PAPERS Situational Project Management
forCollaborative Research Projects
Sonia Lippe, SAP (Switzerland) Inc, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Jan vom Brocke, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein
ABSTRACT
Collaborative research projects form a spe-
cific project type, aimed at organizing innova-
tion endeavors between industry, academic,
and public partners.Theyve become increas-
ingly widespread and their management
is challenged due to ambiguously defined
goals and the heterogeneous interests of
many partners. We present a situation-
specific approach that enables managers
to select established project management
knowledge according to changing needs
along the project life cycle. Making use of
thematic analysis, we develop a graphical
framework to describe and analyze project
situations. Further we establish situation pro-
files as a concept to relate each situation to a
management method that corresponds with
its managerial needs.
KEYWORDS: project management;
qualitative research; uncertainty; ambiguity
Project Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 7696
2016 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21561
76 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION
M
otivated by access to complementary knowledge and
competencies, pressure to innovate, and increasing funding
opportunities from various governments, many organizations
have made collaborative research projects important parts of
their innovation portfolio (Hessels & van Lente, 2008; Levine & Prietula, 2014;
Todeva & Knoke, 2006). In this type of project, the work is planned, executed,
and financed commonly by a consortium of public, academic, and private
partners (Gassmann & von Zedtwitz, 2003; Nobelius, 2004; Oesterle & Otto,
2010) who share a common research interest and work across disciplinary,
organizational, and national boundaries to achieve innovative results
(Ingans, Hacklin, & Marxt, 2009). The increase of such projects has been
fostered by the strong commitment of public agencies to mode-2 knowledge
production (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, & Scot, 1994) and
to multi-stakeholder models for research management (Etzkowitz, 2003),
which has led to large-scale public-funding opportunities. Examples include:
European Union Framework Programmes, which foster multidisciplinary
research and cooperative activities in Europe and beyond1; Cooperative
Research Centres in Australia2; and projects funded by the German Ministry
for Education and Research in Germany.3 Collaborative research projects are
to be found early in the innovation cycle, where ideas are being explored, but
not yet commercialized (Hagedoorn, Link, & Vonortas, 2000).
Like any other type of innovation project, collaborative research projects
benefit from professional and targeted project management to reach short-
term goals and long-term benefits for all stakeholders (Barnes, Pashby, &
Gibbons, 2006; Knig, Diehl, Tscherning, & Helming, 2013). Consequently,
this type of project has also received increasing attention in the project man-
agement literature. Analysis of experience gained in such projects has resulted
in general project management rules and recommendations (prescriptive
research) and contributions that explain the settings and processes inherent
in such projects (process research). Common guidelines include the advice to
acknowledge and manage the central role of the project vision (Knig, Diehl,
Tscherning, & Helming, 2013; Shore & Cross, 2005; Winter, Smith, Cooke-
Davies, & Cicmil, 2006), to ensure comparability of partners and to foster a col-
laborative working style (Barnes et al., 2006; Calamel, Defelix, Picq, & Retour,
2012), and to appoint a skilled and experienced project manager (Adler,
Elmquist, & Norrgren, 2009; Procca, 2008; Ruuska & Teigland, 2009). In addi-
tion, management approaches have been developed that address the unique
challenges of this type of project, such as the uncertainty of working steps and
results, many heterogeneous individuals, and the autonomy of participating
1 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/
2 https://www.crc.gov.au/
3 http://www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/
information (Barnes, Pashby, & Gib-
bons, 2002; Barnes et al., 2006; Dewulf,
Franois, Pahl-Wostl, & Taillieu, 2007;
Grimaldi & von Tunzelmann, 2002). In
the context of process research, it has
been observed that the application of a
uniform project management approach
along the project life cycle is inappropri-
ate and that addressing the situation-
specific circumstances of collaborative
research is an important determinant
of success or failure (Calamel et al.,
2012; Knig et al., 2013). Practically, the
suitability of existing project manage-
ment methods (including the above-
mentioned set of specific approaches
for this project type) changes along the
project life cycle and managers need
support in finding the right project
management method for each situation
they are confronted with (Du, Leten,
& Vanhaverbeke, 2014). Conceptually,
collaborative research projects require a
flexible project management approach,
which takes into account changing man-
agement conditions and circumstances
arising from multiple project stakehold-
ers, activities, and results and that facili-
tates the application of the appropriate
knowledge depending on the situation.
Since such an approach is currently
lacking in project management research
and practice, its development is the
objective of this article.
In order to pursue this objective,
we start by conceptualizing the various
circumstances under which manage-
rial approaches become necessary. The
results are envisaged as a framework for
distinguishing between different proj-
ect situations and analyzing them for
their needs. Since project situation
is a complex concept, our goal is to
conceptualize this phenomenon in the
context of the project type by answering
Research Question 1: What are suit-
able concepts to describe, distinguish,
and analyze project management
relevant situations in a collaborative
research project? Next, we formalize
the relationship between the manage-
rial circumstances and corresponding,
altering project management methods.
We introduce the notion of situation
profiles to relate situational parameters
to suitable management approaches.
The corresponding Research Ques-
tion 2 reads as follows: What are the
most common situation profiles (situ-
ation description and corresponding
management approach) in collabora-
tive research projects? We address these
research questions using a qualitative
research design for which we conduct
in-depth expert interviews with project
managers and apply thematic analysis
to code and categorize the data.
This article is structured as fol-
lows. The second section describes the
research background and methodologi-
cal approach. The third section pre-
sents the framework derived from our
research and documents the set of situ-
ation profiles. In the fourth section we
discuss the results and limitations, and,
finally, in the fifth section we present
the conclusion to and contributions of
our work.
Research Background and
Method
The Need for Situational Management
in Collaborative Research Projects
Collaborative research projects form
a temporary, limited, project-based
organization based on the paradigms
of cross-disciplinary, joint research
(Huutoniemi, Klein, Bruun, & Hukki-
nen, 2010) and those of a single-project
environment (Calamel et al., 2012; Hob-
day, 2000). The aim of collaborative
research is to solve a research problem
rather than to follow a pre-specified
product or service description or cus-
tomer requirements (Oesterle & Otto,
2010 ). This problem-solving nature
increases the uncertainty and ambiguity
of the results and the working methods
(Turner & Cochrane, 1993) and requires
a high level of creativity to produce
novel outcomes (Kratzer, Gemnden,
& Lettl, 2008; Thamhain, 2003). Joint
research, which addresses the need
to apply differing perspectives to a
research problem (Bruce, Lyall, Tait, &
February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Williams, 2004), is defined as a system
of research activities by several actors
related in a functional way and coor-
dinated to attain a research goal cor-
responding with these actors research
goals or interests (Laudel, 2002, p. 4).
The literature identifies several types of
joint research (Hagedoorn et al., 2000;
Katz & Martin, 1997), among which col-
laborative research projects are char-
acterized by the pooling together of
complementary resources and compe-
tences (Ingans et al., 2009, p. 214).
This collaboration is further character-
ized by a large diversity of actors in terms
of their organizational, national, and
disciplinary backgrounds (Adler et al.,
2009; Dewulf et al., 2007), collective
responsibilities and accountabilities,
autonomy of the organizations involved
(Calamel et al., 2012; Erno-Kjolhede,
2001; Morron, 2013), and, particularly
when they involve many partners, are
often constructed as a response to calls
by public funding agencies (Protogerou,
Caloghirou, & Siokas, 2010; van der
Meer & Trommelen, 1996). Naturally,
these partners differ regarding project
goals, their working modes, and their
perceptions of project success and per-
formance.
Studies that have analyzed this type
of project have shown that collabora-
tive research projects comprise highly
heterogeneous management activi-
ties at several levels of granularity and
technical and political complexity, and
concern various types of stakeholders
(Adler et al., 2009; Barnes et al., 2006;
Calamel et al., 2012; Dewulf et al., 2007;
Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe,
2013 ). For example, as Knig et al.
(2013) showed in their framework for
structuring interdisciplinary research,
project managers have to coordinate
and integrate various individual and
small-team research activities that are
highly creative and require a level of
freedom and flexibility. Other activities,
such as the management of processes
and regulations imposed by project gov-
ernance and the funding body, require
