R&D in multidisciplinary and cross-organizational environments: multisectoral networks for innovation

Abstract

R&D projects can be viewed as idiosyncratic experiences, and the characteristics of people, organizational cultures and communication networks strongly influence the type of management that can lead to excellence and desired level of productivity in each case. Managing R&D is a complex task, whose success depends upon managers' capacity to adapt their methods to the characteristics of the projects they are leading. Yet, there is no unified framework which could guide managers through the choice of the most adequate instruments and methods for each circumstance, and which could help them anticipate problems or identify ways to overcome them when they occur. Managers are left improvising and this is even more apparent when it comes to complex R&D projects that involve a high diversity of actors and various organizations with different, sometimes antagonist goals. This paper discusses specific issues linked with R&D in multidisciplinary and cross-organizational environments, involving partners from different geographical locations. We examine multisectoral networks engaged in innovation projects, multidisciplinary and cross-organizational R&D and joint new product development. We portray an actual R&D structure supported by such a network and we raise some management questions associated with this particular arrangement.

Full text

1
R&D in multidisciplinary and cross-
organizational environments:
multisectoral networks for innovation
Irina Saur
1
, Jorge Alves
2
and Maria José Marques
3
1
isaur@egi.ua.pt
2
jalves@egi.ua.pt
3
haneman@dao.ua.pt
All at the Department of Economy, Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus
Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
R&D projects can be viewed as idiosyncratic experiences, and the characteristics of people,
organizational cultures and communication networks strongly influence the type of management
that can lead to excellence and desired level of productivity in each case. Managing R&D is a
complex task, whose success depends upon managers’ capacity to adapt their methods to the
characteristics of the projects they are leading. Yet, there is no unified framework which could
guide managers through the choice of the most adequate instruments and methods for each
circumstance, and which could help them anticipate problems or identify ways to overcome them
when they occur. Managers are left improvising and this is even more apparent when it comes to
complex R&D projects that involve a high diversity of actors and various organizations with
different, sometimes antagonist goals. This paper discusses specific issues linked with R&D in
multidisciplinary and cross-organizational environments, involving partners from different
geographical locations. We examine multisectoral networks engaged in innovation projects,
multidisciplinary and cross-organizational R&D and joint new product development. We portray
an actual R&D structure supported by such a network and we raise some management questions
associated with this particular arrangement.
1. Introduction
R&D activities may take various shapes, according to the
context and organizations involved. Cross-organizational
experiences involving elements from various sectors are
particularly effective for horizontal innovation
endeavours with high degrees of idiosyncrasy. However,
they are uncommon; this raises questions related to
underlying reasons. Managing R&D is particularly
complex in cross-organizational experiences and directly
affects their success. Yet, there is limited knowledge
about how to manage cross-organizational R&D
experiences or cooperation (multisectoral) arrangements
(Varamaki&Vesalainen, 2003, Gulati et.al., 1994,
Miles&Snow, 1992).
Several challenges/problems are pointed out in the
literature (Cohen&Levinthal, 1989, Pakirh, 2001,
Samaddar&Kadiyala, Drejer&Gudmundsson, 2002,
Becker&Dietz, 2004, Sakakibara, 1997, 2003, Alves
et.al., 2004a, Saur, 2005), yet clear managerial visions
and strategies to overcome the challenges are scarce.
It is important to better understand the challenges faced
by R&D managers and explore the adequate instruments
and methods for each circumstance, so that problems may
be foreseen and compensation mechanisms timely
applied.
This paper contributes to the understanding of these
questions. We analyze the R&D management field and
outline the role of the R&D management function in
contemporary R&D projects. Then, we explore
multidisciplinary and cross-organizational initiatives for
R&D; we identify challenges and strategies to cope with
them.
We look into a R&D structure developed to serve a
multisectoral university-industry network for innovation.

2
We identify associated management challenges. We point
out particular approaches to help overcoming these
challenges and we discuss the role of the R&D
management function in this particular case.
2. Research and development (R&D)
“R&D” has become a single, indivisible expression,
which reflects the fuzzy boundaries between research and
development. Distinctions do exist and some arguments
of this paper depend on those differences. We thus start
by clarifying the meaning we assign to these concepts.
Research is linked to new knowledge creation or to the
comprehension of a phenomenon. According to its focus,
it may be: a) basic, i.e. with no confined orientation
towards specific goals and led mainly by scientific
curiosity; or b) applied, i.e. mission-oriented, focused
towards specific objectives or directed towards new
technological advances.
Development is linked existing knowledge utilization
to construct new products, services or processes. It’s an
experimental endeavour, involving e.g. prototyping and
tests.
In this paper, we use the expression “R&D” whenever
we refer to applied research and development.
