See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295074526

Principal Researcher vs. R&D Project Manager: Who should drive R&D?

Article  in  R& D Management · February 2016

DOI: 10.1111/radm.12213

CITATIONS READS

19 4,467

3 authors, including:

Aníbal N. Cassanelli
Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata
74 PUBLICATIONS   374 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ENGINEERING PROJECTS, R & D PROJECT MANAGEMENT MODEL View project

Fracture toughness determination using separability parameter Spb View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aníbal N. Cassanelli on 13 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Principal researcher and project
manager: who should drive R&D
projects?
Anıbal N. Cassanelli1,
Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez2
and Maria Clara Guiridlian1
1
Division of Project Engineering, Facultad de Ingenierıa, Universidad Nacional Mar del Plata, Avda.
Juan B. Justo 4302, Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. acassane@fi.mdp.edu.ar;
clara.guiridlian@fi.mdp.edu.ar
2
Departament of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Calle
Tajo s/n, Villaviciosa de Odon, Madrid, Spain. gonzalo.fernandez@universidadeuropea.es

In this paper, it is analyzed the hypothesis that in R&D the principal researcher (PR) is
accepted as the coordinator or project manager (PM), carrying out the search for financ-
ing and to manage contracts, resources, cost, time, scope, risk and uncertainty,
communication, stakeholders and so on, in addition to internal research activities. Thus,
this study tries to verify this hypothesis through a major literature review in different
types of projects developed by university, but also with a look to industry and industry-
university cooperation. Two case studies are also analyzed, centered in its R&D project
management maturity level. It is concluded that there is an important issue in projects’
success and in the time spent by PR in management, work for which they are under
trained; while at the industry there is a greater approach to project management by the
proximity of the innovation projects to other industrial projects. Following these initial
findings and according to the case study results, it is proposed that R&D Projects in uni-
versities would be separated into two synergistic knowledge areas: R&D Management and
Project Management. It is also recommended to allocate them to two distinct roles, where
they could add value to R&D through their better knowledge and skills.

1. Introduction management and that make them different from other

industrial projects (Ernø-Kjølhede, 2000; Lambert,

R &D sector is important in terms of economy and

competitiveness, being innovation one of the
most important strategies for development and to
achieve corporate and organizational growth (Wang
et al., 2010). R&D projects have unique characteris-
tics of risks and uncertainties that affect project
2006). As Cassanelli et al. (2014) show in their
study, there is not only theoretical evidence on the dif-
ferences between R&D (basic research, applied
research, development and innovation) but also, and
mainly, among the competencies that should have a
Principal Researcher (PR) and those of a R&D Project

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V 1
Anıbal Cassanelli, Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez and Maria Clara Guiridlian
Manager (PM). However, in practice, the PR is at
many times the last responsible for the project,
responsible for product and project scope, cost, sched-
ule, risks and peculiarities of this type of project, defi-
nitely the manager of R&D (Varas et al., 2014).
In this paper, we propose to verify through a review
of the available scientific and technical literature, but
also with a case study, the hypothesis that the PR is
acting as the R&D PM in university. Moreover, it is
questioned if assigning project management responsi-
bility to the best scientific human resource is the best
choice.
To study and verify the initial hypothesis, we pro-
pose to center the review in universities, but also to
have a look to different agents that develop R&D
projects such as industry and singular cooperation
between industry and academia.
2. Objectives and methodology
According with this first approach, the main objective
is to review how R&D projects are managed in
universities.
To reach these objective, it has followed two differ-
ent ways. First one, it has been done a deep review in
scientific data bases, prioritizing those present in the
Journal Citation Reports (JCR), but also based on
references cited by the articles found in an initial
search. It has been focused in university R&D proj-
ects, the role of the PR and management tasks and
activities. It has been done also a review of industry
and R&D collaboration between industry and univer-
sity to know more about the context and to make it
more comparable.
Second, in order to contribute with this aim, a case
study was analyzed. Technique planned was a survey
to know the implication of PR in PM activities and
their PM maturity level.
In the case study, it was used a similar technique to
estimate the degree of maturity in Small and Medium
Enterprises (SME’s) (e.g. Cassanelli and Mu~noz,
2009). It includes questions about different knowl-
edge areas from PMI (2013) standard. Project man-
agement maturity is measured on the five-step scale
proposed by Kerzner (2001).
3. R&D project management
3.1. General situation
In Spain, and also recently applied to countries like
Portugal, it has been published UNE standards related
with R&D activity and its management, with a CEN
2 R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
201 European working group on R&D. These stand-
ards establish as a requirement to have two distinct
units: the research unit and management research
unit. However, for Cynertia Consulting (2010) the
main aim of this standard is looking for a certification.
There are studies focusing on portfolio manage-
ment and R&D mainly in the selection of projects.
This process is considered the most important
challenge in this area of knowledge (e.g. Eilat et al.,
2009; Jung and Seo, 2010) and contributions can be
divided into three categories according to Wang and
Hwang (2007):
1. Strategic Management Tools,
2. Benefit measurement methods that determine
the preference of each,
3. The use of mathematical programming
approaches that optimize objectives subject.
Besides the importance in the selection and prioriti-
zation of projects, there are proposals which focus on
R&D risk management (e.g. van Bekkum et al., 2009;
Wang et al., 2010; Alabau, 2011) seeking to improve
the success rates of these projects. However, most of
the existing proposals in the literature are theoretical
and with little practical application (Verma et al.,
2011).
R&D project management focuses mainly on tech-
nology and market, but do not pay that much attention
to its management, processes (adaptation of project
management standards to R&D and their peculiar-
ities) and the figure of the manager and PR (Cassanelli
et al., 2014).
According to Vandaele and Decouttere (2013), in
spite of the existing proposals in R&D management
there are still some problems to overcome:
• Low rates of success (failure user acceptance)
• Key performance indicators and criteria for
selecting projects are not always linked.
• Decisions are made being fixed primarily in eco-
nomic terms: Return On Investment.
• Valuation of intangibles for the selection of
ideas and projects is poorly considered.
As an example of the success rate, in the pharmaceuti-
cal industry a drug development project from the first
human study to the commissioning is less than 10%
(CMR International, 2006). Cooper et al. (2004) also
estimate that only one in ten product innovations suc-
cess on the market. Other studies show that 40% of
the average product development projects fail to
achieve market benefits (Stevens and Burley, 1997).
But in any case, the efficiency and success rates are a
difficult concept to deal with, in the sense that usually
they only measure the subsequent economic suc-
cesses, publications or patents.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