a strong project management with a
77
 Situational Project Management
PAPERS
clear work plan, assigned responsibili-
ties, and strict timelines and deadlines.
Consequently, the project manager
must be allowed to use existing project
management knowledge in a way that is
dependent on managerial conditions,
circumstances, and the projects needs
(c.f. Figure 1). Therefore, re-inventing
project management approaches for
this type of project is less appropriate
than supporting the situational use of
established knowledge in the projects
everyday contexts (Barnes et al., 2006).
The Notion of Situation Profiles
andTheoretical Background
The interplay between the project
needs and the best-suited management
approach is researched in project man-
agement contingency theory (Howell,
Windahl, & Seidel, 2010; Shenhar, 2001;
van Donk & Molloy, 2008), which is
based on the understanding that a proj-
ect forms a temporary organisation, so
the ideas of organizational contingency
theory apply (Shenhar, 2001). The proj-
ect management approach is consid-
ered the structural variable that must
be adapted based on certain internal
and contextual contingencies in order
to optimize the effectiveness of proj-
ect management. Related project man-
agement contingency research seeks to
identify influencing factors for various
Project Situation
Expressed in terms of
constituent factors and
dimensions
Project Management Method
Provides management tasks,
processes, tools and
techniques
Figure 1: Theoretical framework.
78 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
types of projects and circumstances (for
a detailed literature review on the appli-
cation of contingency theory to project
management, see Hanisch & Wald, 2012;
Sauser, Reilly, & Shenhar, 2009). Our
approach to situational project manage-
ment follows this idea by assuming that
a project situation refers to the condi-
tions and circumstances under which
management involvement becomes
necessary and that these conditions
and circumstances can be described in
terms of a set of constituent factors and
their dimensions. To express the fit to
a corresponding project management
approach, we develop the notion of situ-
ation profiles, which describe situations
by identifying a set of concrete situ-
ational dimensions, and relating them
to a corresponding project management
approach. Figure 1 depicts the resulting
theoretical framework that guides our
data collection and analysis process.
Applied Process of Thematic Analysis
Methodologically, we ground our
research in thematic analysis, which
provides a set of detailed procedures
and techniques by which to find code-
able moments and to analyze data with
respect to themes that emerge as rel-
evant to the research questions (Boy-
atzis, 1998). In the context of this study,
the relevant themes correspond to the
FIT: Situation Prole
Relates situation description
and suitable project
management approach
identification of concepts that describe
and distinguish project situations in col-
laborative research projects and com-
mon situation profiles (c.f. Figure 1 and
Research Questions 1 and 2).
We derived empirical evidence with
which to analyze the phenomenon from
in-depth interviews with project man-
agers employed by a world-leading pro-
vider of enterprise software that has
much experience with collaborative
projects and is currently running more
than 50 projects in parallel. Project
managers in this company have under-
gone project management training
courses and are involved in all phases
of the projects life cycles, so the inter-
view partners were comparable and
situation descriptions could be gener-
alized. To collect empirical data and
verify the results, we conducted three
rounds of interviews. We started with
20 open-ended interviews with expe-
rienced project managers in order to
derive factors suitable for answering
the first research question. Based on a
pre-defined and tested interview guide,
we asked each interviewee to describe
typical or exceptional situations that
he or she had encountered in manag-
ing projects. Second, we chose 10 of
the 20 interview partners for follow-up
interviews in order to gain feedback
on our results. Third, we conducted
Result: Improved
effectiveness of project
management
an additional 15 structured interviews
with a new set of project managers from
other organizations and backgrounds.
We asked them to apply our factors and
dimensions to describe situations that
require their management attention
and to describe how these situations are
best managed. In each round of inter-
views our sampling strategy followed
typical case sampling based on Miles
and Huberman (1994), and the selec-
tion of interview partners was based on
experience in the field (minimum of five
years of experience), variety of project
content, variety of the projects stage
in their life cycles, and availability for
interviews.
Our data analysis progressed as fol-
lows (c.f. Appendix A). Because of the
availability of related work, our study is
classified as research-driven (Boyatzis,
1998). We used literature review to derive
initial factors based on prior research and
a coding list for the subsequent process
of coding the interview data (c.f. Appen-
dices B and C). Next, we prepared the
interview data for analysis by extracting
the sections that covered the discussed
project situations, retrieving a total of
67 situations, which formed our unit
of analysis. We coded these situations
using the pre-defined coding list and
developed new codes where necessary.
Through subsequent analysis within the
coded extracts (Braun & Clarke, 2006),
we sought to discover and conceptualize
a stable set of factors and dimensions
that the project managers identified as
relevant. We measured the prevalence
of the factors by ensuring that each fac-
tor distinguished a minimum of two
situations and was reported in at least
five situations. We further grouped and
reduced the number of factors by cross-
checking the findings in the dataset and
applying matrix queries (Miles & Huber-
man, 1994). We verified this set of factors
by means of the feedback interviews with
study participants and added missing
dimensions where necessary. We ended
this phase with a set of 16 factors and
dimensions that are valid across mul-
tiple situations in collaborative research
projects and with a graphical frame-
work that includes a grouping of fac-
tors into higher-level indicators. These
results provided a response to Research
Question 1.
To derive a set of the most common
situation profiles, we analyzed the third
set of interview data for patterns that
recurred in the situation descriptions.
We matched 45 situation descriptions
in this step and derived a set of the
three most common situation profiles,
answering Research Question 2.
Results
Concepts Used to Describe and Analyze
Project Situations
This section starts by presenting the set
of 16 factors we derived from our data
analysis. The factors are summarized
in Table 1, along with their dimensions
and definitions. The first 12 factors, part
of the initial coding list, were confirmed
and substantiated through the interview
data and follow-up interviews, particu-
larly with respect to concrete dimen-
sions (c.f. Appendix C, which explains
how each code was derived from the
initial coding list). We added four addi-
tional factors from the interview data.
A visualization of the co-occurrence
of factors and dimensions across vari-
ous situation descriptions and an analy-
sis of the larger contexts in which they
were reported allow us to identify an
additional concept with which to dis-
tinguish and analyze project situations.
We propose four indicators suitable to
a higher-level assessment of the situa-
tions. These indicators combine vari-
ous factors (c.f. Figure 2) and support
structured analysis of contradictory
management needs and the identifica-
tion of problem areas that require the
project manager s special attention in
each situation.
Management target: An assessment
of the situations management needs
should clearly identify the target of the
management attention. Corresponding
to the factors identified above (c.f. Table
February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
1), this target can be technical content,
legal aspects of the project, finance and
effort, and/or people.
Management demand: Situations
strongly differ with respect to the man-
agement complexity and the demands
imposed on the project manager.
To guide the interviews and to gain
a variety of situation descriptions, we
asked project managers to describe
situations that were difficult and situa-
tions that were easy to manage. Analysis
showed that situations the interviewees
referred to as less demanding were not
very critical or political and/or involved
only partners who were engaged and
motivated to contribute.
Level of consensus-building: Collab-
orative research is characterized by a
high amount of required consensus-
building to conduct the technical work,
but also for project administration,
legal aspects of the project, and project
governance frameworks. When dealing
with a situation, the project manager
must be aware of the level of con-
sensus-building that is required and
possible problems with respect to the
ambiguity of the Description of Work,
the stakeholders level of interaction,
and their interests and agendas.
Predictability and structure of work:
Some situations in research projects
must be managed without reducing
creativity and the researchers motiva-
tions by facilitating spontaneity and
supporting the desire for change and
rule-breaking (flexibility). Other situa-
tions benefit from firmness in project
execution. This difference is expressed
in this indicator, which combines fac-
tors that express the contradictory
needs for spontaneity and structure
and the desires for change and stability
in collaborative research work.
Graphical Framework
The results also require a graphical rep-
resentation if they are to be directly
usable by project managers. Using the
factors, dimensions, and indicators
we identified, we created a morpho-
logical box to display our results. The
79
 Situational Project Management
PAPERS