Occasionally, we may distinguish between “R” and “D”,
when we believe that this separation brings added value to
our arguments.
R&D focus
R&D projects may be looked upon as almost unique
experiences. The characteristics of people, culture,
communication networks and support structures raise
specific challenges, influencing the management style and
focus (Jain&Triandis, 1997).
People’s knowledge and attitudes towards R&D
processes are key elements in their assessment
(Jain&Triandis, 1997). Knowledge is a special
“organizational” and individual resource, which increases
and consolidates with usage and sharing. The more
frequent the interactions with other individuals for
knowledge sharing and the higher the Weltanschauung
“distance” between the participants, the faster knowledge
consolidates (Alves et.al., 2005). Since knowledge is the
main “raw material” for R&D, managers need to focus on
increasing the interactions and creating formal and
informal communication networks between individuals
with, desirably, divergent mindsets. Here, management of
R&D equals management of knowledge.
People’s attitudes towards their work are a primary
R&D management concern. They strongly impact the
organizational behaviour and the overall results.
Management studies point out specific methods that
promote in people attitudes and behaviour adjusted to the
organizational culture (Jain&Triandis, 1997).
Communication networks play important roles in R&D
processes. Firstly, because the efficiency of knowledge
sharing and knowledge creation processes increases with
frequent formal and informal communication. The R&D
manager needs to stimulate discussions among R&D team
members, and with external units/groups, complementing
internal capabilities and enhancing the organizational
knowledge base. Communication networks are crucial
because knowledge resources and dynamic capabilities
are stimulated by collaboration, leading to high levels of
trust and flexible inter-organizational relations
(Macpherson et.al., 2004, Blomqvist et.al., 2004, Edler
et.al., 2002, Jain&Triandis, 1997). And secondly, because
access to relevant information about techniques,
technologies or market increases productivity of R&D
processes and leads to new market successes. Relevant
information is commonly obtained by frequent
communication or through access to scientific/practical
information sources. Well-functioning internal and
external communication networks created and maintained
by the R&D manager facilitate this process
(Jain&Triandis, 1997).
R&D processes cannot be managed efficiently without
a well-implemented and operating support structure
(Jain&Triandis, 1997), e.g. physical spaces, equipments,
logistics, financing etc. The R&D manager needs to set
up/coordinate this structure. This does not imply that the
R&D manager becomes a logistics/financial expert, but he
needs to understand the functions involved and use
appropriate instruments at his disposal ensuring the
interface with this support structure runs efficiently.
R&D Management
R&D management must focus on managing information
and knowledge and on smoothing the interface with the
available support structures. It needs to cover the
conception/implementation of these structures and their
subsequent maintenance and continuous optimization.
Various studies analyzed R&D Management
frameworks. Authors like Blomqvist et.al. (2004) and
Edler (2002) speak of R&D management generations,
pointing evolution patterns. Models derived from
collaborative/outsourced R&D have been emerging. The
manager chooses people, ensures project management,
gets/manages funds, but also ensures that participants’
cultural traits are respected. He/she focuses more on
establishing communication networks, managing
information and knowledge, internally and externally, and
on creating/maintaining satisfactory linkages with outside
organizations to diversify the internal knowledge base
(Park&Kim, Grimaldi&Tunzelmann, 2002, Narula, 2004,
Lofsten&Lindelof, 2005, Blomqvist et.al., 2005).
The new R&D Manager is a knowledge broker, a
communication facilitator, a motivator/integrator of team
members. He/she needs to understand the strategy of
cooperative arrangements and pass the message to his/her
colleagues (Jain&Triandis, 1997, Parikh, 2001). The
R&D manager interacts with dissimilar actors and
coordinates internal activities. Modern R&D management
is increasingly becoming management of networks of
asymmetric actors, stimulating co-evolution.
Managing R&D is a complex task, whose success
compels managers to adapt their methods to the projects

3
they are leading. Yet, there is no unified framework
which could guide managers through the choice of most
adequate instruments and methods for each circumstance,
or help them anticipate problems and identify ways to
overcome them when they occur. Managers are left
improvising. This is more visible in complex R&D
projects with high diversity of actors/various
organizations with different, sometimes antagonist goals
(Sakakibara, 1997, Alves et.al., 2004b, 2005, Saur et.al.,
2005).
3. Multidisciplinary and cross-organizational
initiatives for R&D
Benefits of R&D collaboration have been briefly
presented in the previous chapter. For more on this topic,
see Alves et.al. (2004a, 2004b, 2005), Blomqvist et.al.
(2004), Sakakibara (1997, 2003), Samaddar&Kadiyala.
Nonetheless, collaboration in multidisciplinary and
cross-organizational settings is not pain free, facing
challenges that the R&D manager needs to consider.
