The shift from discipline-based research (“mode 1”) to interdisciplinary knowledge production involving
industry or service partnerships and increased social accountability (“mode 2”) have led to deep changes in
the organizational structure of research and innovation (R&I) ecosystems. In particular, public researchperforming
organizations have been re-shaping their management and organizational structures towards a
more market-oriented direction, with a strong executive control approach also known as ‘New
managerialism’. Also, since the 1990s, R&I organizations have increasingly adopted collaborative research
projects, seeking access to complementary knowledge and competencies, additional drive to innovate, and
increasing funding opportunities (regional, national and supranational). In this type of environment, consortia
of public, academic, and private agents that share a common research interest work across disciplinary,
organizational, and national boundaries to achieve innovative results.
Under “mode 2” R&I projects, managers must integrate individual and small-team research activities that
demand high levels of creativity and innovation. However, funding bodies and institutions require clear work
plans, perfectly defined and assigned responsibilities, and strict schedules, deliverables and milestones. This
apparent contradiction calls for flexible and adaptable project management principles. In fact, “traditional”
management strategies, such as pure “waterfall” methods tend to fail. Success or failure of contemporary R&I
endeavours is, therefore, strongly linked to the project management practices adopted by institutions and
teams along a collaborative and “open” context under which new knowledge and technologies are nowadays
developed.
The contextual complexity, uncertainty and creative nature of R&I does definitely not mean that no structure,
no planning and no management is neither necessary nor possible. But it does mean that the way we
organize and manage research projects should reflect and aim to accommodate this ambiguity and
complexity. By presenting, assessing and discussing the case study of ValorNatural, a project funded by the
Portuguese government under the country framework programme 2014-2020 of the European Structural and
Investment Funds (ESIF), the authors propose a framework for the successful management of R&I projects.
To this aim, the research methodology is based on action research, participatory observation and on the own
experience of the authors. This framework should be seen as a practical tool for scientific projects managers.
It seeks to provide a structured, comprehensive overview of key pillars that should underpin the development
and implementation of project management to R&I endeavours. We conclude that (i) R&I projects
substantially differ from “traditional” projects, (ii) R&I projects are characterized by high uncertainty, high
contextual complexity, and high stakeholder heterogeneity, (iii) R&I projects are conditioned by the observed
strong mismatch between the flexibility requested to researchers in the pre-award phase and the rigidity
demanded by the funding agencies during the post-award phase, and (iv) adequate R&I project management
helps avoid common pitfalls and improve project success.
Learning Outcomes (max 50 words)
- R&I projects substantially differ from “traditional” projects.
- Key features: high uncertainty, high contextual complexity and high stakeholder heterogeneity.
- R&I projects are conditioned by a mismatch between flexibility in the pre-award phase and rigidity during the
post-award phase.
- Adequate R&I project management helps avoid common pitfalls and improve success.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
