerableamount of misinterpretation and unrealistic expec-tations (Barker et al., 1996; BHEF, 2001; Littler et al.,1995).

Evidence of the difficulties that this can create withina collaborative project was evident in this multi-casestudy. In four of the six cases, the project managers,industrial partners and academic researchers statedthat they had been too ambitious in their expectationsof what could be achieved in the time, with the avail-able resources. Statements by participants indicatedthat in each case, a set of project objectives had beenagreed at the outset, and this was confirmed by theproject documentation. However, both the projectdocumentation and the interview data indicated thatthe objectives were often not specific enough withrespect to the expected outcomes, and were largelyopen to interpretation in terms of what work shouldbe carried out. In one project in particular, the evi-dence indicated quite strongly that the objectiveswere sufficiently broad and non-specific, as to enablethe academic researchers to interpret what wasrequired, quite differently to that of their industrialcounterparts. The result was a marked difference inthe perceived success of the project, clearly demar-cated along academic–industry lines.

In another of the projects, it was found that whilethe project did achieve some important technologicalinnovations, it was not perceived by the participantsas being particularly successful, largely because theproject appeared to be very broad and unfocused.This lack of focus was a result of attempting to

Collaborative ventures are

often perceived as failures

despite some significant

technological and/or tangible

outcomes


accommodate the slightly differing expectations of allthe partners, leading to a situation in which the pro-ject team was clearly trying to achieve too much withtoo few resources, and therefore did not progress ata pace which met the expectations of the industrialpartners in particular. Therefore, the case study pro-jects provided evidence supporting the findings ofFarr and Fischer (1992), who found that clearlydefined objectives must also involve harmonisationof the differing expectations of partners, in order toset manageable boundaries around a project and toeliminate any contradictory or conflicting goals.

The case studies therefore demonstrated the impor-tance of clearly defined, mutually agreed objectives in thecontext of collaborative research projects. Collabor-ation across organisational boundaries means thatthere will be inevitable differences in the require-ments and expectations of the partners, which mustbe reconciled if the collaboration is to be deemedmutually beneficial and successful. Therefore, theseobjectives must be clearly defined, based on estab-lished areas of common interest, mutual strategicimportance and mutual benefit.

Project Planning and Progress MonitoringA number of the participants in this multi-case study(generally the industrial partners) expressed frus-tration with what they regarded as the slow initialprogress of the projects and poor project planning.The development of a mutually agreed project plan hasbeen identified as an important success factor in thepublished literature (Martin,1996) and the interview dataand project documentationclearly indicated that projectplans were drawn up andagreed by the participants. Itshould be noted here that whilethe academic researchers hadresponsibility for conductingmost of the research work, andtherefore had a significantinput into the project planningand monitoring process, it was the lead industrialpartner which had formal responsibility for projectmanagement. Therefore, criticisms of actual projectplanning and monitoring on the projects studied can-not be attributed exclusively to either academic orindustrial participants.

It is possible that perceptions of slow initial progresson some of the projects, predominantly expressed bythe industrial partners, was merely a function ofimpatience on their part to realise results; resultswhich would enable them to gain an important com-petitive advantage in a rapidly changing, fiercelycompetitive market. Certainly, in the case of one ofthe projects studied, the academic researchers madereference to the industrial partners requiring ‘quickresults’ and having unreasonable expectations. Thiscould also have had a negative impact on project


planning in the early stages – pressure exerted by theindustrial partners for results diverting attentionaway from the planning activity. Furthermore, anapparent lack of progress visibility within some ofthe projects studied left industrial partners to drawtheir own conclusions as to the status of the projects,and since their expectations had tended to beunrealistic, these were often negative.

It was evident from all six cases that while projectplanning and monitoring were identified as key suc-cess factors, there is a more fundamental underlyingissue here with regard to the different perspectives ofacademia versus industry. Many of the issues arisingfrom this particular aspect of the case studies relateddirectly to fundamental differences in perspectivewith respect to academia and industry. It was evidentthat the industrial participants were preoccupiedwith elapsed time on the projects versus tangible pro-gress made, while academic necessity dictates thatresearch should be conducted with sufficient atten-tion to detail and in-depth investigation to ensurethat correct and well-founded conclusions are drawn.This emphasis on a correct and robust researchapproach will persist regardless of timescales andhence, traditionally academia has been perceived byindustry as slow moving and indifferent to the impo-sition of timescales.