First, firms’ capacity to absorb and use information and
knowledge resulting from external cooperation
1
may be
insufficient. According to Parikh (2001), when
information and knowledge activities are internal, firms
collect/disseminate results naturally. If they involve
external linkages, “knowledge permeation across firm
boundaries becomes difficult” (Ibid).
Then, the R&D manager cannot ‘impose’ solutions, as
participants tend to reject autocratic management
approaches. Network management and coordination
structures rarely have formal authority. This requires
additional communication effort, emphasizing the benefits
and implications of task success for each
participant/organization (Alves et.al., 2004a, 2004b).
Another important challenge is reconciling various
organizational interests. As Sammadar & Kadiyala refer,
“collaborative relationships range from those in which
organizations attempt to maximize expected individual
gains, to those in which they attempt to maximize total
expected system gain”.
More, to support collaborative activities and stimulate
knowledge and information management, organizations
need to loose their structures, complementing them with
IT tools (Drejer & Gudmundsson, 2002). This involves
high organizational costs (Sakakibara, 1997, 2003) and
raises requirements that most firms would difficultly meet
(Becker&Dietz, 2004).
Ultimately, multidisciplinary environments are difficult
to organize/manage, raise communication problems and
reveal challenges related to knowledge complementarity.
Conflicts, low efficiency and methods/instruments
diversity increase management difficulties and complicate
multidisciplinary ventures (Alves et.al., 2004b, Saur,
2005).
4. Multisectoral network environments for
innovation and R&D
Multisectoral networks for innovation exhibit unique
organization/dynamic profiles. Elements from various
organizations, with unrelated culture and different,
sometimes antagonist goals, working for the same
objective, create complex operational problems and raise
complicated challenges.
R&D structure: operation
We worked on a multisectoral network for innovation
composed of 11 firms and one university, whose aim is to
raise a futuristic house
2
. This network developed a R&D
structure that covers all types of R&D, from applied
research to development. Auxiliary activities were also
put in place.
If we look at this structure from the R&D management
perspective, we see it accommodates two types of
initiatives:
• Vertical initiatives – Blueprints Preparation, New
Product Development, Multisectoral Product
Development and Applied Research – focused on
specific objectives contributing to R&D results
from an operational perspective, whose leaders
and participants have a rather narrow perspective
over network activities;
• Horizontal initiatives – Controlling, Network
Management, Project Management, Controlling
(University) and Academic Strategic Committee –
with a broader range of objectives contributing to
R&D results from a support/management/control
perspective, focused on optimizing R&D results,
whose leaders and participants benefit from a more
holistic perspective over network activities.
These initiatives interact formally and informally,
which is indispensable to attain network objectives.
We focus next on aspects that affect the R&D
management function. We describe characteristics,
objectives and interactions of vertical and horizontal
initiatives, preparing to explain the R&D structure.
VERTICAL INITIATIVES
Blueprints Preparation
: The main purpose is developing
blueprints for the futuristic house to be raised in 2008.
Twenty-two teams work independently (under overall
coordination) to develop the blueprints. The result of their
work will be integrated and serve as construction
programme. Each team has a leader, responsible and
motivated to achieve results.
This is a R&D support activity, serving to: a) spill-over
knowledge to New Product Development and
Multisectoral Product Development; b) integrate
knowledge and information obtained from New Product
Development and Multisectoral Product Development in
the blueprints.
These 22 teams communicate in-between them, with
New Product Development, Multisectoral Product
Development, Controlling and Project management.

4
New Product Development:
The aim is developing
innovative products with medium-term market potential
to exhibit in the future house. Ten teams were organized,
composed of and led by employees from the involved
organizations. Their motivation is rather low because of
everyday pursuits that prevail over the longer-term,
strategic developments for the house.
This is an operational activity, which directly provides
R&D results: new products with market potential, i.e.
innovations. This activity spills-over relevant knowledge
and information to Blueprints Preparation and integrates
information obtained from it. These teams interact with
Blueprints Preparation, Controlling and Project
Management.
Multisectoral Product Development
: The purpose is
developing highly innovative new products, with
multisectoral characteristics, without any direct
commercial potential, i.e. surpassing the selfish interests
of network members. Five multisectoral teams were
created, each coordinated by a network leader. They share
a core group of six people that work full-time in the
project. In each team, this group is complemented, on a
part-time basis, by people from network organizations.
This is an operational activity that contributes directly
to R&D results. Besides developing multisectoral new
products, it also spills-over relevant knowledge and
information to Blueprints Preparation and integrates
information obtained from it. These teams communicate
with Blueprints Preparation, Controlling and Project
Management.