Factor Dimensions Definition

Criticality Very critical Refers to the extent to which the management of the situation and its outcome
Somewhat critical influences the realization of goals and the projects overall success (Heupers, van
Hillegersberg, & Katsma, 2011; Howell et al., 2010)
Not critical
Politics Very political Refers to the extent to which the principal organization and other stakeholders
Somewhat political make high demands on the project manager (Heupers et al., 2011)

Not political
Clarity of results Explicitly defined
Implicitly defined
Unclear and elaborating
Clarity of working Explicitly defined
steps Implicitly defined
Unclear and elaborating
Tangibility of working Creative work
steps Communication-intensive work
Refers to the extent to which the stakeholders goals, needs, and desires are
defined at the beginning of the situation (Crawford & Pollak, 2004; Erno-Kjolhede,
2000; Heupers et al., 2011; Turner & Cochrane, 1993; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Refers to the extent to which the working steps to be performed are defined at
the beginning of the situation (Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Heupers et al., 2011; Knig
et al., 2013; Turner & Cochrane, 1993)
Refers to the type of project activity to be managed (Crawford & Pollak, 2004;
Ingans et al., 2009; Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2013)

Hands-on work
Governance Strict processes Refers to the level of rules and regulations that are externally imposed on the
Guidelines and legal frameworks project activities (Heupers et al., 2011)

No explicit governance
Task dependencies Independent tasks Refers to the extent to which one activity is dependent on the input from another
Sequential interdependence partner/work package (Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Heupers et al., 2011)

Interrelated and integrated tasks

Success criteria Definable and consensus Refers to the extent to which success measures applied by various stakeholders
Definable and no consensus can be defined and are agreed upon (Adler et al., 2009; Crawford & Pollak, 2004;
Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Hadorn, 2008; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Fuzzy
Agenda of In-line Refers to the extent to which the internal agenda and motivation to join the
stakeholders Unclear project is apparent and can be aligned with the project goals (Barnes et al., 2006;
Calamel et al., 2012)
Strong divergences
Level of cooperation Engaged stakeholders Refers to stakeholders willingness to work together and contribute to a common
and contribution Indifferent stakeholders goal despite possible differences (in working methods, cultures, internal agendas,
efforts project goals, etc.) (Calamel et al., 2012)
Reluctant stakeholders
Occurrence Short timelines and recurring Refers to the duration and repetition of the situation along the projects life cycle
Short timelines and once (Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)

Long-running
Time pressure Strict timelines and deadlines Refers to the urgency of activities and the extent to which time constraints play a
Implicit timelines and deadlines role (Heupers et al., 2011; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007b)

Not time-sensitive
Management target Content Refers to the target of the management activities performed
Finances and efforts
People
Legal aspects
(Continued )

80 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Factor Dimensions Definition
Cause of situation Management of project work Refers to the reason managerial involvement is necessary
Change/exception handling
Conflict resolution
Ambiguity of Low Refers to the ambiguity of the description of work (formal work description,
description of work Medium part of the contract with the funding body) and the level to which conflicting
interpretations may arise
High
Management Weak Refers to the project managers influence on the stakeholders
position Strong
Table 1: Constituent factors and dimensions to describe project situations.

Management target

people nances and effort legal aspects content

Management demands low medium high

Cause of situation management of project work change/exception handling conict resolution

Politics not political somewhat political very political

Criticality not critical somewhat critical very critical

Level of cooperation efforts engaged indifferent reluctant

Management position strong medium weak

Level of consensus building low medium high

Success criteria denable and consensus denable and no consensus fuzzy

Ambiguity of work plan low medium high

Task dependencies independent tasks sequential interrelated and integrated

Agenda of stakeholders in-line unclear strong divergences

Structure and predictability of work high medium low

Clarity of results clear and explicitly dened predictable but implicitly dened unclear and elaborating

Clarity of working steps clear and explicitly dened predictable but implicitly dened unclear and elaborating

Tangibility of working steps hands-on communication-intensive creative

Time-pressure strict timelines implicit timelines not time-sensitive

Occurrence short-timelines but short timelines and once long running

reoccurring

Governance strict processes guidelines and legel frameworks no explicit governance

Figure 2: Framework used to describe, distinguish, and analyze project situations in collaborative research projects.

dimensions can be added in a way that
they form a continuum ranging from low
to high for each indicator. The resulting
framework is depicted in Figure 2.
A concrete project situation can
now be described by selecting 1-n
dimensions for each factor. An analysis
is possible, as the highlighted dimen-
sions directly show critical needs and
conditions in the project with respect to
the higher-level indicators. The dimen-
sions are suitable concepts with which
to express contradictory conditions and
to distinguish situations.
Set of Common Situation Profiles
A logical next step in our research is
the identification of a set of common
situation descriptions with correspond-
ing management approaches that reg-
ularly occur in collaborative research
projects. This step aims at answering
our second research question. The
results of the corresponding empirical
study are presented in this section.
We derive the three most common
situation profiles. While certain factors

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 81

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS
are clearly categorized in the same
dimension across all related descrip-
tions, other factors vary from situation to
situation and remain situation-specific,
even within common profiles. There-
fore, Figures 35 present the profiles
and highlight the dimensions chosen
in the majority and the minority of
descriptions.
Clearly, the most common situation
described and detailed by our inter-
viewees is the management of part-
nersboth participating organizations
and individuals from these organiza-
tionsduring the project. The inter-
viewees described this situation as
understanding and managing the orga-
nizations agendas and interests, moti-
vating individuals to contribute to the
common project goal, and, in certain
cases, handling partners exit from the
project. Partners must be continuously
coordinated and managed in order to
ensure their commitment and keep
up with the changes of focus inside
partner companies. Partner manage-
ment is a continuous process along all
phases of the project life cycle, but it
peaks at certain times during the proj-
ect. The interviewees estimated the
amount of management time spent on
the situation of partner management at
2050%. Figure 3, which shows the situ-
ation profile for partner management,
outlines the categorization in terms of
the constituent factors and dimensions
and provides details on the manage-
ment approach that the interviewees
described as most suitable.
The second situation profile is
directly related to the management of
the project s core research and tech-
nical content. The central task of
the technical project manager is to
coordinate the writing of collabora-
tive deliverables, including planning
contributions, sensemaking of con-
tributions, conducting internal proj-
ect review processes, and submitting
final deliverables to the funding body
(not included in this profile is the
research and production of the content
within the deliverables). Coordination
82 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
of deliverables occurs repeatedly
throughout the project, and the inter-
viewees reported that project manag-
ers spend 20% to 30% of their time on
this task. The full profile of this situa-
tion is depicted in Figure 4.
The third profile we derived from
our data is the management of a shared
and jointly understood project vision.
In most cases, the Description of Work
only vaguely defines the scope of the
project in terms of the projects over-
all and technical vision; therefore, it is
important to create a big picture early
on in the project and to ensure that all
participants understand and support it.
Based on the interview results, this work
on the project vision takes up to 50% of
the project managers time during the
projects initial phase. This vision is then
used as a cognitive reference throughout
the project to guide the research and
development activities and is updated
if changes occur. The management of
these tasks was summarized as vision
management in our interview responses
and its corresponding situation profile is
outlined in Figure 5.
Discussion
Due to their innovative character in
terms of results and project organi-
zational set up, the uniqueness of
collaborative research projects is
manifested in a complex and diverse
project environment. To address this
challenge from a project manage-
ment perspective, the project man-
ager should understand that internal
and external management conditions
can change rapidly, so he or she must
detect and analyze these conditions
correctly and remain flexible with
respect to the applied project manage-
ment methods, tools, and techniques.
Correspondingly, our first result sug-
gests a framework to conceptualize the
various, possibly contradictory man-
agement situations, along the proj-
ect s life cycle. The framework can be
applied to describe, distinguish, and
analyze each situation in the project
in a structured way and by focusing
only on the factors that are relevant
to the type of project. We confirm our
initial contention that project situa-
tions can be described in terms of con-
stituent factors and their dimensions
and identify 16 factors in this context.
While 12 of these factors have been
present in project management con-
tingency theory, and our contribution
lies in confirming them as relevant
to collaborative research projects as
well, we also derive four additional
factors from our data. Analysis of the
16 factors reveals that project-relevant
situations occur as a complex interplay
among many aspects of the project
and must be analyzed simultaneously.
By aggregating the factors into higher-
level indicators and presenting them
on a continuum ranging from high
to low, we add an additional concept
that supports the project manager in
detecting critical needs and challenges
and directing the management atten-
tion accordingly, which reduces uncer-
tainty with regard to the suitability of
the applied management approach.
As a second result, we propose the
notion of situation profiles. We sug-
gest situation profiles to work toward
alleviating the shortcomings of cur-
rent project management contingency
approaches by providing a suitable
concept that relates situational param-
eters to a corresponding management
approach and to concrete implementa-
tions of existing project management
standards and knowledge. Situation
profiles also consider changes during
the project s life cycle, so they sup-
port a more dynamic fit of context and
approach. In addition, instead of investi-
gating varied approaches to fixed contin-
gencies, situation profiles conceptualize
the conditions under which managerial
approaches are necessary. We present
three profiles, which have been identi-
fied as most common in collaborative
research projects. The comparison of
these profiles proves the initial assump-
tion about difference in the management
needs and the varying suitability of exist-
ing project management knowledge.
 Situation prole: Partner Management
Short description: Understand and manage agenda and interests of partner organizations and individuals; motivate partners to
contribute to common project goal.
Signicance and occurrence within management activities: Continuous process with peaks along the project life cycle; 20%- 50% of
time of project manager is spent on this situation.