While these very different perspectives may appearto be irreconcilable, they are not. It was observedthroughout the projects studied that the academic

participants were very aware ofthe time pressures imposed onthe industrial partners by anincreasingly competitive com-mercial environment, and thataccommodations were madewith respect to these needs. Itis therefore more likely that itwas a failure on the part of allpartners to properly acknowl-edge the limitations of whatcould be achieved within the

time and the resources available (given academicnecessity for robust investigation) and to manageexpectations accordingly, that was at the core of thedifficulties experienced. These issues are discussed inmore depth later.

The Role of the Lead ResearcherWhile the project manager is acknowledged as hav-ing an essential role in the effective management ofany project (Hauschildt et al., 2000), this multi-casestudy also highlighted the important role that thelead investigator/researcher has to play in univer-sity–industry collaborations. It has already been sug-gested that since collaborations span organisationalboundaries, the authority of the project manager islimited (Dawson, 1997). In the cases studied here, itwas clear that the project manager (appointed in eachcase by the lead industrial partner) had little leverage


with which to ensure that the researchers adhered totheir brief, and to the agreed timescales. However, ininstances where the lead researcher took responsi-bility for managing both the research work and theactivities of the researchers, such problems werereduced. Given that the university researchers wereperforming a substantial proportion of the work inall of the projects, the division of project managementresponsibility in this way is quite logical.

The particular success of Project B clearly supportsthis. Relations between the project manager and thelead researcher on this particular project wereespecially good, with close liaison between the twoin maintaining control of the project. This in itself,clearly does not constitute definitive proof that thisfactor is critical to success. The complex interactionsof a number of factors does not allow the influenceof individual factors to be completely distinguishedfrom each other. However, the case study evidencedoes suggest that it is less likely that the work ofresearchers will drift from the main focus and objec-tives of the collaboration where a lead researcher hasdirect responsibility for all research activitiesassigned to the university.

Consequently, while the critical role of the projectmanager on collaborative projects has been recog-nised, this research has also shown that, in collabor-ations in which a university plays a substantial rolein the research work, the project manager should beactively supported by the lead researcher from theparticipating university or universities. This is not afactor that has been reported in the literature, but thisfinding does nevertheless, reflect the importance ofovercoming the difficulties at the interface betweenacademic researchers and their industrial counter-parts. By defining the role of the lead researcher inthis manner, this research is contributing to the sumof knowledge regarding good practice in university–industry interaction.

Effective CommunicationsOne final area in which issues were raised withrespect to project management, both in the literature(Thomas et al., 1999; BHEF, 2001) and in the casestudy data, was that of effective communication. Itwas noted that there was a tendency in a number ofthe projects to use the ‘steering group’ forum as ageneral forum for discussion and for detailed pro-gress reviews. The result of this was lengthy andunwieldy meetings. In this context, the term ‘steeringgroup’ is defined as a body consisting of the key rep-resentatives from each partner organisation, whichmeets on a regular basis throughout the collaborationto discuss progress, strategy, direction and issues ofpolicy. The ‘steering group’ oversees the work of thecollaboration and acts as the interface between theproject and the individual participating organis-ations, enabling these organisations to receive infor-mation and internalise the findings and outcomes ofthe research.


Further, given the breadth of scope of some of theprojects, some participants found that for a large pro-portion of the time spent in steering group meetings,the discussion was irrelevant to them. It was evidentfrom the case studies that, a more effective structurewould have been to restrict the steering group forumto dealing with strategy, direction and only the mostsignificant concerns, problems and developments.Detailed reviews of progress should thereby berestricted to work package level meetings. The casestudy evidence also indicated that project meetingsshould only be held when there is sufficient progressto report and that project teams should avoidreporting unnecessary or poor quality information,since to do so merely serves to undermine the credi-bility of the communication system as a whole(CEST, 1991).

In contrast, it was noted that in some cases, parti-cipants stated that they would have appreciatedsome form of intermediate communication betweenmeetings. Major project meetings were generally heldevery 2–3 months in the cases studied, and given thegeographical distances involved, the partners weregenerally satisfied that this frequency of meeting wasadequate. However, some participants were con-cerned that there was often no intermediate contactover the intervening periods. As such, someexpressed the need for some intermediate communi-cation, either in the form of an occasional telephonecall or a bulletin-style newsletter, highlighting themain developments to have occurred since the lastmeeting.

It was evident therefore, that good practice guide-lines for the effective management of university-industry interaction on research projects shouldinclude measures to encourage the development of aclear communication strategy, setting out the fre-quency of meetings and the basis on which a meetingwould be called. The strategy should also includeconsideration of the forms of written communicationto be used, incorporating different types of writtenreport for different purposes, or to be delivered atdifferent stages of the collaboration.

Universal Success Factors

CommitmentCommitment infers dedication to a course of actionand exposure to a certain degree of risk in doing so,and is therefore a key factor in collaboration success(Burgess and Turner, 2000). The importance of estab-lishing strong commitment by all partners to a collab-oration and to the achievement of the project objec-tives, has already been largely covered in a previoussection and therefore will not be subject to further in-depth discussion here. However, in addition to thepoints already made, this research also provided sup-porting evidence for findings in the published litera-ture indicating that senior management commitment in

... it is changes in project

management that give the

greatest cause for concern


particular, is needed to overcome a natural resistanceto risk-taking and the sharing of proprietary infor-mation (Akintoye et al., 2000; BHEF, 2001; Souder andNassar, 1990). Further, without senior managementinfluence, lower levels of management are unlikelyto give a collaborative project the required degree ofcommitment, attention and priority.

The case study evidence also revealed that continuedsenior management commitment can be particularlyimportant when the partner organisation concernedis undergoing a period of change, e.g. restructuring,acquisition or merger. In such situations, it wasobserved that company representatives involved in acollaborative project very quickly became distractedby changes going on within the organisation, andwithout support from senior management couldquickly lose motivation and interest in such projects.Therefore, with respect to constructing good practiceguidelines for the effective management of collabor-ative R&D projects, evidence of senior managementcommitment is an important indicator of partnercommitment, and should be included in the evalu-ation of prospective partners.

TrustMistrust among partners, sometimes a function of thepresence of direct competitors in the same project,was evident in some of the case study projects. Theevidence indicated that this affected the flow of infor-mation between partners, or in some cases, evendetracted from the main focus of the project – thetechnological issues. Trust between partners has beenidentified as a key issue affecting the effectivenessand success of collaborations (BHEF, 2001; Herzog,2001; Spekman et al., 1996).

Trust takes considerable time to develop among part-ners, particularly among companies keen to protecttechnological advantage in a highly competitiveindustry. In fact, it has beenstated that trust can take someyears and repeated collabor-ations to develop (Davenport etal., 1998). It may therefore beunrealistic to expect companies,many of whom had not collab-orated together before, to dem-onstrate trust over the three-year duration of the case studyprojects. There is therefore, some justification in largecollaborative research programmes for collaboratingwith previously known partners, partners withwhom a rapport and effective channels of communi-cation have already been established. Indeed, theliterature indicates that prior experience of workingtogether can be as important to collaboration successas prior collaborative experience (Barker et al., 1996),and where past partners were present in the casestudy projects, the evidence seems to support this.With regard to guidelines for good practice therefore,it is concluded that in order to encourage trust, both


prior experience of working together and prior experienceof collaboration (in the broadest sense) are importantfactors in the success of university–industry collabor-ation.

Furthermore, it is recommended that ‘new’ partnersshould be introduced through smaller projects, ther-eby providing the opportunity for trust to develop ina situation where a greater degree of one-to-one con-tact is possible. Smaller projects also tend to be lowerrisk with regard to the likelihood of failure, sincethey are easier to manage and potential problems aremore easily identified and dealt with. Therefore, thedevelopment of trust with a new partner is also facili-tated by this lower risk environment.

Finally, from observations made in this multi-casestudy, it is evident that the project manager, as themanager with responsibility for the project as awhole, should encourage the development of trust bytaking a leading role in creating conditions conduciveto its development. Such conditions may be achievedby treating all partners equally and fairly, encour-aging frank communication, meeting commitmentsand informing partners of problems as soon as theyarise.

Continuity of PersonnelA lack of continuity of personnel was another issuethat was raised in a number of cases. This factor isalso closely related to trust, since trust tends todevelop on a person-specific basis as much as (if notmore so) than on a company-specific basis (Maleckiand Tootle, 1996). It was found that in some of theprojects studied, a number of personnel changes tookplace among the representatives of the partner com-panies. This in itself raised some concerns in that pro-gress on the projects was sometimes curtailed by theneed to brief each new contact. However, personnelfrom the lead industrial partner with responsibility

for project managing the pro-jects also changed. As a conse-quence, concerns among theindustrial partners and the aca-demic researchers were height-ened.

At the time that the case studieswere conducted (in the finalyear of the three-year duration

of the projects), the project manager had changed atleast once in four of the six projects. Such changeswere not viewed favourably by some of the industrialpartners, who saw the changes as evidence of eitherthe lead industrial partner’s lack of commitment tothe projects concerned, an inability to choose effec-tive individuals from the outset, or an attempt to‘breathe new life’ into a project that was not per-forming well.

The key role that the project manager on a collabor-ative project, has to play in its success or failure is


often not recognised and therefore not adequatelyrewarded. Both the case study evidence and the pub-lished literature clearly indicate that only the veryhighest quality project managers should be assignedto a collaboration. Such individuals should be trainedin project management, experienced in a number ofdifferent functions within the business, and highlyskilled in diplomacy (Dawson, 1997; Dodgson, 1991;Porter Lynch, 1989). The changes of project managerwithin these projects could be the result of any of anumber of reasons. However, given the very parti-cular difficulties associated with managing collabor-ations, it is clearly important, not only to selectexperienced, high quality project managers at theoutset, but also to encourage them to carry the rolethrough to the end of the project, by providingadequate support and rewarding/recognising theirefforts as appropriate.

It was therefore concluded that, whilst a general lackof continuity of personnel in a collaboration is dis-ruptive and therefore undesirable, it is changes inproject management personnel that give the greatestcause for concern. However, such changes are clearlydifficult to prevent. Therefore, good practice guide-lines can only make certain recommendations andprovide an awareness of the difficulties that suchchanges cause in this respect. In particular, a partnerassigned responsibility for leading a collaborationshould be encouraged to reward and support theirproject managers appropriately.

Monitoring Environmental Influences

Corporate StabilityFive of the six projects studied provided examples ofthe effects of unstable collaborative partners and theimplications that this has for the success of a collabor-ation. Case study evidence concerning one of theindustrial partners revealed that at the time of joiningone of the projects, this company had undergone achange of ownership and a complete change of seniormanagement team. The project had been the first col-laboration that the new management team had beeninvolved in. However, because of the substantialamount of organisational upheaval caused by thechanges in this company’s recent history, the com-pany representative on the project stated that the col-laboration had not received the attention or supportthat it should have. This lack of attention did not gounnoticed by the project’s manager who was disap-pointed by the company’s apparent lack of interestand contribution to the collaboration. Anotherexample of corporate instability within the case studyprojects led to the temporary withdrawal of an indus-trial partner from the collaboration because of‘internal problems’.

Corporate instability is an issue that is more com-monly associated with small- and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs) since such companies are parti-


cularly vulnerable to closure, take-over or suddenchanges in business strategy. However, large compa-nies too are increasingly subject to mergers, take-overs, financial difficulties and restructuring. Cer-tainly, the above examples indicate that in such per-iods of instability, both senior management and otherpersonnel involved in a collaboration, are likely to bedistracted by issues within their own company andas such are unlikely to be able to afford the collabor-ation the degree of attention and commitmentrequired. Such evidence therefore indicates that com-panies undergoing such changes are not likely tomake good, reliable collaborative partners.

This is not to suggest however, that such companiesshould be immediately disregarded as prospectivecollaboration partners. Clearly, such instances cannotbe considered to constitute definitive evidence thatsuch companies should be avoided. However, theabove evidence indicates that in evaluating collabor-ative partners, evidence of recent corporate instabilityshould be taken into consideration as a factor whichcould potentially have a negative impact on the col-laboration. Such information affords the project man-ager the opportunity to manage that partner’s roleand contribution in a way that will minimise the risksto the project as a whole.

Outcomes

Proprietary BenefitThe key concern of partners in a research collabor-ation will be its outcomes, the realisation of benefitfrom collaborative activities. As such the literaturehas shown that perceptions of realised benefit canhave a substantial impact on the behaviour of part-ners throughout a collaboration and on their percep-tions of success at its conclusion (Souder and Nassar,1990). With respect to the projects studied, the effectsof perceived proprietary benefit by the partners wasclearly observed.