Applied Research
: The focus is on research for the
habitat. Ten teams have been identified. They are led by
academic researchers and subjected to their own
interests/priorities. These teams have low motivation to
attain network objectives, but are interested in relating
with network firms.
This is an operational activity; it focuses on creating
new knowledge applicable in new products/processes.
These groupings only relate with Controlling
(University), Project Management and Academic
Strategic Management.
HORIZONTAL INITIATIVES
Controlling
: These activities ensure timely delivery of
R&D results and financial management of network-
funded activities.
There is a responsible team, which mostly controls
vertical activities with formal agreements. A leader
ensures the objectives are fulfilled.
This activity ensures that all necessary resources for
network-funded R&D activities are available and controls
their development, ensuring timely delivery of quality
results. This is a support and a managerial function.
This team communicates with Blueprints Preparation,
New Product Development, Multisectoral Product
Development, Network Management and Project
Management.
Network Management
ensures the availability of the
resources required by R&D-related activities and decides
upon results’ quality and pay-back. It defines strategic
R&D objectives and reflects ownership preoccupations
with any network or R&D-related issues.
A team made of five top executives is responsible with
these activities. It ensures the correct functioning of all
R&D-related activities. It shares R&D decisions to
Project Management and accompanies the implementation
of strategic objectives. This is a managerial function.
This team communicates with Controlling and Project
Management.
Project Management
ensures the correct functioning
of all R&D-related activities, suggests/leads changes in
the R&D structure, ensures the implementation of
strategic objectives and suggests investments in R&D to
Network management. One person is responsible for these
activities. This is a managerial function.
This person communicates with Controlling, Network
Management, Controlling (University) and Academic
Strategic Management.
Controlling (university)
ensures the correct
functioning of all network-related activities involving
academia, identifying academic activities that may serve
network objectives.
One team, financed by university, composed of two
Junior Researchers and a Senior Professor, is responsible
for these activities.
This team ensures the correct functioning of all R&D-
related activities involving academia; it provides support
to academic R&D activities under network scope and
creates/tests R&D support mechanisms. This is a support
and managerial function.
This team communicates with Project Management,
Blueprints Preparation, New Product Development,
Multisectoral Product Development, Applied Research
and Academic Strategic Management.
Academic Strategic Management
seeks to maximize
the involvement of academic researchers in network-
related activities and create synergies between academic
personnel.
One team exists, composed of 11 Senior Professors
representing academic departments interested in habitat-
related R&D. Participants receive no financial
compensation for their activities.
This team identifies academic R&D-related activities
relevant to the network, and suggests to Project
Management coordination and operational strategies to
promote R&D-related activities involving academics.
This is a managerial function.
This team interacts with Project Management, Applied
Research and Controlling (University).
R&D structure
The initiatives presented before are rather heterogeneous
in terms of: function in the R&D structure (operational,
support or management); objectives; interactions;
participants (academics or entrepreneurs); knowledge
complexity. Figure 1 shows the overall R&D
arrangement, highlighting key aspects, i.e. degree of
relative knowledge, type of compromise with the
network, type of participants, formal communication
networks and formal leadership.

5
Legenda
HORIZONTAL ACTIVITIES: Network management, Academic strategic
management, Project/R&D management, Controlling, Controlling (university)
VERTICAL ACTIVITIES: Blueprints preparation, New product development,
Multisectoral product development and Applied research
New product
development
Multisectoral
product
development
Applied
research
Blueprints
Knowledge to attain
objective needs to
be discovered -->
Vertical activities
developed at network
level - network funds,
network administrative
support and network
physical spaces; Formal
agreement with the
network
Controlling
Network management
Project management
Controlling (university)
Project management
Controlling (university)
Academic strategic
management
Initiatives involving professionals and no
academic researchers.
Initiatives involving academic researchers
and no professionals.
Initiatives involving both academic
researchers and professionals.
Initiatives with strong and motivated
leadership.
Initiatives with low motivated leadership.
Deliverables between vertical initiatives (usually
knowledge and information flows) - strong interaction
Horizontal initiatives promoted by the
network.
Horizontal initiatives promoted by the
university.
Formal communication networks.
Vertical activities
developed at members'
level - members' funds,
members' administrative
support and physical
spaces; No formal
agreement with the
network
Strategic (top) management initiatives.
Tactical (operational) management
initiatives.
Strategic/Tactical (mid) management
initiatives.
Controlling
Network management
Project management
Controlling (university)
Controlling
Network management
Project management
Controlling (university)
Deliverables between vertical initiatives (usually
knowledge and information flows) - low interaction
Knowledge to attain
objective is available -->
Figure 1. Overall functioning of the R&D structure: horizontal and vertical initiatives

6
We positioned the vertical activities according to the
knowledge required to attain objectives, e.g. Blueprints
Preparation has available knowledge that needs to be
properly utilized, whilst Applied Research requires
knowledge creation/discovery.