However, it should be defined and measured as the
optimal use of management processes and R&D man-
agement inputs in order to achieve the technological
and market objectives (Sanchez and Perez, 2002).
According to these authors, very little is known about
what a manager does in their project, without R&D
efficiency analysis. Success should be more closely
linked to the role of the PM rather than to the uncer-
tainties and risks inherent in research or the later
economically benefits. There are no empirical meas-
ures to analyze the outputs of research projects (Ham-
merstedt and Blach, 2007) beyond marketing.
Successful projects can be characterized not for their
final economic benefits but for the unique spirit of the
project team, being the management of project’s
intangible elements a main aim to affect employees’
behavior toward achieving the desired success
(Aronson et al., 2013).
Ultimately, despite the contributions and publi-
cations in a so projectized sector such as R&D, it
seems to lack a greater integration or adaptation of
methodologies, tools and techniques of project
management. Their application could be very useful
for the success of different types projects (Lambert,
2006), and so a greater attention to the figure of the
PM should be done. For some authors, monitoring
tools and management do not seem transferable to
research projects (Powers and Kerr, 2009) because
they downsize the innovation potential. There is
also the belief by scientists that the business
approach of project management can increase
research bureaucracy and reducing the autonomy of
the research team (Bode, 2000). R&D rarely ends
with agreed planning (Steffens et al., 2007), sug-
gesting that approximations to conventional project
management do not work in academic research
(Powers and Kerr, 2009).
3.2. University
The scientific system focus research careers on publi-
cations, patents, research, and scientific topics, rather
than skills as PM (Cassanelli et al., 2014).
In addition, other researchers have detected
many problems related with R&D management and
the role adopted by the PR and his team. Thus, in a
survey of researchers and professors in Croatia to
discuss the competencies available to carry out
R&D international projects, Divjak and Kukec
(2008) detected the following obstacles: a lack of
knowledge and skills in project management; legal
and accounting system barriers; and a lack of
administrative support to scientists. The proposal
for improvement was focused on researchers train-
ing in management skills. In addition, in certain
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
Who should drive R&D
universities it is identified the lack of interest for
participating to international calls because of the
additional workload of project management work
by the PR (e.g. Universidad de Castilla La Mancha,
2014). Some solutions based on empowering TTOs
(Technology Transfer Office) are being developed,
by just extending their administrative support.
Varas et al. (2014) analyzes the Spanish public uni-
versities with higher income from research projects
with a representation of 42%, holding meetings with
1,162 coordinators of research centers. They per-
formed a maturity analysis in relation to project man-
agement practices and the differences between
research financing by state funds and those from
industrial. Conclude on one side that practices related
to project management do not vary by source of
financing. However, the maturity is slightly higher
when it comes from the industry due to the greater
accountability for private enterprise. In addition, for
these projects the more developed knowledge areas
are cost, time and scope (Cassanelli et al., 2014).
Besides this, it is confirmed the lack of knowledge in
project management of researchers, despite they defi-
nitely have to manage their projects.
In France, a study conducted in 2006 as part of the
Prometeo Program in 141 university research centers,
the results were similar, although above the Spanish
case: a lack of knowledge in project management and
primarily on risk management was detected.
In EU-funded projects, some researchers inter-
viewed by Ernø-Kjølhede (2000) stated the interest
for working toward research activities and discus-
sions, but not that much with project management
tasks that at the end takes most of their time.
At the University of Auckland, New Zealand, the
TTO’s detected in the plan of 2010 that 38% of
research contracts are signed after the project start
date. And, 70% of the reports in the middle-end are
late to main university funders; 33% of research con-
tract issues are unresolved within six months from
arising; and 120 projects had a monetary balance
remaining three months after the project financial
wash-up (Skelton, 2011).
Although in the academy it is used some Project
Management standards (e.g. PMI, 2013), as evidenced
by publications in other fields, there is no evidence for
its application in R&D projects (Skelton, 2011). How-
ever, Caughron and Mumford (2008) found that some
participants using critical path methodology for man-
aging time, they created solutions to problems of
greater quality, originality and elegance than those
using other management tools such as Gantt or case
studies. Herroelen and Leus (2002) propose, however,
simple sensitivity analysis as a good methodology for
creating planning scenarios (What if . . .?). Cohen