Management target

People nances and efforts legal aspects content

Management demands medium high
Cause of situation management of project work change/exception handling

Politics very political

Criticality very critical

Level of cooperation efforts engaged indifferent reluctant

Management position strong medium
Level of consensus building high
Success criteria denable and consensus denable and no consensus fuzzy
Ambiguity of work plan medium high
Task dependencies interrelated and integrated
Agenda of stakeholders unclear strong divergences
Structure and predictability of work medium
Clarity of results predictable and implicitly dened
Clarity of working steps predictable and implicitly dened unclear and elaborating
Tangibility of working steps communication-intensive
Time-pressure implicit timelines
Occurrence long running
Governance guidelines and legal frameworks

Management approach:
Partner management can be actively driven and inuenced (due to rather strong management position of project manager)
Address partner organizations and individuals bilaterally whenever possible
Create a positive atmosphere to discuss and express partner's agendas and interests
Understand partner's interests (particular hidden agendas)
Support and manage consensus building across partners and individuals by applying "soft" management techniques that focus on
communication, consensus building, and problem solving
Constantly monitor partners to detect tensions and possible conicts early on
Put specic management focus on partners with a strong position, high inuence, and/or less engaged partners
Consider differences (cultural, organizational, etc.)
Generally approach partner organizations and individuals with a positive attitude
In case of conict escalation , the contractual agreements offer a legal framework to enforce certain contributions

Figure 3: Common situation profile 1partner management (dimensions set in boldface occur more often than those in gray).

Organizations could engage in devel-
oping additional profiles that take into
account company-specific requirements
and project management knowledge. A
library of such profiles could serve as a
knowledge base for project managers
and enable them to re-use knowledge
gained and reduce learning effort for
experienced project managers and those
new to the field alike. The collection
and analysis of projects within the same
company would also allow for com-
parison of the management approaches
applied and the definition of best prac-
tices and quality standards.

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 83

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS

Situation prole: Deliverable Management

Short description: Plan, coordinate and monitor the creation and delivery of project deliverables.
Signicance and occurrence within management activities: Continuous process with peaks along the project life cycle; 20%- 30% of
time of project manager is spent on this situation.

Management target

content
Management demands low medium high

Cause of situation
Politics somewhat political very political

Criticality very critical

Level of cooperation efforts engaged indifferent reluctant

Management position strong
Level of consensus building low
Success criteria denable and consensus
Ambiguity of work plan low
sequential interrelated and integrated
Agenda of stakeholders in-line
Structure and predictability of work high
Clarity of results clear and explicitly dened
Clarity of working steps clear and explicitly dened
Tangibility of working steps hands-on communication-intensive
Time-pressure strict timelines
short-timelines but
Occurrence
reoccurring
Governance strict processes guidelines and legal frameworks

Management approach:
Suitable for plan-driven approaches
Clearly plan tasks, contributions to deliverables , deadlines, and responsibilities
Monitor and control progress and continuously remind partners about deadlines
Offer support to non-performing partners rather than building on an authoritarian management style

Figure 4: Common situation profile 2deliverable management (dimensions set in boldface occur more often than those in gray).

Our results add to academia and
the project management profession in
three important ways. First, we address
the project management needs of a spe-
cial type of innovation projects, namely
collaborative research projects. Our
results strengthen the project manage-
ment culture in this emerging project
type and facilitate the use of existing
project management knowledge in
an innovative project environment.
Second, our results extend the current
understanding of project management
contingency theory, which states that
project methods should vary accord-
ing to project type and contextual fac-
tors (e.g., Sauser et al., 2009; Shenhar,
2001 ) to include a situation-specific
application along the life cycle of a
single project. This extension enables
project managers to react flexibly to
changing conditions in their projects.
Third, we turn the abstract notion of a
project situation into a structured and
empirically grounded set of factors,
dimensions, and indicators applicable
to collaborative research projects. The
graphical framework that results from
this step is directly usable by project
managers to analyze each situation
in their projects in a structured and
unequivocal way and to detect critical
needs and challenges. Fourth, by devel-
oping the notion of situation profiles,
we contribute an innovative artifact to
accomplishing the mapping of these

84 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

 Situation prole: Vision Management
Short description: Dene and maintain a shared vision of the project.
Signicance and occurrence within management activities: Mainly performed at beginning of the project; at project start more than
50% of the project managers time is spent on this activity.

Management target

people nances and effort legal aspects content

Management demands low medium
Cause of situation management of project work change/exception handling

Politics somewhat political

Criticality very critical

Level of cooperation efforts engaged

Management position strong
Level of consensus building low medium high
Success criteria denable and consensus
Ambiguity of work plan high
Task dependencies interrelated and integrated
Agenda of stakeholders in-line unclear strong divergences
Structure and predictability of work medium
Clarity of results predictable but implicitly dened
Clarity of working steps predictable but implicitly dened
Tangibility of working steps communication-intensive creative
Time-pressure implicit timelines
Occurrence long running
Governance no explicit governance

Management approach:
Iterative approach which aims at a stepwise denition and renement of the vision
Apply collaborative approach which takes into account the interest of all partners, however obtain strong management position
as project manager
Support discussion, but lead towards consensus building
Aim at understanding the interest of the partners (particularly hidden agendas)
Ensure that vision is understood by all stakeholders
Rigorously manage changes of vision that result from further research within the project

Figure 5: Common situation profile 3vision management (dimensions set in boldface occur more often than those in gray).

situational parameters to existing proj-
ect management knowledge effectively
and efficiently. We present three pre-set
profiles that cover many of the manage-
ment activities in collaborative research
projects and, thus, make related man-
agement advice available to a broad
audience.
Our approach and results also have
some limitations. First, this work is
constrained with respect to the type
of project under investigation. Empiri-
cal data are derived only from collab-
orative research projects within the
areas of information and communi-
cation technology that are funded by
the European Union. This approach
might restrict the generalizability of
results and limit their transferability. A
bias could derive from the governance,
rules, and regulations of the funding
body and from the special context of
the application area. However, the con-
stituent factors and dimensions identi-
fied appear general, suggesting that
they are applicable in a wider context.
Future research could test the validity
of the results beyond these boundaries.
Second, the notion of situation pro-
files is based on project management