Two vertical activities are developed at network level:
Blueprints Preparation and Multisectoral Product
Development. They are paid by network funds, benefit of
network administrative support and physical spaces and
are formalized in specific agreements with defined
objectives’ quality/quantity and associated deadlines.
These activities have strong/motivated leadership, which
facilitates the achievement of objectives and
quality/timeliness of deliverables.
The other vertical activities are developed outside the
direct network scope, in each organization (individually
or in cooperation): New Product Development and
Applied Research. Members pay for these activities,
provide administrative support and provide physical
spaces. There is no formalized agreement with the
network to specify objectives’ quality/quantity, yet there
are specific deadlines and deliverables. Each grouping has
a leader, yet his/her main priorities are rather dictated by
his/her organization. The quality/timeliness of
deliverables and the achievement of objectives cannot be
controlled/imposed.
Deliverables exchanged between Applied Research and
New Product Development or Multisectoral Product
Development are sustained by low interaction levels, and
occur discontinuously. These exchanges are facilitated by
Project Management and Controlling (University) and
aren’t supported by formal/regular arrangements.
This R&D structure has deficiencies, raising
management uncertainties to discuss in the next section.
Multisectoral and multidisciplinary R&D
structure: management challenges and
associated strategies
The R&D structure of this multisectoral network is based
on learning. We may look at underlying innovation
processes as a combination of knowledge creation,
learning and application. Thus, the structure needs to be
flexible, promote communication and enhance learning
activities.
Challenges may emerge at the level of any type of
initiative. Some may be due to structural deficiencies;
others may result from malfunctioning or unforeseen
activities.
At Blueprints Preparation level, the main difficulties
are related with multidisciplinarity and processes
efficiency. Teams are composed of elements from
different disciplines/organizations.
R&D management function should promote frequent
communication, mental openness and flexibility to
divergent opinions, and solve conflicts. The R&D
manager must become a communication facilitator,
motivating/integrating participants’ views.
Additionally, there is a high quantity of knowledge to
be transformed into information, e.g. transformation of
knowledge created in Blueprints Preparation into
deliverables (i.e. information) for New Product
Development and Multisectoral Product Development.
This may be difficult to implement due to lack of
resources.
One possible way to overcome this challenge is
implementing an information system and an
information/knowledge management framework. The
R&D management function will need to deploy effective
activities in knowledge/information management field, to
create, implement and maintain this framework.
Finally, problems with respecting deadlines and
ensuring deliverables may emerge. This may compromise
the cooperation spirit between the different initiatives.
This may be aggravated by difficulties in controlling
informal communication networks.
These problems may be overcome through planning,
controlling and continuous communication. The R&D
management function needs to ensure the availability of
resources to provide deliverables and meet deadlines.
At New Product Development level, challenges
depend on whether we focus on New Product
Development promoted by only one organization or
promoted in cooperation.
When New Product Development is promoted by one
organization, the challenge is organizing dedicated teams
to attain objectives. As this depends on firm’s funds, there
are other priorities, even in terms of new product
development. The question that will naturally emerge is:
why to develop products for the network instead of
developing our own products? This is aggravated by the
lack of formal compromise with the network.
Not much can be done from the R&D management
perspective. This is a challenge dependent on Network
Management, linked with participants’ motivation to
contribute to network objectives.
When New Product Development is promoted in
cooperation, based on synergies, challenges are related to
establishing the cooperation scheme. This is costly and
requires organizational flexibility. Without funds or
experience in developing cooperation arrangements,
without coordination/strategic support, it is highly
improbable that the organizations would organise these
schemes by themselves.
The R&D/network management function may facilitate
this process, creating opportunities for sharing network’s
best practices to create/maintain cooperation for R&D,
providing instruments/methods to be used by participants.
Another important issue is related with the
confidentiality precautions. Lack of trust may emerge, as
there is no Intellectual Property Code signed between
partners of cooperative New Product Development.
This may be overcome by promoting communication,
creating bonds and stimulating trust. Formal contracts
may be established between partners to ensure
confidentiality and regulate formal rights/obligations.
At the Multisectoral Product Development level,
various challenges may occur.
A first one is related with multidisciplinarity and
processes efficiency. Since there is no foolproof method
to develop innovative products, teams learn-by-doing.
Yet, part-time personnel coming from network
participants use systematic methods/approaches for their

7
in-house incremental innovations. They may perceive the
learning-by-doing approach as lack of competence in the
core group. Conflict is then latent. Coordination of
distinct organizational routines and work styles/methods
may delay the development process and reduce efficiency.