3
Anıbal Cassanelli, Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez and Maria Clara Guiridlian
et al. (1999) state the increase of management in
R&D projects and the need of reconciliation between
science and management because their close intercon-
nections today.
On all these issues relating to project management
in the academia, suggests that the manager must
remain the PR and the project management team the
research team.
The common proposed solution is to train
researchers to adopt both roles of scientists and
managers. There are other proposals, that is, to give
a major support from organizations like integrated
TTOs into the structures of the university, as a fig-
ure of administrative support to R&D and being a
contact with the outside but where project manage-
ment tasks continue resting in PR. This was widely
shown in the literature (Heinze et al., 2009; Skelton,
2011; Varas et al., 2014) in relation to the time that
researchers spent in works that are not purely related
to research despite having TTOs, as is the presenta-
tion of project proposals, management of costs and
deadlines, contracts and grants for research person-
nel, finding financing, risk management, and so
forth. All of them are key elements in any success-
ful project management.
The hypothesis that the PR is the PM is not in doubt
and it is quite explicit in the studies reviewed:
‘Undoubtedly, the principal researcher is responsible
for the planification, implementation and project clo-
sure. This remains a complex task that requires not
only a scientific, but also knowledge and administra-
tive management skills’ (Varas et al., 2010, p. 1).
3.3. Industry
In the case of industry, there is a literature devoted
to R&D portfolio and project management and they
are mainly dedicated to the development of decision-
making models for project selection. Verma et al.
(2011) propose a R&D project management model
for the case of a high-tech enterprise. The model has
the possibility to change priorities over time by mar-
ket and associate technical challenges. It allows also
assigning resources among competing projects with
time interdependencies improving the accuracy of
the achievement of the projects and opportunities.
According to this model, R&D unit is independent
of the parent company: the business company is a
client. Because resources are often limited in this
kind of research companies, projects must continu-
ally justify their existence against to the rest and
hence their importance in the dynamic selection of
projects.
There are several studies on the approach of these
profile exclusively dedicated to industry R&D sector,
4 R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
usually on behalf of their parent organizations, in
order to improve the strategic alignment and to allow
them to submit new proposals to research public calls
(Aginako and Otegi, 2011).
For other authors, R&D management in the case
of SME is more a process of trial and error than a
professional management by empirical evidence
(Gasmann et al., 2010). It is difficult to manage the
R&D long term (Brenner, 2009) by the turbulence
of the internal environment (the company itself,
Droge et al., 2008; Lichtenthaler, 2009) and external
(market and technology/research, Paladino, 2008)
which makes the management completely dynamic,
and requires unique manager skills (Teirlinck and
Spithoven, 2013). Interestingly, these authors ana-
lyzed the presence of PM s in R&D SMEs, identify-
ing that half of the studied dispose of this figure,
but was unclear what roles or activities carried out
and if they are different from the PR. The analysis
reveals that the formal management of R&D
activities is related to internal innovation strengths
and external opportunities. Moreover, the R&D
management is closely related to a market position
and success of innovation, focusing less on the tech-
nological orientation. This can be explained by the
finding that SMEs want to remain at the technologi-
cal frontier.
Paying attention to some contributions more
focused on human resources, in order to analyze the
figure of the R&D manager, it appears a new role
known as ‘innovation broker’ or ‘knowledge broker’
as a key agent that integrates the knowledge and expe-
rience (also called T-men) and they are assuming
increasing importance over the traditional scientists
(Petroni et al., 2012). T-men are a new figure that
works more from the point of view of human resour-
ces management and are able to select and integrate
external knowledge and manage complex structures,
due to their knowledge of new major business proc-
esses (Dodgson et al., 2006).
Assuming that R&D in the industry have the figure
of the PM, Laruccia et al. (2012) show that there is a
65% of projects with problems of financial loss, loss
of credibility, or not meeting deadlines decreasing
staff motivation.
As it has been able to show, in the industrial world
is possible to identify a R&D PM, at least in many
companies, characterize by market profile in addition
with technology skills. However, it is difficult to found
evidence of the manager role or the co-existence with
the PR, barely mentioned in the literature review.
In this case, of the industry when innovation projects
are developed, it seems that the PM is serving as the
PR, but there is no clear evidence found.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

3.4. Industry-university cooperation
R&D projects between industry and university are
often complex to manage having different goals and
purposes, but the trend (judging by the various calls
for research projects in an international level) is to
increase this cooperation in order to improve the
applicability of the research results and increasing
funding sources.
According to Bruneel et al. (2010), the emergence
of TTOs in universities had a positive effect by
increasing revenue and contact with companies. In
their study, conclude that trust and continuous direct
contact are the most important elements in the
university-industry relationship. For the cooperation,
they found two types of barriers. The first is related to
orientation. The research in university is orientated to
pure science, long-term, and a lack of understanding
about expectations and work practices. The second
type of barrier is transactions. TTOs tend to exagger-
ate the value of research or have unrealistic expecta-
tions, there are potential conflicts with the university
regarding royalty payments, confidentiality concerns,
and there is a low profile in the industrial liaison
offices.
Niedergassel and Leker (2011) discuss cooperative
research projects by 376 professors’ surveys from
Germany and the relationship between project success
and the variables of trust, dependency, communica-
tion frequency, and closeness to the partners. The
findings also point to the importance of trust (mainly
between universities or research groups), a high inter-
dependence between partners, and a high frequency
of communication. Traditionally it has placed special
emphasis on functional and structural aspects: size
organizations, complementary resources, and experi-
ence as partners, however it has been identified impor-
tant new variables to consider in this cooperation.
Barbolla and Corredera (2009) also found that
mature knowledge and good leadership to carry out a
coordinated project, the high confidence in the univer-
sity team and in the results of the project were critical
factors in the success of university-industry projects.
A study of 19 SMEs and 9 public universities
involved in R&D in Denmark (Bjerregaard, 2010)
concludes that in spite of the barriers identified in the
literature due to the cultural and philosophical differ-
ence of industry and university, there is a great poten-
tial for collaboration and success by having some
issues into consideration. It highlights the successful
cooperation projects when SMEs makes a ‘scientifica-
tion’ process for a greater communication being much
more successful, plus outcome better results, having
goals that are more similar and using a common and
familiar scientific language. That is, having employ-
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
Who should drive R&D
ees with academic and scientific record, giving impor-
tance to a scientific production (publications) similar
to or greater than universities (compared to small and
medium universities) and appreciating in the
business.
Moreover, universities and researchers are increas-
ingly getting closer to industry interests by taking into
account the business objectives (Kleinman and Vallas,
2006; Etzkowitz and G€oktepe, 2005; Bjerregaard,
2010) which leads to a more flexible and adaptable uni-
versity to work cooperatively with industry projects.
A study analyzing pharmaceutical companies in
Brazil and the project cooperation with Brazilian uni-
versities (Barrenha and Takahashi, 2010) shows that
there was a lack of maturity in knowledge transfer,
investment in internal training, and a lack of con-
sciousness on the importance of project management
involved in the process.
In the collaboration between the Administration
and the University of Sydney (Australia), were also
detected problems in the application of project man-
agement standards when dealing with such complex
projects and multistakeholder environments (Craw-
ford et al., 2003).
Brostr€om and L€o€of (2008) show by studying Swed-
ish firms that collaboration with universities contrib-
ute to a better success of R&D projects. They
confirmed empirically that the use of academic
knowledge is beneficial for technological change,
innovation and growth in the private sector through
new theoretical knowledge, new techniques and new
skills that industrial enterprises find it difficult to be
provided. It has also been suggested that a regions
with strong research universities have better opportu-
nities to attract and support innovative than other
regions industries.
A number of quantitative studies confirm a positive
association between the university and industry and
innovation link at the enterprise level (Mansfield,
1998; Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006). In particular,
firms that collaborate with universities are generally
those who introduce more original innovations (Mon-
jon and Waelbroeck, 2003.
It seems clear that industrial-university cooperation
has a great potential for synergies between the two
agents. R&D PM (managers, directives, etc.) is more
related to market and industry representative, and PR
with university. Therefore, in the R&D industry-
university cooperation projects, both roles coexist but
they represent different activities and objectives. This
situation makes difficult for both to add value to the
project, being each one on industry or university side.
The collaboration is beneficial for them (financial sup-
port for university and marketable knowledge or dif-
ferential value over the competition in the industry)
5
Anıbal Cassanelli, Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez and Maria Clara Guiridlian
Figure 1. Researcher categories (UNMdP, 2013).
and, therefore, the success of the project as a whole
should be a motivation for both. It seems that an inte-
grated project management (not separating roles and
objectives by agents) will allow an increase in the
success.
4. Case study
In addition to the previous literature review, a case
study has also developed. The university under study
was the Universidad Nacional del Mar del Plata
(UNMdP, Argentina).
The UNMdP have 1,391 researchers that are cate-
gorized for their scientific performance by Argentina
National Educational Ministry. The system has five
categories, from 5 to 1, and one identified researcher
the highest level. The distribution of researchers at the
university into categories can be seen in Figure 1.
From this group, 666 researchers are between 1 and
3 levels and they can manage university founded
research project.
It has been developed a survey to analyze their role
in R&D project management. For this case, project
management include all their activities related to the
detection of opportunities, to identify funding sources,
to write proposals and reports, fund management,
human and material resource management, account-
ing, purchasing, monitoring and control, and closure.
Researchers selected for the maturity interview was
5% of the sample. They are involved in project with
the highest amount of financing and they have a full
view of the life cycle at least of one research project
leaded by each of them.
They participate or have participated on 355
research projects with different degrees of progression
from inception to closing. The 10% of respondents
have taken a course related to project management.
Moreover, the 93% do not have a Project Manage-
6 R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
ment System Information (PMIS). The detail of pro-
ject planning is very low for the 77% and medium for
20% of population surveyed.
They uniquely identify the direct customer to docu-
ment the project progress required. The time and cost
estimation are done by using pour precision method-
ology like analogy mainly with the information of
previous projects and introducing a data biases in the
estimation and uncertainty over final project cost used
to apply for research funds. There is just no supervi-
sion over the budget planned against actually spent by
the time schedule and scope, and no specific manage-
ment of project risks beyond the experience of the
researchers mentioned.
From this case, it could be seeing that due to a low
competence in project management the PR working
as a PM is a possible source of risk for the project suc-
cess. On the other hand, PR surveyed, spent an aver-
age of 15% of their working time in project
management issues.
More in depth, a special focus has been done in
Material Research Institute (INTEMA), under the
UNMdP and the National Council of Scientific and
Technical of Argentina (CONICET) to explore the
level of maturity in project management of PR work-
ing as PM.
The results of this study show that the maturity
level of PRs were on the first level. The first level is
characterized by a common language and relevant ter-
minology with basic knowledge in project manage-
ment. This means that PR could have difficulties to
manage resources, cost, planning, communication,
human resources, but with some competencies to
define product scope.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The R&D sector has specific characteristics from the
point of project management. It has a strong compo-
nent of technical risk, particularly in the field of basic
research. R&D have a great uncertainty and risks, but
also with unique human resources (Petroni et al.,
2012). Following Aginako and Otegi (2011), the aca-
demic and scientific personnel need different manag-
ers from the industry with experience in research
management.
However, it is possible to improve basic research
by using tools of project management to help in scien-
tific activities (Lambert, 2006).
Existing methodologies and tools on R&D projects
are primarily focused in decision-making (selection
and prioritization) and risk management, but with
moderate impact in practice and with a gap of the
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 Who should drive R&D

