Menu
Brazil
home Table of contents navigate_before previous current next navigate_next
home Table of contents
Resources and Entrepreneurial Development • RAM, Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 24 (5) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR230254.en linkcopy

Open-access Ecosystem of a collaborative research center in project studies: A conceptual framework

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

    Abstract

    Purpose: To provide a conceptual framework of the ecosystem of a collaborative research center in project studies. The ecosystem is an environment capable of articulating and integrating different actors, such as academics and practitioners from public and private organizations, non-governmental organizations, and professional associations. Furthermore, it discusses theoretical and empirical frontiers in project studies and produces knowledge and technologies directly applicable to organizations, generating impact at the individual, organizational, and social levels.

    Originality/value: The creation of a collaborative workspace that includes academics and practitioners in the co-production of knowledge has been highlighted as critical to driving project management forward. The framework establishes a common language among academics and practitioners to enhance the impact of the results of collaborative research on project management.

    Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review was carried out from a search on the Scopus and Web of Science databases, with 11 frameworks being evaluated from the perspective of sustainable impacts. The most appropriate framework was identified, analyzed, and enriched with an additional layer dedicated to project management.

    Findings: The conceptual framework proposed comprises four layers: project studies, process (resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts), supporting mechanisms and circumstances, and context. For future studies, we suggest adding empirical data to the proposed structure and evaluating the framework in a collaborative academic environment.

    Keywords:
    research center; collaborative research; project management; project studies; framework

    Resumo

    Objetivo:  Propor o framework conceitual do ecossistema de um centro de pesquisa universitária em project studies. Trata-se de um ambiente capaz de articular e integrar distintos atores, como acadêmicos e praticantes de organizações públicas e privadas, organizações não governamentais e associações de classes, com o propósito de discutir fronteiras teóricas e empíricas em project studies e produzir conhecimento e tecnologias diretamente aplicáveis às organizações, e assim gerar impacto em nível individual, das organizações e da sociedade. Originalidade/valor: A criação de espaço colaborativo, envolvendo aca-dêmicos e praticantes, para coprodução de conhecimento, tem sido apontada como crítica para impulsionar a área de gestão de projetos. O framework estabelece uma linguagem comum entre acadêmicos e praticantes para potencializar o impacto dos resultados de pesquisas colaborativas em gestão de projetos. Design/metodologia/abordagem: Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática da literatura a partir de uma busca nas bases de dados Scopus e Web of Science, e avaliaram-se 11 frameworks sob a perspectiva de impactos sustentáveis. O framework mais aderente foi identificado, analisado e enriquecido com uma camada adicional dedicada à área de gestão de projetos.

    Resultados:  O framework conceitual proposto é composto por quatro camadas: project studies, elementos processuais (recursos, atividades, resultados diretos, indiretos e impactos), mecanismos organizacionais de suporte e circunstâncias, e contexto. Como estudos futuros, sugerem-se a agregação de dados empíricos à estrutura proposta e a avaliação do framework em um ambiente acadêmico colaborativo.

    Palavras-chave
    centro de pesquisa; pesquisa colaborativa; gestão de projetos; pesquisa universitária; framework

    INTRODUCTION

    One way universities have found that increases research relevance has been to work closely with external organizations, relying on the triple helix model (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1998). This widely promulgated model (Kurowska-Pysz & Walanci, 2017; Mascarenhas et al., 2019) is grounded on the principle of the production and exploration of knowledge through collaboration between industry, academia, and government (Faccin & Balestrin, 2015; Ribeiro & Nagano, 2018), giving rise to the emergence of intraorganizational ecosystems (Moore, 1998).

    This is a process through which organizations can engage in a continuous cycle of interdependent changes (Moore, 1993). Ecosystem analogies do not refer to individual actors but, rather, to interactions between actors in the same environment and the creation of value that a single organization could not create by itself (Durst & Poutanen, 2013). From this perspective, a university context can be seen as an ecosystem consisting of actors with the ability to engage with external organizations through collaborative interfaces (Fukuda & Watanabe, 2008). The consequent narrowing of relationships between researchers and practitioners increases the relevance of the knowledge produced, which has been discussed in several disciplines (Cherney & McGee, 2011; Crona & Parker, 2011; Pettigrew, 1997).