The R&D management function must compromise
between creativity and tangible results, promoting
frequent communication between participants, foreseeing
conflicts and valuing visible progress publicly. The R&D
manager appears, once again, as a communication
facilitator and motivator of the various participants.
Another challenge is knowledge/information sharing
between participants. The associated processes may lack
fluidity, in part because people don’t know (and hence
don’t trust) each other well enough to share knowledge
openly. Moreover, they don’t belong to same
organizations, thus confidentiality issues may emerge.
The R&D management function should promote
frequent informal encounters to overcome lack of trust
and support the implementation of the existing
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property code.
Participants in this initiative, mostly part-time ones,
have their own agendas, which may reveal divergent
interests/objectives and contradictory priorities. Same
may happen with elements from the core group involved
simultaneously in five teams, which might overload.
Additionally, divergences may occur between part-time
participants in Multisectoral Product Development and
their managers (in their respective organizations), due to
differences in perspective/work methods compared with
in-house normal tasks. This may result from manager-
subordinate inadequate communication, leading to
hierarchical conflicts or role changes (subordinates may
become gatekeepers).
This may be overcome by joint meetings/strategic
agreements between participants and good
communication in Multisectoral Product Development
teams and inside participating organizations.
Decision processes associated with Multisectoral
Product Development are slow. Various organizations are
involved, with diverging interests. It is unclear what the
decision structure is. This may slow down the processes
and compromise deliverables/results. This is aggravated if
efficient communication networks are missing.
Frequent strategic meetings involving managers in the
concept definition and frequent progress reports may help
overcome these difficulties. Developing a fluid decision
structure with clear responsibilities will increase the
speed/quality of decision-making processes.
Geographical dispersion of participants will cause
delays and waste time. Contacting and meeting with
people will require considerable time/effort.
An information system to support these processes may
help, as will the simple precaution of arranging meetings
in fixed days.
Finally, problems with respecting deadlines and
ensuring deliverables may emerge.
This can be overcome through planning, controlling
and continuous communication. The R&D management
function needs to focus on results and ensure the
availability of resources to provide deliverables/meet
deadlines. This requires good scheduling to avoid last-
minute pressures.
At Applied Research level, the main challenge is
focusing the research onto network objectives. As the
network doesn’t provide funds, other research priorities
exist, which aggravates as no formal compromise exists.
As in the case of New Product Development, not much
that can be done by the R&D management function. This
falls under Network Management scope and is linked with
participants’ motivation to contribute to network
objectives. These initiatives may fail if not properly
motivated. We consider this aspect very important as
Network Management doesn’t focus directly on applied
research activities and only Project Management interacts
with these activities.
At Controlling level, the main challenge is the lack of
formal authority over the participants in vertical activities.
Controlling may see its orientations ignored if members
of vertical activities or their leaders ignore the importance
of corrective measures.
This may be overcome if corrective/control activities
are presented positively, pointing benefits for vertical
groupings’ dynamics.
Another issue is overload. This team has only four
people, and is responsible with the coordination of 22
blueprints groupings, 4 to 6 multisectoral product
development groupings and several new product
development teams. Most of these activities have similar
deadlines and milestones.
Good planning may help reducing the overload risk
and prevent bottlenecks.
At Network Management level, the main challenge is
management of R&D investments. This team needs to
ensure good controlling mechanisms and periodical
milestones/reporting opportunities to ascertain that overall
R&D results contribute to attain strategic objectives and
expected pay-back.
This justifies reporting schemes with predefined
milestones to evaluate progress maintained by Project
Management and Controlling.
At Project Management level, a key challenge is a
fluid information/knowledge management system, as
information and knowledge are vital resources in R&D
endeavours and formal mechanisms are required to
maximize results.
The solution requires a close analysis of knowledge
and information flows necessary to attain objectives and
the implementation of formal bridges between various
activities/groupings of the R&D structure. Informal
communication needs to be encouraged, to complement or
overcome the deficiencies of formal mechanisms. Total
reliance on informal flows at this level is prejudicial
because the overall project is exceedingly complex.
Another issue is overload/unavailability. This activity
relies upon one person, responsible with overall
strategic/tactic management of all vertical activities,
interacting closely with Controlling and Network
Management.
Good planning may help reducing the overload risk.
Developing an efficient delegation structure may also
help preventing block-outs if unavailability/overload
occurs.
Another challenge is overcoming the low-motivated

8
leadership and ensuring objectives are being attained in
New Product Development and Applied Research
initiatives.
This may be alleviated by emphasizing network
benefits and showing immediate/mid-term gains from
compliance with R&D network-related objectives.