The experiences of two partners whose participationwas rendered almost superfluous to the projects inwhich they were involved by changes in projectdirection, were particularly notable. As a result, inboth instances the partners perceived little benefitfrom their involvement in the project. In particular,one of the partners concerned had withdrawn fromthe project before its completion because, in thewords of the participant for this company ‘we wer-en’t getting a reasonable return on our investment’.Clearly, changes in project direction can in someinstances be unavoidable and even desirable. Wherethis presents problems for a collaborating partner, thepartner should (as was the case here) be given theoption to withdraw from the project. However, giventhe often stringent requirements of collaborationagreements, designed to prevent leakage of commer-cially valuable information, this solution can in itselfpresent significant difficulties.


Therefore, such instances underline the importanceof ensuring partners realise a reasonable level of pro-prietary gain from a collaboration, even if the natureof a partner’s involvement in the project is subject tochange. The case study evidence also reflects findingselsewhere indicating that partners who do not per-ceive that the benefits of collaboration are at leastcommensurate with their investment in it, merelyfeign commitment to it and therefore cease to partici-pate in the collaboration in any meaningful way(Souder and Nassar, 1990). Clearly therefore, achiev-ing satisfactory proprietary benefit is an important suc-cess factor.

Initial Project Progress and Tangible OutcomesThe case data contains a number of examples ofindustrial partners expressing frustration with whatwas considered to be slow progress within the pro-jects. Among these are comments suggesting thattheir academic counterparts should concentrate ondelivering tangible outcomes. The industrial partnersequated the delivery of tangible outcomes with evi-dence of actual progress. Tangible outcomes was ident-ified through the case studies and the literature as afactor that could be exploited in future projects as ameans of enhancing motivation (Dawson, 1997). Theimportance placed on tangible outcomes stemmedpredominantly from a need to demonstrate the valueof a collaboration, and to justify the partners’ invest-ment in the project in terms of time and resources, totheir board of directors or to the individual companyrepresentative’s immediate superior.

Frustrations expressed by some of the industrial part-ners with the slow initial progress of the projects,their tendency to focus on the short term, and theneed to justify their investment in the project, indi-cated that planning for tangible outcomes early on,and at various stages throughout a project would bean effective motivator. Such a measure could clearlybe used to considerable effect by academic parti-cipants as a means of maintaining the interest andcommitment of industrial partners.

Cultural Issues

Differing Priorities and PerspectivesStudies of academia–industry related cultural issueshave identified problems associated with differencesin the perspectives, priorities and values of academicand industrial collaborators (BHEF, 2001; Burnham,1997; Champness, 2000; Gregory, 1997). These prob-lems were evident in all six projects in this multi-casestudy, though the significance of the problems variedfrom case-to-case. One of the reasons for the diffi-culties encountered is that any university partneraims through its research activities to achieve certainimportant academic objectives, e.g. the publication ofresearch results in academic journals, to run projectsfor research students leading to postgraduate degreequalifications, to perform further research in specific


areas and through this research to develop newteaching and case study material. WMG is no excep-tion to this.

Though a number of industrial partners stated thatWMG were more aware of industry’s needs and pri-orities than most universities, instances of conflictingpriorities were found. For example, one of the pro-jects provided evidence indicating that theresearchers were not always sensitive to the require-ments of their industrial sponsors. The result in thisparticular case was that the research tended to pro-gress in the directions favoured by the researchersand the benefits from the project appear to have beenfirmly skewed in favour of academically-valued out-comes, e.g. publications in journals.

However, the opposite appeared to be true in someother projects, where the academic researchers raisedconcerns that the industrial partners’ short-termfocus and desire for quick results was being satisfiedat the expense of academic progress. Furthermore,the effects of differences in the priorities and perspec-tives of academia and industry were clearly evidentfrom the experiences of doctorate students involvedin these projects.

The Role of Doctorate Research StudentsThe most significant cultural issue to arise from thecase study projects was related to the role of doctor-ate students within the projects. Three of the six pro-jects provided evidence to this effect. Doctorate stu-dents have clearly defined requirements with regardto research work, which inevitably constrain theirrole within industrially-orientated programmes. Thatsaid, within a research-based project, such constraintsshould not pose a problem. However, within someof the case study projects, the role of the doctoratestudent was not defined with due consideration forthe requirements of doctorate-level work, and as suchthe ability of the students to add value to the projectwas significantly diminished.