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 85

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS
contingency theory, which assumes a
dependency between the factors and
the project management approach;
however, this study did not formally
test this dependency. The set of fac-
tors could be further substantiated
by means of a quantitative study that
evaluates the impact of each factor
on the chosen project management
approach. Factors with minimal impact
(although they add to the situation
description) might not be sufficiently
contingent upon the project manage-
ment approach and may be eliminated
from the framework. Third, the process
of thematic analysis followed the rig-
orous process outlined by Braun and
Clarke (2006). Triangulation was per-
formed by means of respondent ver-
ification (Miles & Huberman, 1994 );
however, the data were only coded by
one researcher, thus measurement of
inter-coder reliability is not possible.
Conclusion
Collaborative research projects as a way
to organizing innovation activities have
become increasingly widespread. Since
their management is challenged by their
multiplicity of differing partners, activi-
ties, and results, a situational project
management approach that takes into
account changing management condi-
tions and circumstances is required.
The present study develops such an
approach by means of a thematic anal-
ysis of interviews with experienced
project managers in the field. We con-
ceptualized the conditions and cir-
cumstances under which management
involvement becomes necessary by
developing a framework through which
to describe and analyze situations in an
innovative project environment. This
framework consists of a set of 16 con-
stituent factors and related dimensions
and a grouping of these factors into
four higher-level management indica-
tors: management focus, management
demands, level of consensus building,
and predictability and structure of work.
We applied our framework to derive
86 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
situation profiles that relate situational
parameters with suitable management
approaches. We identify the manage-
ment of project partners, deliverables,
and the project vision as the most com-
mon situation profiles in collaborative
research projects; for each situation we
outlined the relevant dimensions and
the management approach as described
by our interviewees.
The situational project manage-
ment approach presented in this arti-
cle can significantly improve the daily
activities of managers of collaborative
research projects. It shows that, if it is
applied to the right situation, collabora-
tive research projects can use existing
project management knowledge, reduce
the time required to learn-by-doing,
and draw from the various benefits
of a professional and targeted project
manager. A wide-ranging application
of the results requires additional work
to change the views of many research-
ers and technical project managers
that such projects cannot be project
managed and promulgate the view that
situational management project would
enhance the project management cul-
ture in this type of project.
References
Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren,
F. (2009). The challenge of managing
boundary-spanning research activities:
Experiences from the Swedish context.
Research Policy, 38, 11361149.
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A.
(2002). Effective universityindustry
interaction: A multi-case evaluation of
collaborative R&D projects. European
Management Journal, 20, 272285.
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., & Gibbons, A.
(2006). Managing collaborative R&D
projects development of a practical
management tool. International Journal
of Project Management, 24, 395404.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming
qualitative information: Thematic
analysis and code development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using
thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
77101.
Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., & Williams,
R. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in
Europe: The case of the fifth Framework
programme. Futures, 36, 457470.
Calamel, L., Defelix, C., Picq, T., &
Retour, D. (2012). Inter-organisational
projects in French innovation clusters:
The construction of collaboration.
International Journal of Project
Management, 30, 4859.
Crawford, L., & Pollak, J. (2004). Hard
and soft projects: A framework for
analysis. International Journal of Project
Management, 22, 645653.
Davenport, S., Davies, J., & Grimes,C.
(1998). Collaborative research
programmes: Building trust from
difference. Technovation, 19, 3140.
Dewulf, A., Franois, G., Pahl-Wostl,C.,
& Taillieu, T. (2007). A framing
approach to cross-disciplinary research
collaboration: Experiences from a large-
scale research project on adaptive water
management. Ecology and Society, 12, 14.
Du, J., Leten, B., & Vanhaverbeke, W.
(2014). Managing open innovation
projects with science-based and market-
based partners. Research Policy, 43,
828840.
Erno-Kjolhede, E. (2000). Project
management theory and the
management of research projects (MPP
Working Paper (Ed.)). Copenhagen,
Denmark : Copenhagen Business School.
Erno-Kjolhede, E. (2001). Managing
collaborative research: Unveiling
the microdynamics of the European
triple helix. Copenhagen, Denmark :
Copenhagen Business School Press.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in
innovation: The triple helix of university-
industry-government relations. Social
Science Information, 42, 293337.
European Commission. (2012). Guide
for applicantsFP7-2013-ICT-GC.
Brussels, Belgium.
Fraunhofer-Institut fr Systemtechnik
und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe
(1995). Management of collaboration
in EC R&D programmes: Element 7 of
the study, The impact of the framework
programme on European Industry.
Karlsruhe, Germany: FhG-ISI.
Gassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M.
(2003). Trends and determinants of
managing virtual R&D teams. R&D
Management, 33, 243262.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H.,
Schwartzman, S., & Scot, P. (1994). The
new production of knowledge. London,
England: Sage.
Grimaldi, R., & von Tunzelmann, N.
(2002). Assessing collaborative, pre-
competitive R&D projects: The case of
the UK LINK scheme. R&D Management,
32, 165.
Hadorn, G. H. (2008). Handbook of
transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht:
Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas,
N. S. (2000). Research partnerships.
Research Policy, 29, 567586.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012).
A bibliometric view on the use
of contingency theory in project
management research. Project
Management Journal, 43, 423.
Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H.
(2008). Re-thinking new knowledge
production:A literature review and a
research agenda. Research Policy, 37,
740760.
Heupers, E., van Hillegersberg, J.,
& Katsma, C. (2011, December 4).
Identifying project contingency factors for
situational project management method
engineering. International Research
Workshop on IT Project Management
2011, Shanghai, China.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based
organisation: An ideal form for managing
complex products and systems. Research
Policy, 29, 871894.
Howell, D., Windahl, C., & Seidel,R.
(2010). A project contingency
framework based on uncertainty and
itsconsequences. International Journal
of Project Management, 28, 256264.
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T.,
Bruun,H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010).
Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology
andindicators. Research Policy, 39,
7988.
Ingans, M., Hacklin, F., & Marxt,
C. (2009). Sponsored, contract and
collaborative research: Towards a model
of science-industry knowledge transfer.
Journal of Technology Transfer and
Commercialisation, 8, 203228.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What
is research collaboration? Research
Policy, 26, 118.
Knig, B., Diehl, K., Tscherning, K., &
Helming, K. (2013). A framework for
structuring interdisciplinary research
management. Research Policy, 42,
261272.
Koopman, P. L., & van Offenbeek,
M. A. G. (1996). Scenarios for system
development: Matching context and
strategy. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 15(4), 250265.
Kratzer, J., Gemnden, H. G., & Lettl,
C. (2008). Balancing creativity and time
efficiency in multi-team R&D projects:
The alignment of formal and informal
networks. R&D Management, 38, 538549.
Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure
by co-authorships? Research Evaluation,
11, 315.
Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2014).
Open collaboration for innovation:
Principles and performance.
Organization Science, 25(5), 14141433.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994).
Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Morron, M. W. (2013). The European
Unions Framework Program 7 (with
an emphasis on ICT) (Version 2.14 ed.).
EFPC (UK). Retrieved from http://www
.finance-helpdesk.org/downloads/
bookfp7.pdf
Nobelius, D. (2004). Towards
the sixth generation of R&D
February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
management.International
JournalofProject Management, 22,
369375.
Oesterle, H., & Otto, B. (2010).
Konsortialforschung: Eine Methode fr
die Zusammenarbeit von Forschung
und Praxis in der gestaltungsorientierten
Wirtschaftsinformatikforschung.
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 52, 273285.
Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M.,
& Wikstrm, K. (2008). Defining
uncertainty in projects: A new
perspective. International Journal of
Project Management, 26, 7379.
Procca, A. E. (2008). Development
of a project management model for a
government research and development
organisation. Project Management
Journal, 39, 3357.
Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., &
Siokas,E. (2010). Policy-driven
collaborative research networks in
Europe. Economics of Innovation and
New Technology, 19, 349372.
Ruuska, I., & Teigland, R. (2009).
Ensuring project success through
collective competence and creative
conflict in public-private partnerships:
A case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish
triple helix e-government initiative.
International Journal of Project
Management, 27, 323334.
Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R., & Shenhar,
A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How
contingency theory can provide new
insights: A comparative analysis of
NASAs mars climate orbiter loss.
International Journal of Project
Management, 27, 665679.
Shenhar, A. J. (2001). Contingent
management in temporary, dynamic
organizations: The comparative analysis
of projects. Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 12, 239271.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007a). The
lost link: Why successful innovation needs
sound project management. Portland,
OR: Management of Engineering and
Technology, Portland International
Center.
87
 Situational Project Management
PAPERS
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007b).
Reinventing project management: The
diamond approach to successful growth
and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Shore, B., & Cross, B. J. (2005).
Exploringthe role of national culture in the
management of large-scale international
science projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 23, 5564.
Thamhain, H. J. (2003). Managing
innovative R&D teams. R&D
Management, 33, 297311.
Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2006). Strategic
alliances and models of collaboration.
Management Decision, 43, 123148.
Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, J. R. (1993).
Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with
projects with ill defined goals and/or
methods of achieving them. International
Journal of Project Management, 11,
93102.
van der Meer, W., & Trommelen,G.
(1996). Collaborative R&D and
European industry. Research Technology
Management, 39, 1525.
van Donk, D. P., & Molloy, E. (2008).
From organising as projects to
projectsas organisations. International
JournalofProject Management, 26,
129137.
van Slooten, K., & Hodes, B. (1996).
Characterizing is development projects.
In S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, & R.
J. Welke (Eds.), Method engineering:
88 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Principles of method construction and
tool support (pp. 2944). Berlin: Springer
Science+Business Media.
vom Brocke, J., & Lippe, S. (2010).
Towards management guidelines for
collaborative research projects in
information systems: Learning from
project management contingency
theory. In A. DAtri, M. De Marco,
A. M. Braccini, & F. Cabiddu (Eds.),
Management of the interconnected world.
Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag
HD.
vom Brocke, J., & Lippe, S. (2011).
Towards a situational approach in
managing collaborative research projects
in IS: Finding the right contingency
factors. 5th pacific Asia conference on
information systems (PACIS 2011),
Brisbane, Australia.
vom Brocke, J., & Lippe, S. (2013).
Identifying and managing creative
tasks in collaborative IS research
projects.Project Management Journal, 44,
94113.
Vulturescu, V., Dumitrache, V., Vasile,
D., & Bodea, C. (2012). Challenges
in implementing FP7 projects in the
public institutions. Economia: Seria
Management, 15, 129141.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Cooke-
Davies, T., & Cicmil, S. (2006). The
importance of process in rethinking
project management: The story of
a UK government-funded research
network. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 650662.
Dr. Sonia Lippe holds a PhD in Business Economics
from the University of Liechtenstein. She works as
a senior project consultant for SAP SE in St. Gallen,
Switzerland and as a post-doc at the University
of Liechtenstein. At SAP SE she is responsible for
the initiation and management of public-funded
research projects. Her main research interests
include the management of innovation processes
and project management in research projects. Sonia
has previous experience with SAP SE in Germany
and Australia, with the Queensland University of
Technology, German Telekom, and with GAD AG in
Mnster, Germany. She can be contacted at sonia.
lippe@sap.com
Dr. Jan vom Brocke is Professor of Information
Systems, the Hilti Chair of Business Process
Management, Director of the Institute of Information
Systems, and Vice-President Research and Innovation
at the University of Liechtenstein. His research
focuses on diverse facets of digital innovation and
transformation, and he has published more then
300 studies in, among others, MIS Quarterly, the
Journal of Management Information Systems, and
Information & Management. He is co-author and
co-editor of 25 books, including the International
Handbook on Business Process Management and the
book BPMDriving Innovation in a Digital World.
He is an invited speaker and trusted advisor on
digital innovation and transformation serving many
organizations around the world. He can be contacted
at jan.vom.brocke@uni.li
 Interview data: 67 project Interview data: Interview data:
Coding list
* 20 interviews with project situations * 10 feedback * 15 interviews with project
Input