    The issue is also very much on the agenda of project management researchers. Academia, in pursuit of a practical component, is faced with a complex scenario that would be suitable for the generation of new ideas and challenges to the dominant theory (Walker, 2008; Walker et al., 2008). Indeed, project management still lacks the wherewithal to further impact its field of operations in a positive way (Fernandes et al., 2020; Söderlund & Maylor, 2012), especially given that its conceptual basis remains open to criticism for its lack of relevance (Geraldi & Söderlund, 2016; Morris, 2010; Söderlund & Maylor, 2012). With no solid theoretical basis, it is difficult for research to converge on the robust conclusions necessary for its application by practitioners (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016).

    Research in the field of projects, however, is diversifying rapidly (Geraldi & Söderlund, 2018). Scholars have broadened their theoretical, epistemological, and ontological bases. They have extended the focus of studies beyond projects themselves and their management and embraced individual aspects, teams, organizations, and society in general (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016). Despite this change of focus, research on this field remains linked to the same conceptual family (Jacobsson et al., 2015), which supports the idea of project studies as an integrative concept for study in, on, and around projects (Geraldi & Söderlund, 2016, 2018).

    In the social sciences, a university research project can be seen as a system formed by researchers, their interactions, all the elements that mediate them, the external participants - if there is any -, the perspectives of each of the actors, and their objectives (Zittoun et al., 2007). They are characterized as complex organizational environments with specific requirements (Löhr et al., 2018) and multiple conflict factors (Löhr et al., 2017).

    Research produced in collaboration with practitioners is more liable to be used in practice, with potentially more effective impacts, compared to research conducted alone (Cheruvelil et al., 2014). Impacts are understood to be the indirect outcomes of collaborative environments that can take place at the individual level, such as academics, students, and practitioners; the organizational level, such as universities, research centers, and companies; and at the level of society, such as the community, science, or even geographical region (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).

    However, collaborations can be paradoxical, as they can involve contradictions caused by differences between partners. According to the Collaborative Advantage Theory, their structuring revolves around the tension between the synergy created through joint work and the inertia to produce results. Collaboration management should focus on the potential advantages arising from such partnerships in light of the interplay of issues such as purpose management, trust, culture, and leadership (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Factors influencing research collaborations are not only of interest to the researchers involved but also to organizations (Bukvova, 2010). Several organizations have tried to encourage collaboration by creating research centers or funding university research (Sonnenwald, 2007).

    Some initiatives involving long-term collaboration between academia and external actors, such as industry, demonstrate promising attempts at innovation in knowledge co-production (Fernandes et al., 2020). Several research centers, in collaboration with leading companies, were created in the early 21st century (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012), which bear witness to the enormous potential of studies in project management (Berggren & Söderlund, 2011; Geraldi et al., 2020). Indeed, the possibility of the creation of collaborative spaces has been highlighted as critical to boosting knowledge in the field of management (Nowotny et al., 2003). There are records in the literature of successful long-term partnerships between companies and educational institutions in project management (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012). However, thorough research must be conducted to benefit and use such meaningful collaborations (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012).

    The study conducted by Berggren and Söderlund (2011) indicates the potential of the teaching of project management to create a space for knowledge co-production, so that research can be developed with the involvement of academics and practitioners: the agora, according to Nowotny et al. (2003). This is an integrative environment where such actors can address project management issues and then discuss and propose solutions (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012).

    One way this space can be materialized in the university context is through the university research center. Indeed, university research centers have historically been seen as one of the main strategies for increasing such long-term collaborations and interactions (Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2011) between universities and external organizations in many developed countries (Chai & Shih, 2016; Ponomariov & Boardman, 2010). As a central feature, the university research center has an explicit mission (Boardman & Gray, 2010). Indeed, it seeks to promote collaboration with actors external to the university (Bozeman & Boardman, 2003; Moutinho & Rabechini, 2021). University research centers are perceived as specific mechanisms through which companies and universities can create organizational bridges across the boundaries of cultural and structural differences (Nursall, 2003). Their creation fills gaps between universities and external organizations pre-viously unfilled by either the university itself or by its laboratories and academic departments (Ponomariov & Boardman, 2010; Styhre & Lind, 2010).

    Thus, this research seeks to precisely address this identified gap with the question that guides the research:

    • How can the ecosystem of a collaborative research center for project studies be conceptually represented in such a way as to enhance the impact of its results at the individual, organizational, and social levels?