Table 1. Summarizes characteristics and approaches in R&D projects

Industry University University-Industry

Main R&D Development and Inno-
projects vation Projects.
Using Project More internalized project
Management management standards
knowledge (closer to industrial
projects).
Important advances in
selection models and
risk management of
R&D Projects.
Knowledge and Technological and mar-
Market ket dependence. Suc-
cess is measured in
economic terms
(benefits).
Project Manager Existence of the R&D
and Principal PM.
Researcher PR is not mentioned.
More industrial projects
than scientific, there is
just one role.
Solutions or Existence of T-man as a
existing gear between knowl-
proposals edge and experience:
actor of integration.
Alternative to dual role.
Basic and Applied Research
Projects.
Project Management unused, it
is not considered useful or
practical for academia.
Lack of knowledge and skills in
project management (level 1
in the case study).
Lack of support for researchers
(administrative support only,
e.g. TTOs).
Much time spent on manage-
ment tasks where they are
not skilled.
Dependence in knowledge
advance and in sources of
funding. Success is measured
in diffusion (e.g.
publications).
Existence of PR required at
calls for R&D.
PM is not mentioned or it is
assumed to be the PR 1 TTO
or it will be subcontracted by
the PR for some issues (such
as cost management).
Training leading researchers in
project management: adop-
tion of the two roles of scien-
tist and manager at the time.
Applied research, development
and innovation.
Project Management more inter-
nalized in the industry. Lack
of maturity in knowledge
transfer and low importance
of project management.
New management in coopera-
tion projects (trust, communi-
cation, risk, etc.) and new
challenges in addition to
those inherent to R&D.
TTOs as a positive effect by
increasing contact with
companies.
Double dependence, each agent
seeks different objectives
(industry: market; university:
knowledge). Approaching
their interests: hybrid univer-
sity and ‘scientification’ of
the industry.
Dual leadership for each agent
(university: PR; Industry:
PM).
Financial support to the univer-
sity by the industry (unbal-
anced decisions) in exchange
for knowledge.
Two roles, one for each agent.
Each role seeks success of his
agent success not the project
success.

elements that produce these decisions (Verma et al.,
2011).
In addition, there are some identified problems and
inconsistencies in the human resources management,
project success, excessive importance of the eco-
nomic, financial and market aspects, as well as a pro-
ject management application in the field of R&D
(Vandaele and Decouttere, 2013).
This had been more clearly identified at the univer-
sity context. The best way to ensure proper project
management is one in which all individuals and teams
involved are competent to do their jobs and to assume
their responsibilities (Tavares, 2004; Koch and
Knoepfel, 2008; Barrenha and Takahashi, 2010).
The Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and
approaches for industry, university and the coopera-
tion R&D projects.
Thus for university, the most qualified researcher to
develop research activities (PR) spends time in activ-
ity of management (costs, contracts, risks, deadlines,
uncertainties, stakeholders, communication, human
resources, deliveries, etc.). It seems also that new pro-
posals are in the way of training researchers in project
management skills to continue assuming the dual role
of manager and researcher in the same figure. How-
ever, it seems that research itself and project manage-
ment are important enough to be two separate roles at
the project team. These findings are aligned with the
results obtained for the cases analyzed, as a prelimi-
nary approach, showing that PRs can be great
researchers but they could not have the same qualifi-
cation and competencies in management issues. But
at the same time, PR dedicate much of their time in
management issues that they do not master, while
they are not working in research issues, where they
add real value.
In the industrial area, with more projects focused
on development and innovation and with a greater
proximity with industrial projects makes project man-
agement more integrated into R&D projects. PM is

C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V R&D Management 00, 00, 2016 7
Anıbal Cassanelli, Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez and Maria Clara Guiridlian
Figure 2. PR and PM roles in R&D project management.
already in the industry, but there is not any explicitly
reference to PR.
In R&D industry-university cooperation projects
have enormous potential by joining the business func-
tion with scientific objectives, but it seems to be an
aggregation of agents more than a synergistic cooper-
ation, with PR representing the university and PM
from the industry.
However, according to the initial hypothesis, it
seems that there is an opportunity for improvement
both: in integration, adaptation and application of pro-
ject management standards with its directive proc-
esses and in the co-existence of the dual role of PR
and PM.
In universities the responsibility is delegated to PR.
From these results, it is possible to formulate a new
hypothesis and establish what should be the organiza-
tion for leading at university.
In this direction, the elements of analysis support
the conclusion that an improvement in the organiza-
tion is possible by assigning these roles to two human
resources with specializations in each area working
together (PR and PM) to assure a greater technical
success.
This proposal can be represented schematically as
shown in Figure 2. The project would have a PR and a
PM who work with a high degree of integration.
This could allow the PR to manage R&D activities
and PM would focus in R&D project management, to
optimize strongest skills in each task. It can be possi-
ble to have a Project Management Office integrated in
TTOs, based on a team of PMs to manage R&D proj-
ects of all university research.
8 R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
As a conclusion, this paper opens new approaches
for the integration of project management discipline
in R&D in universities. It is considered, from these
initial results, that R&D should be driven by the PR;
but the R&D project management should be responsi-
bility of a PM to add a real value to R&D manage-
ment. As possible future research lines, they are
proposed some interesting new steps. First one, to
develop and apply this theoretical proposal, based on
literature but also following the results of a single
case study, in the academic world practically. But it is
also considered important to have more empirical
results in universities worldwide to prove what is sug-
gested in here, while going more in depth in the indus-
try sector.
References
Aginako, L. and Otegi, J.R. (2011. July). Unidades de ges-
tion de I1D1i externas (spin-outs) - El caso de Euskadi.
Presented at XV International Congress on project
engineering, Huesca, Spain.
Alabau, F.J. (2011. July). Gestion de riesgos en programas
de I1D1i. Presented at XV International Congress on
project engineering, Huesca, Spain.
Aronson, Z.H., Shenhar, A.J., and Patanakul, P. (2013).
Managing the intangible aspects of a project: the affect
of vision, artifacts, and leader values on project spirit
and success in technology-driven projects. Project
Management Journal, 44, 1, 35–58.
Barbolla, A. and Corredera, J. (2009). Critical factors
for success in University-industry research projects.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21, 5,
599–616.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

Barrenha, M. and Takahashi, V.P. (2010). Study of matu-
rity of university cooperation projects - Pharmaceutical
companies. Gestao e Projectos, 1, 2, 109–127.
van Bekkum, S., Pennings, E. and Smit, H. (2009). A real
options perspective on R&D portfolio diversification.
Research Policy 38: 1150–1158.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in conver-
gence: micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collabora-
tion. Technovation 30, 100–108.
Bode P. (2000). Quality and project management for scien-
tific research in INAA. Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry, 245, 1, 133–135.
Brostr€om, A. and L€o€of, H. (2008). How does university
collaboration contribute to successful R&D manage-
ment?. Working paper series in economics and institu-
tions of innovation N. 131, Royal Institute of
Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science
and Innovation Studies, Available at http://EconPapers.
repec.org/RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0131.
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., and Salter, A. (2010). Investigating
the factors that diminish the barriers to university-
industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39, 858–868.
Cassanelli, A.N., Guiridlian, M.C., and Fernandez-
Sanchez, G. (2014). R&D project, research type charac-
terization and project manager role. Iberoamerican
Journal of Project Management, 5, 2, 1–16,
Cassanelli, A.N. and Mu~noz, M. (2009). Project Manage-
ment Office, maturity in a medium-size company.
Revista Brasileira de Gerenciamento de Projetos, 6, 2.
Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of com-
plementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and
external knowledge acquisition. Management Science,
52, 1, 68–82.
Caughron, J. and Mumford, M. (2008). Project planning:
the effects of using formal planning techniques on crea-
tive problem-solving. Journal of Creativity and Innova-
tion Management, 17, 3, 204–215.
CMR International. (2006). Pharmaceutical R&D Fact-
book. CMR International Co, London, UK.
Cynertia Consulting (2010). Gesti on de la I1D1i con las
normas de la serie UNE 16600. Barcelona.
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J., and Bentley, L.
(2003). Managing soft change projects in the public sec-
tor. International Journal of Project Management, 21,
443–448.
Cohen, L., Duberley, J., and McAuley, J. (1999). Fueling
discovery or monitoring productivity: research scientists’
changing perceptions of management. Organization, 6,
3, 473–497.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J., and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004).
Benchmarking best NPD practices-1. Research Technol-
ogy Management, 47, 1, 31.
Divjak, B. and Kukec, S.K. (2008). Teaching methods for
international R&D project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 26, 251–257.
Droge, C., Calantone, R., and Harmancioglu, N. (2008).
New product success: is it really controllable by manag-
ers in highly turbulent environments? Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 25, 272–286.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
Who should drive R&D
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A. (2006). The role of
technology in the shift towards open innovation: the
case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36, 3,
333–346.
Eilat, H., Golany, B., and Shtub, A. (2009). R&D project
evaluation: an integrated DEA and balanced scorecard
approach. The International Journal of Management Sci-
ence Omega, 36, 895–912.
Ernø-Kjølhede, E. (2000). Project management theory and
the management of research projects. MPP Working
Paper No 3/2000. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Etzkowitz, H. and G€oktepe, D. (2005) The co-evolution of
technology transfer offices and the linear model of innova-
tion, Conference paper presented at DRUID’s tenth anni-
versary summer conference 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gasmann, O., Enkel, E., and Chesbrough, H. (2010).
The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40,
213–220.
Hammerstedt, R.H. and Blach, E.L. (2007). Commerciali-
zation of basic research from within the university and
return of value to the public. Animal Reproduction
Science, 105, 1–2, 158–178.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J.D., and Senker, J.M. (2009).
Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in
scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.
Herroelen, W. and Leus, R. (2005). Project Scheduling
under uncertainty: survey and research potentials.
European Journal of Operational Research, 165,
289–306.
Jung, U. and Seo, D.W. (2010). An ANP approach for
R&D project evaluation based on interdependencies
between research objectives and evaluation criteria.
Decision Support Systems, 49, 335–342.
Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic planing for progect manage-
ment using a project management maturity model. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kleinman, D.L, and Vallas, S.P. (2006). Contradiction in
convergence: university and industry in the biotechnol-
ogy field. In: Frickel, S. and Moore, K. (eds), The new
political sociology of science: Institutions, networkd,
and power, Madison: The University of Wisconsn Press,
pp. 35–62.
Koch, G. and Knoepfel, H. (2008). Os diferenciais do refer-
encial de compet^encias IPMA vers~ao 3.0. Revista Mundo
Project Management, 20, 50–57.
Lambert, L.R. (2006). R&D project management: adapting
to technological risk and uncertainty. In: The AMA
Handbook of Project Management. Dinsmore, P.C. and
Cabanis-Brewin, J. (eds), 2nd edn. New York: American
Management Association.
Laruccia, M., Ignez, P., Deghi, G., and Garcia, M. (2012).
Project Management in research and development.
Revista de Gestao e Projetos, 3, 3, 109–135.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its
effect on firm performance: examining environmental
influences. R&D Management, 39, 38–54.
Mansfield, E. (1998) Academic research and industrial
innovation: An update of empirical findings, Research
Policy, 26, 7–8, 773–776.
9