Finally, the major challenge is ensuring the
achievement of operational/strategic objectives with the
required quality and within deadlines. This is complicated
because of the complexity and incompleteness of the
R&D structure. Some activities are vaguely defined and
the multidisciplinary nature of most teams reduces R&D
processes’ efficiency.
This may be resolved by implementing mechanisms to
plan, report, manage risks and enhance communication
networks.
At Controlling (University) level, a first challenge is
its lack of formal authority in the university; it may only
suggest approaches and work through persuasion.
The way to deal with this is emphasizing benefits of
the participation in network’s activities.
Another challenge is overload. The potential
coordination support is really low, as depends on two
operational elements unable to cope with all academic
requirements, participate in vertical activities and develop
R&D support mechanisms.
As in the case of Controlling, good planning may help
reducing the overload risk. Foreseeing and acting to
prevent bottlenecks could make the difference. However,
there is a high probability that this grouping will face
overload and become incapable of securing R&D-related
objectives.
At Academic Strategic Management level, the main
challenge resides in its continuity. As participants do not
receive any material reward and tangible benefits are not
always visible, they may give it up.
This may be overcome insisting on benefits of their
participation in this initiative.
Multisectoral and multidisciplinary R&D
structure: role of the R&D management
function
In the previous sections we described key challenges of
the R&D structure and suggested some approaches to
overcome them. Previous comments reveal that the R&D
management function has to cope with issues mainly
linked to: process efficiency; achieving objectives;
complicated knowledge/information flows; motivation;
hierarchical/team conflicts; slow decision processes;
geographical dispersion of participants; risk management;
overload.
Accordingly, the R&D management function should
implement mechanisms to: increase R&D process’s
fluency; assist in managing risk; planning and controlling
operations to avoid bottlenecks and overload; create
smooth decision structures with clear responsibilities;
help creating functional communication networks,
emphasizing formal communication to ensure the
objectives are attained and encouraging informal contacts
aiming to complement potential information gaps;
promote an efficient Knowledge/Information management
framework based on good information systems and on
opportunities for knowledge sharing and creation; allow
overcoming the low motivation of practitioners,
presenting benefits of their participation in the R&D
structure.
The implementation of these mechanisms would
improve the R&D structure we presented in Figure 1.
Figure 2 illustrates how this improved model would look
like.

9
Legenda
HORIZONTAL ACTIVITIES: Network management, Academic strategic
management, Project/R&D management, Controlling, Controlling (university)
VERTICAL ACTIVITIES: Blueprints preparation, New product development,
Multisectoral product development and Applied research
New product
development
Multisectoral
product
development
Applied
research
Blueprints
Knowledge to attain
objective is available -->
Knowledge to attain
objective needs to
be discovered -->
Vertical activities
developed at network
level - network funds,
network administrative
support and network
physical spaces; Formal
agreement with the
network
Controlling
Network management
Project management
Controlling (university)
Project management
Controlling (university)
Academic strategic
management
Initiatives involving professionals and no
academic researchers.
Initiatives involving academic researchers
and no professionals.
Initiatives involving both academic
researchers and professionals.
Initiatives with strong and motivated
leadership.
Initiatives with low motivated leadership.
Deliverables between vertical initiatives (usually
knowledge and information flows) - strong interaction
Horizontal initiatives promoted by the
network.
Horizontal initiatives promoted by the
university.
Formal communication networks.
Vertical activities
developed at members'
level - members' funds,
members' administrative
support and physical
spaces; No formal
agreement with the
network
Strategic (top) management initiatives.
Tactical (operational) management
initiatives.
Strategic/Tactical (mid) management
initiatives.
Controlling
Network management
Project management
Controlling (university)
Controlling
Network management
Project management
Controlling (university)
Deliverables between vertical initiatives (usually
knowledge and information flows) - low interaction
Figure 2. Ideal functioning of the R&D structure: horizontal and vertical initiatives

10
5. Conclusions
After an initial overview of current thought on R&D
management, we looked at a specific case, identified
existing and possible challenges and enunciated
promising strategies to overcome them. We confirmed, as
the theoretical review suggested, that the R&D manager
needs to focus on knowledge/information management
and coordinate cross-organizational endeavours; he/she
needs to facilitate communication and mediate conflicts.
However, his/her role goes even further, covering aspects
such as decision process and organizational structure
optimization and good practices in project/risk
management.
Comprehending the roles of the R&D management
function is an important step, yet not sufficient.
Associated instrumental components are not clear, so
managers need to improvise and adopt learning-by-doing
approaches. This suggests a first theme for future
research: methods and instruments to assist R&D
managers in the implementation and maintenance of R&D
structures.