In two of the projects studied research studentsexperienced difficulties as a result of unclear or fre-quently changing project objectives. While a certaindegree of change in a research project is to beexpected, change on the scale indicated in these caseswould inevitably cause problems. Such examplesdemonstrate the care which must be taken in definingthe role of research students in such projects.

Finally, in another of the projects the doctorate stud-ent concerned had experienced difficulties as a resultof pressure to produce results quickly, and the short-term focus of the industrial partners. Such a situationis an indication of a much wider problem, i.e. thatthe needs of academic and industrial participantsmust be carefully balanced to ensure that one side isnot favoured at the expense of the other. In practicethis is an extremely difficult balance to achieve, andis made more difficult by a general lack of under-


standing on the part of many industrial participantsregarding what constitutes doctorate level research.However, while industrial partners may not fullyunderstand the concept of academic rigour, suchpartners would fully appreciate the importance ofclearly defined objectives and a structured approachto decision-making, based on well researched andempirically-supported facts. This, in essence, is whatprojects of any kind should endeavour to achieve.Therefore, the key issue here is not necessarily toincrease the awareness of industry of the importanceof academic rigour, but to emphasise the importanceof a structured and robust approach to objective set-ting and the planning and management of projectstoward the achievement of those objectives.

The role of doctorate students is not an aspect thathas received much specific attention in the literature,a notable exception being recent work by Starbuck(2001). With respect to guidelines for good practice,this aspect of the cultural differences between acade-mia and industry is considered an important feature,since the academic objectives of universities, ofnecessity, favour the inclusion of doctorate and post-graduate students in such collaborative projects. Itwould therefore be in the interests of both industrialpartners and students, to establish guidelines fortheir deployment in such projects.

Cultural Issues – Implications for Good PracticeFundamental differences in the relative priorities,perspectives and time horizons of academia andindustry, is the focus of a number of studies in theliterature. Such differences are recognised as a majorobstacle to successful university–industry collabor-ations. A balance between the requirements of indus-try and academia must be achieved if university–industry collaborations are to be successful. Thisrequires that each party understands the needs of theother and the constraints placed upon them, and tostrive toward a solution which would benefit all part-ners equally. Effectively therefore, success in univer-sity-industry collaborations is strongly dependent onachieving mutual benefit and not simply ensuring thatthe industrial partners achieve proprietary benefit,though this is equally important.

Many of the major issues to emerge from the casestudies have been concerned with areas of collabor-ation management that are essentially generic, apply-ing equally in the context of industry–industry oruniversity–industry collaborations. These genericissues have been shown to be important by theimpacts that they have on the success of projects.However, the focus of this research on university–industry collaborations requires that particular atten-tion be given to issues specific to collaborationsbetween academia and industry and addressing thecultural differences between them. Therefore, thegood practice model developed in the next sectionincorporates factors which have been shown to bekey to overcoming these cultural differences and


achieving a balance between academic and industrialpriorities and needs.

Main Findings

Summary of Main Elements for Inclusion in theGood Practice Model

From the results of the cross-case analysis of the sixcollaborative case study projects, it was concludedthat a good practice model for the effective manage-ment of collaborative R&D projects should reflect sixkey areas:

❖ A method of partner evaluation is needed toensure that, among other issues, partners aregenuinely interested and committed to theintended line of research and are able to support itin terms of adequate resource. The extent to whichindustrial partners will be expected to activelycontribute to the work should also be clear fromthe outset

❖ Providing high quality project management, parti-cularly with regard to objective setting, progressmonitoring, effective communication anddeploying only trained, high quality project man-agers to run the collaboration

❖ Factors such as trust, commitment and continuityhave been shown in the literature to be importantto collaboration success. This research hasreinforced that finding and provided some furtherinsights which will enable a practitioner to bettermanage these key issues

❖ Management processes need to be flexible enoughto react to changes in the external environment.This includes the ability to manage corporatechange (within industrial partners) and changes instrategy or project direction

❖ The model needs to include factors which main-tain the interest and commitment of the industrialpartners. These include ensuring that adequateproprietary benefit is achieved, and by planningthe realisation of tangible outcomes early in theproject, and then at stages throughout its duration

❖ The model needs to reflect the importance ofachieving mutual benefit, i.e. ensuring that anappropriate balance between academic objectivesand industrial priorities is achieved, with parti-cular care being taken in defining the role of stud-ent researchers.