managers of collaborative interviews managers of collaborative

Prior research
research projects research projects

Iterative process

Prepare and Search for Review Search for Review

Process

Review Generate Prepare State

segment Code data themes and dene Verication themes and dene
literature initial codes interviews ndings
interviews (factors) themes (proles) themes

Initial set of factors

* Set of 16 factors and * 3 most common
Output

(26 factors) Unit of analysis (67

dimensions valid across situation proles
different project
a multitude of situations
Coding list situations)
* Graphical framework

Appendix A: Applied process of thematic analysis.

Key Term/Idea Sources Search Terms Selected References

Characterization of Project Type
Collaborative research project Journals Collaborative research Adler et al. (2009), Bruce et al. (2004), Calamel
International Journal of Project Innovation et al. (2012), Davenport, Davies, and Grimes
Management (1998), Dewulf et al. (2007), Erno-Kjolhede
R&D
(2001), Hadorn (2008), Knig et al. (2013), vom
Project Management Journal Public funded research Brocke and Lippe (2011, 2013) and Vulturescu,
Databases AND^ in databases: Dumitrache, Vasile, and Bodea (2012)
ABI Inform (proQuest) Project management
EBSCO BSP
ScienceDirect
Project management in Research Journals Project management
and Innovation Management Research and Technology
literature Management
R&D Management
Research Policy
Technovation
International Journal of
Innovation Management
European Journal of Innovation
Management
Funding Body
Guidelines and regulations http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ N/A European Commission (2012), Fraunhofer-Institut
home_en.html fr Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung,
Karlsruhe (1995), and Morron (2013)
Contingency Theory
Project management contingency Sauser et al. (2009) and vom Applicability to project Crawford and Pollak (2004), Howell et al. (2010),
theory and classification Brocke and Lippe (2010) type Ingans et al. (2009), Shenhar and Dvir (2007b),
frameworks and Turner and Cochrane (1993)
Application of contingency theory Heupers et al. (2011) and N/A Heupers et al. (2011) and Koopman and van
to IS development Koopman and van Offenbeek Offenbeek (1996)
(1996)
Appendix B: Results of literature review to generate initial codes.

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 89

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS

Code 1
Label Affiliation of stakeholders (Adler et al., 2009; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the organizational belonging of stakeholders involved or with an interest in a certain situation
Description Initial set of possible stakeholders organizations from the literature:
Partner internal: involves only people from the same organization
Project internal = project team members: involves people from different participants who are all project partners. These
are split into:
Industry partners
Academic partners
Others
Funding body
External: includes all external audiences related to the project
Initial dimensions Partner internal; project internal; funding body; external parties
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the background and organizational belongings of stakeholders. Do not include assessments of their
expectations or interests
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. Shows prevalence in situation descriptions; however, it was not included in the final
framework since it could be concluded that other factors resulting from the organizational belonging (such as the research
interest and agenda and the motivation to contribute to the project results) are important for the management style and to
differentiate situations
Code 2
Label Background in working together (Bruce et al., 2004; Calamel et al., 2012; Ingans et al., 2009)
Definition Passages that refer to the history of project partners concerning joint research activities
Description Partners that come together to work in collaborative research projects share a common research interest. In many cases
they have experience working together, either through previous collaborative research projects or other types of business
relationships. In other cases, new partners are added where the track record is not known (e.g., through partner search
services)
Initial dimensions Experience working together; no experience working together
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the previous work relationships of partners. Not included are descriptions of experience in
collaborative research projects in general. This code is only related to project partners and excludes relationships to external
stakeholders
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. In most situations nearly all dimensions became relevant, meaning that the situations
usually involved partners that had worked together as well as partners with no previous work relationship. Thus this factor
was not suitable to distinguish situations in the context of this framework
Code 3
Label Level of cooperation efforts (Calamel et al., 2012)
Definition Passages that refer to the willingness of project partners to work together despite their differences in working methods and
cultures
Description Project partners show different levels of involvement and interaction along the project life cycle. Calamel et al. (2012)
describe the different levels of cooperation as gradual process, which includes the following steps:
Initial, spontaneous collaboration
Evidence in cultural differences that prevent cooperation
Individual, collective, and organizational learning
Mature cooperation
These steps were chosen as the initial dimensions
Initial dimensions Initial, spontaneous collaboration; evidence in cultural differences; individual, collective, and organizational learning; mature
cooperation
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the motivation, willingness, and reluctance of project partners to cooperate