The nature of the current study was exploratory. We
identified challenges for the R&D management function
and enunciated strategies to overcome them, in a
multisectoral network for innovation. We know that our
results don’t support wide generalization. We believe that
in order to develop a complete perspective over the R&D
management function, more sophisticated approaches are
required. This provides the basis for a second theme for
future research.
6. References
Alves, J., Amorim, C., Marques, M. J. and Saur, I. (2004a):
Innovation Cooperation Networks: Case of a Multisectoral
and Interdisciplinary Partnership, Workshop on Management
of Innovation, Vedbaek, Denmark.
Alves, J., Amorim, C., Saur, I. and Marques, M. J. (2004b):
How to promote interdisciplinary R&D in the academia: the
case of the “House of the Future”, R&D Management
Conference, Sesimbra, Portugal.
Alves, J., Marques, M. J. and Saur, I. (2004c): Role of
Networking in Innovation Promotion and Cluster
Modernization: “House of the Future” Case, in: Revista
Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais, 27-41.
Alves, J., Saur, I. and Marques, M. J. (2004d): Envisioning the
House of the Future: a multisectorial and interdisciplinary
approach to innovation, E-Core Conference, ECCREDI,
Maastricht, Holland.
Alves, J., Saur, I. and Marques, M. J. (2005): Cooperation
networks and regional development: case of multisectoral
partnership for innovation, in: Regional Development in the
Knowledge Economy (Ed, Piccaluga, A.) Taylor & Francis,
pp. 272, forthcoming.
Becker, W. and Dietz, J. (2004): R&D cooperation and
innovation activities of firms - evidence for the German
manufacturing industry, in: Research Policy, 33, 209-223.
Blomqvist, K., Hara, V., Koivuniemi, J. and Aijo, T. (2004):
Towards networked R&D Management: the R&D approach of
Sonera Corporation as an example, in: R&D Management, 34,
591-603.
Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P. and Seppanen, R. (2005): Playing
the collaboration game right--balancing trust and contracting,
in: Technovation, 25, 497-504.
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1989): Innovation and
learning: The two faces of R&D, in: Economic Journal, 99,
569-610.
Drejer, A. and Gudmundsson, A. (2002): Towards multiple
product development, in: Technovation, 22, 733-745.
Edler, J., Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Reger, G. (2002): Changes in
the strategic management of technology: results of a global
benchmarking study, in: R&D Management, 32, 149-164.
Grimaldi, R. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2002): Assessing
collaborative, pre-competitive R&D projects: the case of the
UK LINK scheme, in: R&D Management, 32, 165-173.
Gulati, R., Khanna, T. and Nohria, N. (1994): Unilateral
commitments and the importance of process in alliances, in:
Sloan Management Review, 35, 61-69.
Jain, R. K. and Triandis, H. C. (1997): Management of Research
and Development Organizations: Managing the
Unmanageable, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Lofsten, H. and Lindelof, P.: R&D networks and product
innovation patterns - academic and non-academic new
technology-based firms on Science Parks, in: Technovation,
In Press, Corrected Proof.
Macpherson, A., Jones, O. and Zhang, M. (2004): Evolution or
revolution? Dynamic capabilities in a knowledge-dependent
firm, in: R&D Management, 34.
Miles, R. and Snow, C. (1992): Causes of failure in network
organisations, in: California Management Review, 34, 53-72.
Narula, R. (2004): R&D Collaboration by SMEs: new
opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization, in:
Technovation, 24, 153-161.
Pakirh, M. (2001): Knowledge management framework for
high-tech research and development, in: Engineering
Management Journal, 13, 27.
Park, Y. and Kim, S.: Knowledge management system for fourth
generation R&D: KNOWVATION, in: Technovation, In
Press, Corrected Proof.
Sakakibara, M. (1997): Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and
cooperative research and development: an empirical
examination of motives, in: Strategic Management Journal,
18, 143.
Sakakibara, M. (2003): Knowledge sharing in cooperative
research and development, in: Managerial and Decision
Economics, 24, 117.
Samaddar, S. and Kadiyala, S. S.: An analysis of
interorganizational resource sharing decisions in collaborative
knowledge creation, in: European Journal of Operational
Research, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Saur, I. (2005): Gestão de Informação e Conhecimento: caso
específico de um projecto de inovação e I&D multidisciplinar,
MSc. in Information Management, University of Aveiro,
Aveiro.
Saur, I., Marques, M. J. and Alves, J. (2005): Multisectoral
cooperation networks as stimuli of knowledge processes
leading to innovation, ISPIM 2005, Porto, Portugal.
Varamaki, E. and Vesalainen, J. (2003): Modelling different
types of multilateral co-operation between SMEs, in:
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27-47.

11
1
‘Absorptive capacity’ (Cohen&Levinthal, 1989)
2
More details in Alves et.al. (2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d).