    This study therefore aims to propose a conceptual framework for the ecosystem of such a collaborative research center in project studies. This is an environment capable of bringing together and integrating different actors, such as academics and practitioners from public and private organizations, non-governmental organizations and professional associations, to discuss theoretical and empirical boundaries in project studies, and produce know-ledge and technologies directly applicable to organizations, thereby generating impact on the individual, organizational and societal levels.

    As a research result, the conceptual framework of the ecosystem of the research center for project studies is proposed. This framework is grounded in conceptual research as a non-empirical method (Mora et al., 2008) of designing a new artifact (Simon, 1996) from the integration of pre-existing structures (Meredith, 1993). The study initially relied on a systematic literature review using the Web of Science and Scopus databases: 28 studies were selected. The studies were subsequently assessed, categorized, and analyzed, generating a final sample of 11 studies (frameworks).

    The proposed framework is defined as the graphic explanation and narrative form of the main elements to be studied - the main factors, constructs, or variables and the supposed relationships between them (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Its composition starts with the macroelements (project studies, resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, impacts, circumstances, support mechanisms, and context), which are then broken down into elements and subelements that characterize the collaborative environment in project studies.

    RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

    In order to address the research question, a systematic literature review was conducted. For Stamer et al. (2016), developing frameworks from a literature review has been a widely accepted practice since it makes explicit the process of obtaining knowledge from previous scientific research. The systematic literature review was conducted to identify and analyze previous research that had developed frameworks for collaborative environments involving academia and external actors. Its main objective is to provide a collective view of the synthesis and analysis of existing research (Tranfield et al., 2003). Considering the knowledge already produced helps to explain the importance of building an artifact - defined by Simon (1996) as artificial, designed by man - as an organization of internal components that will achieve the objectives of a given external environment.

    The research was carried out through a process comprising a sequence of predefined and replicable phases: location of studies, selection and assessment, and analysis and synthesis (Tranfield et al., 2003). The sys-tematic literature review followed the core principles defined in previous research that apply to the fields of management and organizations (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009).

    The first research phase was characterized by the definition of the search query expression and the identification of studies in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The choice of these databases was based on the fact that they index relevant and traditional journals in the academic community (Archambault et al., 2009). Strings were structured following the syntax of each of the search engines from the arguments defined in Figure 1. As can be seen, the authors chose to include multiple arguments, thus enabling a comprehensive set of initial results. The figure presents the results obtained taking into account the application of the inclusion criteria in the sample: written in English; published as of 2000; consisting of scientific articles or conference proceedings papers whose central theme is the development of the reporting of a framework for a collaborative environment involving multiple participants and the academic environment.

    Figure 1
    Search process on the Web of Science and Scopus databases

    In the second phase, relevant studies were selected and assessed in the light of the research question and then analyzed by two authors who independently extracted data from them. The authors agreed upon both the defi-nition of the search terms and the guidelines for interpretation specifications to decrease the margin of error, thus producing a more robust dataset (Tranfield et al., 2003).

    Reading the abstracts limited the initial sample to the scope of the research, given that the majority of the studies concerned phenomena asso-ciated with collaborative environments. Therefore, exclusion criteria were established for studies published only as abstracts, such as the conference proceedings papers and those with no full access. The final sample resulted in 28 studies for full reading and analysis, consisting of six proceedings papers and 22 papers complete the set. Sixteen studies were published between 2018 and 2020, five studies are from the years 2015 to 2017, and seven papers were published before 2015.

    Among the journals that published the studies, Industry & Higher Education stands out, with three articles. The rest of the articles were published in various journals, such as Research Policy, Supply Chain Management, Journal of Technology Transfer, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, among others - with only one study published in each of these. The evaluation process considered Stamer et al.’s (2016) characterization for frameworks: layered, technical, sequential, categorized, factors-outcomes, component-based, and non-categorizable. It was thus possible to group them according to predomi-nance with the purpose of identifying characteristics in common.

    In the third phase, a spreadsheet was developed to organize the sample studies. The elements that make up the spreadsheet are title, abstract, year, type of study (article or proceedings), name of journal or event, authors, keywords, research aim, method, main findings, and limitations.

    Finally, the process of analyzing the sample papers resulted in the final selection of 11 frameworks involving collaborative environments. Although the literature records several models of evaluation for artifacts, such as Hevner et al. (2004), Sonnenberg and vom Brocke (2012), and Venable et al. (2012), each framework was analyzed and evaluated by the authors in the light of the Fitness-Utility Model, defined by Gill and Hevner (2013). The authors consider that the assessment of artifacts should be carried out from the pers-pective of a sustainable impact, that is, they understand that the evolving adequacy of an artifact is more valuable than its immediate utility.

    RESEARCH RESULTS

    Frameworks of collaborative environments

    The synthesis of the 11 frameworks of the final sample involving collaborative environments, as identified in the literature, is presented in Table 1.

    Thumbnail
    Table 1
    Synthesis of frameworks in the final sample

    As shown in Table 1, the frameworks that make up the final sample are heterogeneous. They were categorized, according to Stamer et al. (2016), into sequential frameworks, which focus on the order in which activities are performed among the elements that make up the framework and factors-outcome frameworks, which consider relevant factors and determine how these factors influence certain phenomena present in the frameworks’ environments. As shown in Table 1, most frameworks are sequential, they are focused on the logical order that guides the arrangement of the elements that make up each framework.

    Conceptual framework of the ecosystem of a collaborative research center in project studies

    As mentioned in the research methodology, the 11 frameworks were analyzed and evaluated by this study’s authors, bearing in mind the criteria defined by Gill and Hevner (2013), as illustrated in Table 2. The results showed the framework developed by Galán-Muros and Davey (2019) to be the closest to the proposal, whose application finds precedents in the studies of Chryssou (2020) and Pinto and Fernandes (2020). Its structure forms the basis for developing the conceptual framework of the ecosystem of a collaborative research center for project studies. However, elements to characterize the project management field must still be incorporated. Thus, we resort to Meredith (1993), who defines the metaframework as a conceptual method based on integrating pre-existing frameworks. Such a framework is based on conceptual research as a non-empirical method, using considerations of existing theoretical concepts. They refer to conceptual studies, such as designing a new conceptual artifact, whether it is a construct, framework, model, method, process, or even a system or component (Mora et al., 2008).

    Thumbnail
    Table 2
    Evaluation of the selected frameworks

    Thus, the proposed framework is presented in four layers (Figure 2). The first, core to the structure, is named project studies and represents the field of application for which the framework is intended. In this layer, the intended study’s level of analysis is defined: from the individual level to society (Geraldi & Söderlund, 2018). This layer also considers the distinct ontological orientations, epistemological anchorages, and methodological procedures to be adopted (Lauriol, 2006). The subsequent layers are anchored in Galán-Muros and Davey’s (2019) framework.

    Figure 2
    Conceptual framework of the ecosystem of a collaborative research center for project studies

    The second layer addresses the logical processes required to create impact. It is based on the logic model (Kellogg Foundation, 2004), composed of five essential components: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts, in a feedback system that works under certain environmental conditions to solve identified problems (Galán-Muros & Davey, 2019). Theo-retically, the logic model can be seen as a program (Wholey, 1987). Program theory represents a plausible and sensible model for how a program should work (Bickman, 1987). It identifies its resources and activities, as well as the intended results. Furthermore, it specifies a chain of causal assumptions linking the program’s resources, activities, intermediate outputs, and impacts.

    The third layer comprises circumstances of the environment that affect collaboration and the support mechanisms that underpin the collaborative environment (Galán-Muros & Davey, 2019; McLaughlin & Jordan, 2015). Circumstances are elements of temporary influence that are both internal and external to the collaborative environment. The function of collaboration support mechanisms is to set up favorable conditions in which collaboration can prosper with regard to policies, strategies, structures, and specific activities.

    The fourth layer is defined by the context in which the collaborative environment is embedded. The context is represented by the permanent external factors influencing the collaborative process (Galán-Muros & Davey, 2019). Thus, the proposed conceptual framework for the ecosystem of the research center for project studies is presented in Figure 2, in which the sequence is detailed. Its flexible format allows for the incorporation of new elements as they are identified.

    Elements of the proposed framework

    Table 3 summarizes the macroelements, elements, and subelements considered in the conceptual framework of the proposed ecosystem:

    Thumbnail
    Table 3
    Breakdown of the framework’s macroelements

    The elements illustrated in Table 3 form the framework for the collaborative environment ecosystem in project studies and provide a shared understanding of the proposed environment for academics and practitioners. However, the complex and dynamic nature of this type of environment does not take into consideration that new arrangements may strengthen the structure as the concept is consolidated and collaborative research is materialized. Notwithstanding, the distinct views of actors are expected to enrich the framework and, thus, increase its applicability.

    DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

    This research aimed to propose a conceptual framework for the ecosystem of a collaborative research center for project studies. The study reveals that, despite frameworks identified in the specialized literature on collaborative environments, project management lacks a specific structure to enhance the impact of its implementation. The process elements (resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts), the organizational mechanisms of support, the circumstances, and the context need to be explicitly stated and integrated. They cannot be neglected at the risk of being restricted to a partial view of the ecosystem.

    In consonance with Berggren and Söderlund (2011), who highlights the critical nature of the creation of an environment that discusses real problems, the collaborative environment formed by academics and practitioners of project management houses the best possible locus (research center) to address theoretical and practical issues, enabling the advancement of the field, always from an integrative perspective (Figure 3). Therefore, researchers cannot follow only the traditional paradigms applicable to social sciences that focus on explaining, describing, exploring, or predicting phenomena and their relationships (Hegenberg, 1969), but they must also expand the epistemological bases, including design science, which focuses on the construction of artifacts and prescriptive solutions (Ahlemann et al., 2013; Kabir & Rusu, 2016).

    Figure 3
    Theoretical-conceptual framework

    The study provides theoretical contributions and practical implications, but it has limitations, which are opportunities for further research. The theory broadens the collaborative environment framework and extends it to project studies, making an essential contribution to this field. However, it is a framework representing a complex environment involving actors from multiple organizations guided not seldom by distinct institutional logics. A possible way to approach the complexity of collaborations is from the perspective of the collaborative advantage theory (Huxham & Vangen, 2005) by exploring issues related to partnership objectives, culture, communication, power, and trust, since they may be decisive for the success of collaborations. The proposed conceptual framework results from integrating complementary perspectives to enrich the understanding of the phenomenon that is the ecosystem of a research center for project studies.

    As a practical implication, the environment guided by the framework proposed here may benefit academics and practitioners directly. Bringing practitioners together with academics helps to bridge the gap between research and practice, encourages knowledge co-production with an understanding of the value of research that questions practice, as supported by Söderlund and Maylor (2012), and increases the likelihood that research findings will create impacts at the individual, organization, and social levels. As the integration of the actors involved increases, and as they develop meaningful and lasting relationships based on trust and commitment, the necessary conditions to enhance the success and expansion of collaborative processes are created, as already indicated by Davey et al. (2011) and supported by the collaborative advantage theory (Huxham & Vangen, 2005).

    As for practitioners, their involvement in systematic research on project management can bear fruit in said research’s incorporation into the decision-making processes of organizations. Academics will add new knowledge, enrich research agendas, and improve the understanding of how scientific work can be designed and conducted so that it is directly relevant to practice.

    Possible practical results can be expected to include technological products with a high level of novelty, resulting from the application of new scientific knowledge and developed techniques and expertise, used directly in solving problems in organizations that produce goods or provide services aiming at social welfare to the population in general. Therefore, expected technological developments will include intellectual property assets, training activities, publishing products, software, standards or regulatory frameworks, conclusive technical reports, manuals and protocols, technical-scientific databases, and processes and products that cannot be patented (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, 2019).

    This study inevitably presents certain limitations. The first can be defined in terms of the research scope, given that two databases were a limited number, possibly leaving out journals that could also address the studied theme. Another limitation regards the other authors’ different approaches to conceptual elements, which, somehow, may have interfered with the analysis process.

    In future studies, we would suggest expanding those elements and subelements - whose origins may be both theoretical and empirical -, with a view to sustaining the structure, resulting in a more robust framework; evaluation of the framework in a collaborative academic environment, thus verifying its usefulness; and evaluation of possible implications for both academics and practitioners.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    This research is sponsored by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) (Portugal), under the project UIDB/00285/2020 and LA/P/0112/2020 and is financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes) (Brazil).

    REFERENCES

    • Ahlemann, F., Arbi, F. E., Kaiser, M. G., & Heck, A. (2013). A process framework for theoretically grounded prescriptive research in the project mana-gement field. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.008
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.008
    • Alunurm, R., Rõigas, K., & Varblane, U. (2020). The relative significance of higher education-industry cooperation barriers for different firms. Industry & Higher Education, 34(6), 377-390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220909737
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220909737
    • Ankrah, S., & AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003
    • Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Com-paring bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320-1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062
      » https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062
    • Berggren, C., & Söderlund, J. (2011). Management education for practicing managers: Combining academic rigor with personal change and organizational action. Journal of Management Education, 35(3), 377-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562910390369
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562910390369
    • Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation: New directions for evaluation Jossey-Bass.
    • Boardman, C., & Gray, D. (2010). The new science and engineering management: Cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y
    • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2003). Managing the new multipurpose, multi-discipline university research center: Institutional innovation in the academic community IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
    • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
    • Bukvova, H. (2010). Studying research collaboration: A literature review. Working papers, Information Systems, 10(3). https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/326
      » https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/326
    • Chai, S., & Shih, W. (2016). Bridging science and technology through academic-industry partnerships. Research Policy, 45(1), 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.007
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.007
    • Chen, K., Lu, W., & Wang, J. (2020). University-industry collaboration for BIM education: Lessons learned from a case study. Industry & Higher Education, 34(6), 401-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220908799
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220908799
    • Cherney, A., & McGee, T. R. (2011). Utilization of social science research: Results of a pilot study among Australian sociologists and criminologists. Journal of Sociology, 47(2), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783310386831
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783310386831
    • Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014). Creating and maintaining highperforming collaborative research teams: The importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1890/130001
      » https://doi.org/10.1890/130001
    • Chryssou, C. E. (2020). University-industry interactions in the Sultanate of Oman: Challenges and opportunities. Industry and Higher Education, 34(5), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219896748
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219896748
    • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (2019). Produção técnica. http://www.capes.gov.br/relatorios-tecnicos-dav
      » http://www.capes.gov.br/relatorios-tecnicos-dav
    • Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2011). Network determinants of knowledge utilization: Preliminary lessons from a boundary organization. Science Communication, 33(4), 448-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011408116
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011408116
    • Cuevas, O. C. C., Martín, A. A. S., Ballesteros, J. C. M., Santamaria, L. E. B., Pinzón, D. B. G., Erazo, C. O. B., Jalizev, R. A. R., Vargas, A. G. C., & Arango, M. A. P. (2019, October 2-4). Organizational model proposal for the creation of university-industry relationship and coworking R+D+I. Congreso Internacional de Innovación y Tendencias em Ingenieria https://doi.org/10.1109/CONIITI48476.2019.8960703
      » https://doi.org/10.1109/CONIITI48476.2019.8960703
    • Daoud, A. O., Tsehayae, A. A., & Fayek, A. R. (2017). A guided evaluation of the impact of R&D partnerships on university, industry, and government. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 44(4), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2016-0381
      » https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2016-0381
    • Davey, T. (2017). Converting university knowledge into value: How conceptual frameworks contribute to the understanding of the third mission role of European universities. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 15(1), 65-96. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2017.084637
      » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2017.084637
    • Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galán-Muros, V., & Meerman, A. (2011). Study on the cooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisations in Europe. European Commission, DG Education, and Culture, 978-992.
    • Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 671-689). Sage.
    • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal Technology Transfer, 36, 316-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
    • Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: A review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017606296731
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017606296731
    • Durst, S., & Poutanen, P. (2013). Success factors of innovation ecosystems: A literature review. In R. Smeds & O. Irrmann (Eds.), CO-CREATE 2013: The Boundary-Crossing Conference on Co-Design in Innovation (pp. 27-38).
    • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A “triple helix” of university-industry-government relations. Minerva, 36(3), 203-208. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41821107
      » https://www.jstor.org/stable/41821107
    • Faccin, K., & Balestrin, A. (2015) Práticas colaborativas em P&D: Um estudo na indústria brasileira de semicondutores. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 16(6), 190-219. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-69712015/administracao.v16n6p190-219
      » https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-69712015/administracao.v16n6p190-219
    • Fernandes, G., O’ Sullivan, D., Pinto, E. B., Araújo, M., & Machado, R. J. (2020). Value of project management in university-industry R&D collaborations. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(4), 819-843. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2019-0191
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2019-0191
    • Fukuda, K., & Watanabe, C. (2008). Japanese and US perspectives on the national innovation ecosystem. Technology in Society, 30(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.10.008
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.10.008
    • Galán-Muros, V., & Davey, T. (2019). The UBC ecosystem: Putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 1311-1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9562-3
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9562-3
    • Galán-Muros, V., van der Sijde, P., Groenewegen, P., & Baaken, T. (2017). Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business? Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9451-6
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9451-6
    • Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2016). Project studies and engaged scholarship: Directions towards contextualized and reflexive research on projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 767-797. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0016
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0016
    • Geraldi, J., & Söderlund, J. (2018). Project studies: What it is, where it is going. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004
    • Geraldi, J., Söderlund, J., & van Marrewijk, A. (2020). Advancing theory and debate in project studies. Project Management Journal, 51(4), 351-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820932002
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820932002
    • Gill, T. G., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). A fitness-utility model for design science research. ACM Transactions Management Information System, 4(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2499962.2499963
      » https://doi.org/10.1145/2499962.2499963
    • Grabher, G., & Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 97-123. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbt014
      » https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbt014
    • Hegenberg, L. (1969). Explicações científicas: Introdução à filosofia da ciência Herder.
    • Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
      » https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
    • Huxham C., & Vangen S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage Routledge.
    • Kabir, M., & Rusu, L. (2016). IT project development using capability maturity model. Information Resources Management Journal, 29(4), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2016100103
      » https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2016100103
    • Kellogg Foundation (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide. http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/eval-guides/logic-model-development-guide.pdf
      » http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/eval-guides/logic-model-development-guide.pdf
    • Kochanek, J. R., Scholz, C., & Garcia, A. J. (2015). Mapping the collaborative research process. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(121), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2031
      » https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2031
    • Korff, N., van der Sijde, P., Groenewegen, P., & Davey, T. (2014). Supporting university-industry linkages: A case study of the relationship between the organizational and individual levels. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2014.0213
      » https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2014.0213
    • Kurowska-Pysz, J., & Walanci, M. (2017). The relationships in the process of knowledge transfer according to the triple helix model. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 3(3), 339-349. https://doi.org/10.26417/ejes.v9i1.p339-349
      » https://doi.org/10.26417/ejes.v9i1.p339-349
    • Lauriol, J. (2006). Proposals for designing and controlling a doctoral research project in management sciences. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 4(1), 31-38. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1203
      » https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1203
    • Löhr, K., Bonatti, M, Homem, L. H. I. R., Schlindwein, S. L., & Sieber, S. (2018). Operational challenges in collaborative research projects: Addressing conflict multidimensionality. Kybernetes, 47(6), 1074-1089. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2017-0124
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2017-0124
    • Löhr, K., Graef, F., Bonatti, M., Mahoo, H. F., Wambura, J., & Sieber, S. (2017). Conflict management systems for large scientific research projects. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(3), 322-345. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-04-2016-0022
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-04-2016-0022
    • Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2019). One for all and all for one: Collaboration and cooperation in triple helix knowledge cocreation. International Regional Science Review, 43(4) 316-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017619889677
      » https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017619889677
    • Matzner, M., Plenter, F., Chasin, F., Betzing, J. H., & von Hoffen, M. (2018, June 23-28). New service development through action design research in joint research projects. Twenty-Sixth European Conference on Information Systems https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/110
      » https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/110
    • McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2015). Using logic models. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. F. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 62-87). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch3
      » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch3
    • Meredith, J. (1993). Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 13(5), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579310028120
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579310028120
    • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
    • Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75-86. https://hbr.org/1993/05/predators-and-prey-a-new-ecology-of-competition
      » https://hbr.org/1993/05/predators-and-prey-a-new-ecology-of-competition
    • Moore, J. F. (1998). The rise of a new corporate form. Washington Quarterly, 21(1), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01636609809550301
      » https://doi.org/10.1080/01636609809550301
    • Mora, M., Gelman, O., Paradice, D., & Cervantes, F. (2008). The case for conceptual research in information systems. CONFIRM 2008 Proceedings, 52 https://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2008/52
      » https://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2008/52
    • Morris, P. W. G. (2010). Research and the future of project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014080
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011014080
    • Moutinho, J. A., & Rabechini Jr., R. (2021). Centro de pesquisa universi-tária: Caracterização do ambiente de pesquisa. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 19(4), 887-900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120200178
      » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120200178
    • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty Polity Press.
    • Nursall, A. (2003). Building public knowledge: Collaborations between science centres, universities, and industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(5), 381-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003107
      » http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003107
    • Orazbayeva, B., Plewa, C., Davey, T., & Galan-Muros, V. (2019). The future of university-business cooperation: Research and practice priorities. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 54, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.10.001
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.10.001
    • Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2016). Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1305-1321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2016.06.006
      » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2016.06.006
    • Pastakia, S. D., Tran, D. N., Manji, I., Schellhase, E., Karwa, R., Miller, M. L., Aruasa, W., & Khan, Z. M. (2020). Framework and case study for establishing impactful global health programs through academia-biopharmaceutical industry partnerships. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(11), 1519-1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.018
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.018
    • Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). The double hurdles for management research. In T. Clarke. (Ed.), Advancement in organizational behaviour: Essays in Honour of D.S. Pugh (pp. 277-296). Dartmouth Press.
    • Philbin, S. P. (2008). Process model for university-industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 488-521. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911138
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911138
    • Pinto, E. B., & Fernandes, G. (2020). Collaborative R&D the key cooperation domain for university-industry partnerships sustainability: Position paper. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 102-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.109
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.109
    • Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.013
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.013
    • Ribeiro, S. X., & Nagano, M. S. (2018). Elements influencing knowledge management in university-business-government collaboration: Case studies in National Institutes of Science and Technology. Knowledge and Process Management, 25(3), 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1576
      » https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1576
    • Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2018). What makes industry-university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Business Economics, 89, 221-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6
    • Simon, H. A. (1996). The science of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
    • Söderlund, J., & Maylor, H. (2012). Project management scholarship: Relevance, impact and five integrative challenges for business and management schools. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 686-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.007
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.007
    • Sonnenberg, C., & vom Brocke, J. (2012). Evaluations in the science of the artificial: Reconsidering the build-evaluate pattern in design science research. In K. Peffers, M. Rothenberger, & B. Kuechler, (Eds.), Lecture notes in Computer Science: Vol. 7286. Design science research in information systems, advances in theory and practice (pp. 381-397). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_28
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_28
    • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Infor-mation Science and Technology, 41, 643-681. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121
      » https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121
    • Stamer, D., Zimmermann, O., & Sandkuhl, K. (2016). What is a framework: A systematic literature review in the field of information systems. In V. Rˇ epa & T. Bruckner (Eds.), Perspective in business informatics research (pp. 145-158). Springer.
    • Styhre, A., & Lind, F. (2010). Balancing centripetal and centrifugal forces in the entrepreneurial university: A study of 10 research centers in a technical university. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(8), 909-924. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.520471
      » https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.520471
    • Thune, T., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Institutionalization of university-industry interaction: An empirical study of the impact of formal structures on collaboration patterns. Science and Public Policy, 38(2), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234211X12924093660110
      » https://doi.org/10.3152/030234211X12924093660110
    • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
      » https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
    • van der Sijde, P.C. (2012). Profiting from knowledge circulation: The gains from university-industry interaction. Industry and Higher Education, 26(1), 15-19. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2012.0082
      » https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2012.0082
    • Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. A. (2012). Comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In K. Peffers, M. Rothenberger, & B. Kuechler (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 7286. Design science research in information systems, advances in theory and practice (pp. 423-438). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29863-9_31
    • Walker, D. H. T. (2008). Reflections on developing a project management doctorate. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 316-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.006
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.006
    • Walker, D. H. T., Cicmil, S., Thomas, J., Anbari, F., & Bredillet, C. (2008). Collaborative academic/ practitioner research in project management: Theory and models. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810846397
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370810846397
    • Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation (pp. 77-92). Jossey-Bass.
    • Zittoun, T., Baucal, A., Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2007). Collaborative research, knowledge and emergence. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(2), 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9021-z
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9021-z

    Publication Dates

    • Publication in this collection
      11 Aug 2023
    • Date of issue
      2023

    History

    • Received
      28 Oct 2021
    • Accepted
      19 July 2022
    Creative Common - by 4.0
    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    vertical_align_top file_download show_chart
    location_on
    Editora Mackenzie; Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Rua da Consolação, 896, Edifício Rev. Modesto Carvalhosa, Térreo - Coordenação da RAM, Consolação - São Paulo - SP - Brasil - cep 01302-907 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
    E-mail: revista.adm@mackenzie.br
    rss_feed Stay informed of issues for this journal through your RSS reader
    Accessibility / Report Error