Anıbal Cassanelli, Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez and Maria Clara Guiridlian
Monjon, S and Waelbroeck, P. (2003) Assessing spillovers
from universities to firms: Evidence from french firm-
level data, International Journal of Industrial organiza-
tion, 21, 9, 1255–1270.
Niedergassel, B. and Leker, J. (2011). Different dimensions
of knowledge in cooperative R&D projects of university
scientists. Technovation, 31, 142–150.
Norma UNE 166000. (2006). R&D&i: Terminology and
definitions of R&D&I activities [In Spanish]. Edited by
AENOR. Madrid, Spain
Paladino, A. (2008). Analyzing the effects of market and
resource orientations on innovative outcomes in times of
turbulence. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
25, 577–592.
Petroni, G., Venturini, K., and Verbano, C. (2012). Open
innovation and new issues in R&D organization and per-
sonnel management. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23, 1, 147–173.
Powers, L.C. and Kerr, G. (2009). Project management and
success in academic research. RealWorld Systems
Research Series 2009:2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.
com/abstract51408032
PMI. (2013). A guide to the project management body of
knowledge (PMBoK Guide). Fifth Edition. Pennsylvania:
Project Management Institute.
Sanchez, A. M. and Perez, M. P. (2002). R&D project
efficiency management in the Spanish industry.
International Journal of Project Management, 20, 7,
545–560.
Skelton, L. (2011). An investigation of academic research
project management frameworks and methodology. Pre-
sented at PMI New Zealand conference, 2011, Auckland,
New Zealand.
Steffens, W., Martinsuo, M., and Artto, K. (2007). Change
decisions in product development projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 25, 702–713.
Stevens, G.A., and Burley J. (1997). 3,000 raw ideas 5 1
commercial success. Research Technology Management,
40, 3, 16–27.
Tavares, E. (2004). Uma contribuiç~ao para processos da
ger^encia de projetos atraves da ger^encia do conheci-
mento. PhD Thesis. Faculdade de Economia, Adminis-
traç~ao e Contabilidade, Universidade de S~ao Paulo, S~ao
Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Teirlinck, P. and Spithoven, A. (2013). Formal R&D man-
agement and strategic decision making in small firms in
knowledge-intensive business services. R&D Manage-
ment, 43, 1, 37–51.
Universidad de Castilla La Mancha (2014). El Gestor de
Proyectos. Archivo recuperado 2014. Available at://
www.uclm.es/organos/Vic_Investigacion
UNMdP. (2013). Available at: http://www.mdp.edu.ar/
index.php?key5124. Recuperado 20/09/2013.
Vandaele, N.J. and Decouttere, C.J. (2013). Sustainable
R&D portfolio assessment. Decision Support Systems,
54, 1521–1532.
Varas, M., Sanchez, L., and Alvarado, L. (2010. May).
Aportaciones para mejorar la gestion de proyectos de
10 R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
proyectos de I1D1i. Presented at I Iberoamerican Con-
gress on Project Engineering, Antofagasta, Chile.
Varas, M., Sanchez, L., and Alvarado, L. (2014). R&D
project directors: skills and challenges. Iberoamerican
Journal of Project Management, 5, 2, 96–112.
Verma, D., Mishra, A., and Sinha, K.K. (2011). The
development and application of a process model
for R&D project management in a high tech firm: A
field study. Journal of Operations Management, 29,
462–476.
Wang, J. and Hwang, W.-L. (2007). A fuzzy set approach
for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valua-
tion model. The International Journal of Management
Science Omega, 35, 247–257.
Wang, J., Lin, W., and Huang, Y. (2010). A performance-
oriented risk management framework for innovative
R&D projects. Technovation, 30, 601––611.
Dr. Anıbal Cassanelli is a Professor at the National
University of Mar del Plata (UNMdP), Argentina. He
is the Director of the Master degree ‘Engineering
Project Management’, and chief of the division of
Project Engineering of the School of Engineering at
UNMdP. He is a researcher in project management
in the areas of R&D and SMEs. In particular simula-
tion project, risk management, resource management,
and cost management. He has 56 international publi-
cations including articles, books, book chapters and
conferences. He also participates as a scientific
reviewer for international journals and congresses.
He is director of the Iberoamerican Journal of Project
Management (www.ijopm.org) and was president
until 2015 of the Latin American Network of Project
Engineering (RIIPRO). He has participated as a
researcher and director of international projects with
funds from Europe, USA, Canada, South America
and Argentina.
Dr. Gonzalo Fernandez-Sanchez is the Head of
Urban and Civil Engineering Department, in the
School of Architecture and Engineering at Universi-
dad Europea de Madrid, Spain (UEM). He is a pro-
fessor and researcher at the school of Architecture
and Engineering at UEM in the lines of project man-
agement, sustainability, and R&D management. He
has participated in several European research proj-
ects, and in national and regional projects. He has
published more than 50 conferences articles and
papers in highly impact congresses and journals. He
is a member of different scientific committees and is
member of two prestigious editorial boards of scien-
tific journals in his areas of expertise. He has been
accredited as Project Manager Professional by the
Project Management Institute.
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V

Eng. Maria Clara Guiridlian Guarino is an indus-
trial engineer with extensive experience and manage-
ment skills working for private and public
organizations. She has worked in planning and pro-
ject management for 8 years and has also worked 6
years as an assistant lecturer in the Project Manage-
C 2016 RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V R&D Management 00, 00, 2016
View publication stats
Who should drive R&D
ment course at National University of Mar del Plata
(UNMdP). Maria Clara Guiridlian Guarino holds a
MSc in Strategic Management from the UNMdP.
Currently, she is working in a project-based organiza-
tion as a senior industrial engineer with a continuous
link with the academy.
11