These themes are therefore reflected in the good prac-tice model presented below (Figure 1). The goodpractice model incorporates all of the factors foundto have had a significant impact on the perceived suc-cess of the case study projects.

Many of the success factors incorporated in themodel are also supported by the research of otherworkers in the field (as reported in the published


Figure 1 Good Practice Model for Collaboration Management

literature), therefore providing evidence of thebroader applicability of this model beyond the casesexamined here. It will also be noted that the themesor categories into which the success factors are organ-ised remain largely unchanged from those originallyidentified from a review of the literature prior to theconduct of this research (see first section).

A notable exception to this is the change from Choiceof partners to Partner evaluation factors in acknowl-edgement of the fact that partners are often self-sel-ecting. An evaluation of the characteristics of a newpartner will however yield important insights intohow that partner perceives their role within the col-laboration, their background experience of collabor-ation and their preferred way of operating. Thisinformation should prove extremely valuable to aproject manager in deciding how to set up and man-age a new collaboration in the most effective way.

Finally, this research also identified two new successfactors: the role of the lead researcher and the role ofpostgraduate students. These findings are importantfeatures of collaborative projects of this kind and assuch require attention and careful management ifuniversity-industry collaborations are to be effectiveand successful. These factors also constitute a newcontribution to the body of knowledge regarding the


effective management of university–industry interac-tions.

Conclusions

This research has examined and discussed the mainissues and important success factors to emerge fromboth the published literature and evidence drawnfrom six case studies, each examples of university-industry interaction on R&D projects. Among themany important issues raised by this research, somecommon themes emerged, indicating that a standard-ised good practice model for the effective manage-ment of collaborations would provide a useful man-agement tool which could be applied to futurecollaborative research projects, as a means of system-atically improving collaboration management prac-tice and thereby improving the probability of collab-oration success.

The good practice model presented as a result of thisresearch is based on six key areas, representing themajor common themes to emerge from the multi-casestudy and the published literature:

❖ The need to evaluate new partners and build a col-


laborative environment which takes into accountany key issues identified.

❖ Good project management is essential to success,and particular emphasis should be given to struc-tured objective setting, good progress monitoring,effective communication and deploying onlytrained, high quality project managers to run thecollaboration.

❖ A tendency for collaborations to be influenced byexternal factors such as corporate instability, indi-cates that the management processes themselvesneed to be flexible enough to cope with change.

❖ The importance of trust, commitment and conti-nuity was reinforced by this research. Further,important insights were gained into preparing theground for successful collaboration.

❖ Effective management of university–industryinteractions must include measures which willhelp maintain the interest and commitment of theindustrial partners. These include attention to pro-prietary benefit, ensuring benefit at least commen-surate with investment, and planning for theachievement of tangible outcomes early in the pro-ject.

❖ Good university–industry relations require that anappropriate balance be achieved between aca-demic objectives and industrial priorities.

Many of the issues discussed in this paper can beregarded as broadly generic, being equally applicableto industry–industry collaboration as to university –industry collaboration. While this in-depth casestudy research has yielded a number of success fac-tors which should prove useful to the practitioner,their applicability beyond this small group of casesclearly needs to be tested. Future research shouldconcentrate on further validation of these findingsthrough additional cases involving other universitiesand industries engaged in similar collaborative R&Dprojects. Such work would enable further testing andrefinement of the good practice model so that its use-fulness as a tool for practitioners may be maximised.

References

Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000) A surveyof supply chain collaboration and management in the UKconstruction industry. European Journal of Purchasing andSupply Management 6, 159–168.

Bailey, W.J. et al. (1998) Choosing successful technology devel-opment partners: a good practice model. InternationalJournal of Technology Management 15(1/2), 124–138.

Barker, K. et al. (1996) Management of collaboration in Eureka


projects: experiences of UK participants. TechnologyAnalysis and Strategic Management 8(4), 467–481.

Business & Higher Education Forum (BHEF) (2001) Workingtogether, creating knowledge: the university–industryresearch collaboration initiative. American Council onEducation (ACE), http://www.acenet.edu/programs/bhef/

Burgess, R. and Turner, S. (2000) Seven features for creatingand sustaining commitment. International Journal of Pro-ject Management 18, 225–233.

Burnham, J.B. (1997) Evaluating industry/university researchlinkages. Research Technology Management Jan-Feb, 52–55.

CEST (1991) The management of technological collaboration.Report by the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), Uni-versity of Sussex for the Centre for Exploitation ofScience and Technology (CEST).

Champness, M. (2000) Helping industry and universities col-laborate. Research Technology Management 43(4), 8–10.

Davenport, S. et al. (1998) Research collaboration and behav-ioural additionality: a New Zealand case study. Tech-nology Analysis and Strategic Management 10(1), 55–67.

Dawson, P. (1997) From technology research to the practiceof group-based manufacturing under multi-partner pro-jects. Human Systems Management 16, 35–42.

Dodgson, M. (1991) The management of technological collab-oration. Engineering Management Journal August, 187–192.

Farr, C.M. and Fischer, W.A. (1992) Managing internationalhigh technology cooperative projects. R&D Management22(1), 55–67.

Gregory, E.H. (1997) University–industry strategic partner-ships: benefits and impediments. Industry and HigherEducation August, 253–254.

Hauschildt, J., Keim, G. and Medcof, J.W. (2000) Realistic cri-teria for project manager selection and development. Pro-ject Management Journal, 31(3), 23–32.

Herzog, V.L. (2001) Trust building on corporate collaborativeproject teams. Project Management Journal 32(1), 28–37.

Kale, P., Dyer, J. and Singh, H. (2001) Value creation and suc-cess in strategic alliances: alliancing skills and the roleof alliance structure and systems. European ManagementJournal 19(5), 463–471.

Littler, D., Leverick, F. and Bruce, M. (1995) Factors affectingthe process of collaborative product development: astudy of UK manufacturers of information and com-munications technology products. Journal of Product Inno-vation Management, 12, 16–32.

Martin, B. (1996) University/Industry Interactions. EPSRC,Malecki, E.J. and Tootle, D.M. (1996) The role of networks in

small firm competitiveness. International Journal of Tech-nology Management, 11(1-2), 43–57.

Porter Lynch, R. (1989) The Practical Guide to Joint Ventures &Corporate Alliances (1st edn). Wiley, New York.

Souder, W.E. and Nassar, S. (1990) Managing R&D consortiafor success. Research Technology Management 1, 44–49.

Spekman, R.E. et al. (1996) Creating strategic alliances whichendure. Long Range Planning 29(3), 346–357.

Sporton, M. (1999) EPSRC, a private communication.Starbuck, E. (2001) Optimizing university research collabor-

ations. Research Technology Management 44(1), 40–44.Thomas, S., Tucker, R.L. and Kelly, W.R. (1999) Compass: an

assessment tool for improving project team communi-cations. Project Management Journal 30(4), 15–23.

Youker, R. (1999) Managing international development pro-jects – lessons learned. Project Management Journal 30(2),6–7.


TINA BARNES, Warwick IAN PASHBY, School ofManufacturing Group, Uni- Mechanics, Materials,versity of Warwick, Gibbet’s Manufacturing, Engineer-Hill Road, Coventry CV4 ing and Management, Uni-7AL, UK. E-mail: t.a.barne- versity of Nottingham, [email protected] versity Park, Nottingham

N67 2RD, UK. E-mail: ian-Dr Tina Barnes is Senior [email protected] Fellow with War-wick Manufacturing Group, Dr Ian Pashby is ProfessorUniversity of Warwick. Her of Manufacturing Processespost-doctoral research has at the University of Not-

focussed on the effective management of university– tingham. He has held posts at Rolls-Royce and the Uni-industry collaboration through involvement in the Eur- versity of Warwick. His current research concentratesopean Consortium of Innovative Universities and an on materials processing, and university–industry col-EPSRC-funded project involving the food and drink laboration.industry.

ANNE GIBBONS, War-wick Manufacturing Group,University of Warwick, Gib-bet’s Hill Road, CoventryCV4 7AL, UK. E-mail:[email protected]

Dr Anne Gibbons is Lec-turer at the University ofWarwick, Warwick Manu-facturing Group, specialis-ing in business economics.

She has been concerned particularly with a partnershipstrategy to improve the quality and quantity of inno-vation activity in the local West Midlands area.


effective university – industry interaction:: a multi-case evaluation of collaborative r&d...

Documents