90 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Result of data analysis Confirmed as a relevant factor in study data. The willingness and motivation of partners were repeatedly discussed in the
interviews as influencing the management style and measures that are being taken. For example, one interviewee reported
that all partners were motivated, engaged, and following the same goal: [The partners in this situation] are very easy
because I do not have any so to say problem partners. Sometimes you have partners that do not deliver anything or do what
they think, partners that do not integrate into the project in a good way. But I dont have such a situation. Everybody is
willing and contributing. The initial dimensions however could not be confirmed as they were too abstract. New dimensions
were added that better represent the different variations in motivation as present in this type of project
Code 4
Label Applied success criteria (Adler et al., 2009; Crawford & Pollak, 2004; Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Hadorn, 2008; vom Brocke &
Lippe, 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the success measures that are applied by the different stakeholders and their similarities or
differences
Description Significant differences exist in evaluating the success of the results that are being produced. Numerous perspectives may be
applied, depending on the involved stakeholders and their expectations
Initial set of possible success criteria from literature:
Academic view: Aim at publication and education, early publication of results. This leads to the amount of publications
within the timeframe of the project, the speed at which results are disseminated into the academic world, and the quality
of published material as being the main success criteria
Industry view: Aim at patenting, exploitation within internal products, and the development of nearly-ready products. This
leads to the degree of internal exploitation, patenting, and matureness of results as being the main success criteria
Personal view: Aims at personal and professional success and fulfillment of goals
Future view: Aims at generating new research opportunities that arise from the project
Societal/funding-body view: Aims at increasing the impact on society and the job market
Qualitative measures
Quantitative measures
Initial dimensions Amount, quality and speed of publication; internal exploitation, patenting and matureness of results; personnel success and
fulfillment of goals; amount of future collaborations; impact on society and job market; qualitative measures; quantitative
measures
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the success measures that the different stakeholders apply
Result of data analysis Confirmed as a relevant factor in study data. The dimensions, however, have been adapted since the study data revealed the
clarity and level of agreement between stakeholders as the main differentiating characteristics with respect to the applied
success criteria. Not the criteria as such are relevant, but if they can be defined and agreed upon
Code 5
Label Ambiguity of framing device (Dewulf et al., 2007; Hadorn, 2008; Ingans et al., 2009)
Definition Passages that refer to the differences in frames of reference (sensemaking device) of stakeholders
Description One cause of ambiguity in cross-disciplinary research is different frames of reference of the individual project team
members. This is also referred to as knowledge distance in the literature (Ingans et al., 2009). This ambiguity can vary in
intensity, ranging from light indistinctness, through confusion to tension and conflict (Dewulf et al., 2007). These levels
form the initial set of dimensions of this category
Initial dimensions Indistinctness; confusion; tension; conflict
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the role of ambiguity in the sensemaking perspective of stakeholders. Exclude anything related to
ambiguity or uncertainty with respect to the working method or expected results
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. No evidence in study data that this factor is relevant to distinguish situations
Code 6
Label Sector of activity and disciplinary background (Dewulf et al., 2007; Hadorn, 2008; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Definition Passages that describe differences in disciplinary background of university partners and the sector of activity of industry
partners
Description Disciplinary background and sector of activity vary in collaborative research projects and are expected to influence how
project partners perceive and act in a certain situation. Disciplines differ in the ways they assess and frame problems, and
select appropriate research methods. Industry partners with different backgrounds show differences in commercialization
interests and the focus of the project in terms of use-cases and solutions

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 91

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS

Initial dimensions Academic with similar interests (Intra-disciplinary); academic with complementing interests (cross-disciplinary); industry from
same sector of activity; industry from competing sectors of activity
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the disciplinary or industrial background of partners
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. No evidence in study data that this factor is relevant to distinguishing situations
Code 7
Label Geographic location (Hadorn, 2008; Heupers et al., 2011; Ingans et al., 2009)
Definition Passage that refers to the geographic location of the involved stakeholders
Description A central characteristic of collaborative research projects is the involvement of organizations from different countries.
Involved individuals can be located within the same physical space, within national boundaries, or totally dispersed
Initial dimensions Same geographic location; not across national borders; across national borders
In-/exclusion Code anything that relates to the geographic locations of involved individuals
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. No evidence in study data that this factor is relevant to distinguishing situations
Code 8
Label Level of trust (Davenport et al., 1998; Ingans et al., 2009)
Definition Passages that refer to the level of trust and respect that stakeholders show toward each other
Description Trust is defined as the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something (Merriam
Webster Dictionary). In this case, the stakeholders involved in the project. Davenport et al. (1998) distinguish between three
levels of trust:
Contractual trust: adherence to agreements
Competence trust: expectations of ability and performance
Goodwill trust: mutual commitment to partners in a relationship
Influence on project management approach confirmed by (Davenport et al., 1998; Ingans et al., 2009)
Initial dimensions Contractual trust; competence trust; goodwill trust
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the existence and problems related to trust between stakeholders involved in a certain situation
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. The matter of trust was not discussed in the situation descriptions and thus not added as
a factor
Code 9
Label Amount of stakeholders (Heupers et al., 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the amount of stakeholders that are involved in a certain situation
Description The amount of stakeholders that are involved in and influence a certain situation is described by this factor
Initial dimensions No dimensions derived from the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the number of stakeholders, but not their attitudes, perceptions, backgrounds, etc
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. No evidence in study data that this factor is relevant to distinguishing situations
Code 10
Label Agenda of stakeholders (Barnes et al., 2006; Calamel et al., 2012)
Definition Passages that refer to the internal interest of the stakeholders in the project
Description Project partner primary represent their (competing) home organizations and, therefore, may introduce ideas and conflicts into
a project that are not related to the original research goal. This imposes a specific challenge on the project management
Initial dimensions No dimensions derived from the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the internal goals of the stakeholders
Result of data analysis Factor confirmed as relevant. Dimensions have been adapted based on study data
Code 11
Label Type of project activity (European Commission, 2012; Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the type of project activity that needs to be managed

92 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Description Within collaborative research projects many different activities need to be performed; these are very diverse with respect
to their nature. Various references report on the different activities that are executed within this project type (European
Commission, 2012; Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011). The following list could be extracted as suitable to form
the initial dimensions:
Administrative processes: internal management processes and activities related to rules and regulations of funding body
(e.g., reporting)
Demonstration: development of demonstrator to showcase research and development results
Development work: Development of prototypes
Dissemination and exploitation: activities to communicate research results and allow for commercial take-up
Human relations: activities related to HR processes and organizational and project culture
Research: development of research results
Training: Development of training material to inform about project results and training of team members
Initial dimensions Administrative processes; demonstration; development work; dissemination and exploitation; human relations; research
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the category or type of project activities here
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. The type of project activity did not appear as relevant, but rather the underlying
characteristics, such as the predictability and structure of the work
Code 12
Label Steps in research process (Hadorn, 2008)
Definition Passage that refers to the steps in the research process that needs to be managed
Description On a high-level, research activities follow a certain process of different pre-defined steps. Hadorn (2008) suggests a set
of high-level steps that are relevant for collaborative research activities: problem identification and problem structuring,
problem investigation, and bringing results to fruition
Initial dimensions Problem identification and structuring; problem investigation and solution building; application
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the research process here
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. The research process was not discussed in the situation descriptions and thus not added
as a factor
Code 13
Label Task dependencies (Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Heupers et al., 2011)
Definition Passages where the dependencies of a task on the input from another partner/work package is described
Description Collaborative research activities require partners to work together and share commitment and results. This leads to
dependencies between results and in executing the assigned tasks. In this context, three levels of dependencies are
distinguished in the literature:
Pooled interdependence. Partners do not depend on the results of other partners for the solving of their individual tasks
Sequential interdependence. Tasks are performed in a set sequence. Partners therefore need delivery on time of other
partners contributions/results
Reciprocal interdependence. Partners depend completely on the results of each other for the solving of each individual
task. Tasks are interrelated and build upon each other
Initial dimensions Pooled interdependence; sequential interdependence; reciprocal interdependence
In-/exclusion Code anything related to dependence of tasks here
Result of data analysis Factor and initial dimensions confirmed as relevant
Code 14
Label Clarity of working steps (Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Heupers et al., 2011; Knig et al., 2013; Turner & Cochrane, 1993)
Definition Passages that refer to the level of pre-definition of working steps and the ability to create a work plan
Description The level of goal and working method definition are key factors defined in project management contingency theory (Turner
& Cochrane, 1993). This clarity forms the basic level of the goals-and-and-methods framework. Further research has shown
that collaborative research projects combine different categories of this framework since they are composed of predictable
work (such as administrative processes) and phases requiring flexibility and imposing uncertainty on the management, since
they cannot be predetermined (Knig et al., 2013)
Initial dimensions Predictable/order; spontaneous/flexible

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 93

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS

In-/exclusion Code anything related to dependence of tasks and partners here

Result of data analysis Factor confirmed as relevant. Dimensions have been adapted based on study data. Results and working steps can be
explicitly pre-defined (e.g., through a detailed description in the work plan), they can be very open and only elaborate while
the respective work is being performed (e.g., for research activities), or they can be implicitly apparent, as this statement
about managing the project vision shows: So, of course, it wasnt pre-defined in the sense of a documented specification.
But then, probably it was clear in my mind that this needs to be a short and sexy sentence (interview response)
Code 15
Label Time pressure (Heupers et al., 2011; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007b)
Definition Passages that refer to the urgency of activities
Description This code represents the urgency of activities and the extent to which time constraints play a role
Initial dimensions Regular; fast competitive; time critical; blitz
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the time-criticality of a certain situation and the pace at which activities need to be completed
Result of data analysis Factor confirmed as relevant. Dimensions have been adapted based on study data
Code 16
Label Level of formality (Heupers et al., 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the level of formality of the underlying activities
Description Different activities are bound to different rules and regulations that govern the work. These are referred to as formalities
and referred to as lasting rules, procedures and standards for the business processes and supporting information (Heupers
et al., 2011)
Initial dimensions No dimensions provided in the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the existence of formal rules and processes that govern the work. This factor is closely related to
the governance
Result of data analysis Included as factor (governance). Dimensions have been adapted based on study data
Code 17
Label Degree of expertise (Heupers et al., 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the extent to which sufficient expert knowledge is available to perform the project activity
Description Different project activities require a different degree of expertise to create the required results
Initial dimensions No dimensions provided in the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the extent to which the knowledge is available. This does not refer to the type of knowledge that is
required
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. No evidence in study data that this factor is relevant to distinguishing situations
Code 18
Label Complexity (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007b)
Definition Refers to the complexity of the project activity to be managed
Description Task complexity has been identified as a major component with respect to the classification of technology projects (Shenhar
& Dvir, 2007b). It includes assembly, system, and array as possible dimensions
Dimensions Assembly; system; array
In-/exclusion Code anything that refers to the complexity of project tasks
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. The complexity of the activity as defined here was not discussed in the situation descriptions
Code 19
Label Clarity of results (Crawford & Pollak, 2004; Erno-Kjolhede, 2000; Heupers et al., 2011; Turner & Cochrane, 1993; vom
Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Definition Passages that describe how well defined the goals are
Description Clarity is defined as to what extent the goals, needs, and desires of the users are clear and coherent enabling a sound
specification of the functional requirements (van Slooten & Hodes, 1996). This covers the predictability of the output (degree
of definition) and differentiates between high, medium, and low

94 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Initial dimensions High; medium; low
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the level of clarity (definition) of goal specification. Difference to uncertainty: uncertainty deals
with the expected changed to this clarity
Result of data analysis Factor confirmed as relevant. Dimensions have been adapted based on study data. Results and working steps can be
explicitly pre-defined (e.g., through a detailed description in the work plan); they can be very open and only elaborate while
the respective work is being performed (e.g., for research activities); or they can be implicitly apparent as this statement
about managing the project vision shows: So, of course, it wasnt pre-defined in the sense of a documented specification.
But then, probably it was clear in my mind that this needs to be a short and sexy sentence (interview response)
Code 20
Label Novelty of results (Heupers et al., 2011; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007a)
Definition Passages that refer to the newness of results with respect to the existing knowledge
Description Research contributions are expected to prove novelty to be recognized as scientific. Also with respect to the market, results
of collaborative research projects are expected to produce new results. Dimensions are defined by Shenhar and Dvir (2007b)
as derivative, platform, and breakthrough
Initial dimensions Derivative; platform; breakthrough
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the novelty of the result produced in a certain situation
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. No evidence in study data that this factor is relevant to distinguishing situations
Code 21
Label Tangibility of working steps (Crawford & Pollak, 2004; Ingans et al., 2009; Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2013)
Definition Passages that refer to the tangibility or measurability of working steps
Description Project goals or results vary in terms of how well they can be measured once they are reached. This is referred to as
tangibility
Initial dimensions No dimensions provided in the literature
In-/exclusion Include anything related to the tangibility or measurability of results
Result of data analysis Factor confirmed as relevant. Dimensions have been added based on study data. Three types of activities have been
reported in the situation descriptions. Creative work aims at problem-solving by means of producing novel and useful ideas,
processes, and solutions. This work is very intangible and hard to plan. Communication-intensive work arises from the
collaborative nature of projects and includes discussions among stakeholders. Hands-on work summarizes tangible working
steps, such as the generation of software and project deliverables
Code 22
Label Uncertainty of results (Heupers et al., 2011; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007b)
Definition Passages that refer to the technological uncertainty of the result and the changes that might occur
Description Uncertainty is defined as is an event or situation which was not expected to happen, regardless whether it could have been
possible to consider it in advance (Perminova, Gustafsson, & Wikstrm, 2008, p. 78) (unknown-unknowns). Uncertainty
can have many causes and effects. According to Shenhar and Dvir (2007b) this code refers to the level of technological
uncertainty and distinguishes between low tech, medium-tech, high-tech, and super high-tech results
Initial dimensions Low-tech; medium-tech; high-tech; super high-tech
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the uncertainty of results with respect to the technological advances
Result of data analysis Not confirmed as a relevant factor. Uncertainty was not discussed as distinguishing situations. It was generally assumed
that results and working steps change within the project due to the research nature of the project
Code 23
Label Criticality (Heupers et al., 2011; Howell et al., 2010)
Definition Passages that refer to the possible effects of a certain situation on the project success
Description Various situations can be more or less critical to the overall project success
Dimensions No dimensions provided in the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to how critical a certain situation is perceived and what is at stake in the project
Result of data analysis Factor confirmed as relevant. Dimensions have been added based on study data

February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 95

 Situational Project Management
PAPERS

Code 24
Label Law and regulations (Heupers et al., 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the laws and regulation that govern the work in a certain situation
Description Collaborative research projects are executed within legal and formal frameworks that influence the work and flexibility of
situations
Initial dimensions No dimensions provided in the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the influence and extent to which a certain situations depends on laws and regulations
Result of data analysis Reflected in governance, not included as independent factors
Code 25
Label Politics (Heupers et al., 2011)
Definition Passages that refer to the political influence of the internal organization on the situation
Description Defined as the extent to which the political situation inside the principal organization and other stakeholders poses higher
demands on project management
Initial dimensions No dimensions provided in the literature
In-/exclusion Code anything related to politics of the internal organization and the influence. General project politics are excluded and
expected to form a separate factor
Result of data analysis Confirmed as a relevant factor in study data. Dimensions added based on coding of situation descriptions and discussions in
follow-up interviews
Code 26
Label Occurrence (Knig et al., 2013; vom Brocke & Lippe, 2011)
Definition Passages that describe the occurrence or duration of a situation within the project life cycle
Description Refers to the duration or recurrence of a certain situation. It can be limited to a certain period in time and only occur once
(e.g., contractual negotiations at the beginning of a project), it can be limited and be recurring (e.g., formal reporting), or it
can run continuously throughout the project
Initial dimensions Short timeline and once; long timeline; short timeline and recurring
In-/exclusion Code anything related to the duration and occurrence of the situation. Further decomposition in two themes possible
Result of data analysis Factor and initial dimensions confirmed as relevant
Structure follows Boyatzis (1998) for coding list.
Appendix C: Initial coding list and results of data analysis.

96 February/March 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj