Collaborative academic/practitioner research in project

managementExamples and applications

Derek H.T. WalkerRMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Frank T. AnbariThe George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Christophe BredilletESC Lille, France

Jonas SoderlundBI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway

Svetlana CicmilSchool of Operations and Information Management,

Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK, and

Janice ThomasCentre for Innovative Management, Athabasca University,

St Albert, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a cost-benefit interpretation ofacademic-practitioner research by describing and analysing several recent relevant examplesof academic-practitioner research with a focus on doctoral theses carried out at universities andbusiness schools in clusters of research centred in North America, Australia and Europe.

Design/methodology/approach – Using case study examples, a value propositionframework for undertaking collaborative research for higher degree level study is developedand presented.

Findings – Value proposition benefits from this level of collaborative research can be summarised asenhancing competencies at the individual and organisational level as well as providing participatinguniversities with high-quality candidates/students and opportunities for industry engagement.The project management (PM) professional bodies can also extend PM knowledge but they need to beprepared to provide active support.

Practical implications – A model for better defining the value proposition of collaborative researchfrom a range of stakeholder perspectives is offered that can be adapted for researchers and industryresearch sponsors.

Originality/value – Few papers offer a value proposition framework for explaining collaborativeresearch benefits. This paper addresses that need.

Keywords Knowledge transfer, Project management, Research work, Management research

Paper type Case study

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

IJMPB1,2

168

Received 1 October 2007Accepted 17 January 2008

International Journal of ManagingProjects in BusinessVol. 1 No. 2, 2008pp. 168-192q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1753-8378DOI 10.1108/17538370810866313

IntroductionProject management (PM) research is currently undergoing a transformation. Crawfordet al. (2006, pp. 724-5) identified challenges for PM professional development that centrearound a changing perceived role of project managers moving beyond being simplytechnicians that mechanistically deliver project outputs to strategic professionals thathave a place in being more fully involved in shaping the project initiation process as wellas managing increasingly complex people plus technology projects. Their observationsprompt implications around the need for PM professionals being reflective practitioners(RPs). Their work forms part of a recent movement for rethinking PM that generated asubstantial amount of interest and relevant publications (Cicmil et al., 2006; Maylor,2006; Maylor et al., 2006; Winter and Smith, 2006; Winter et al., 2006b).

Soderlund (2004, p. 663) traces a history of PM research and highlights the need for moreresearch in what he terms “project ecologies” relating to multi-firm and multi-projectscontexts by concentrating on the interrelationships between projects and theirenvironments. He argues that while there has been a large body of important researchundertaken in traditional PM areas such as time/cost/fitness for purpose there has also beena growing and developing interest in extending research into non-traditional PM settings –such as the film and entertainment industry, public sector service delivery and businessprocess innovation and product/service integration. Thus, PM research can be seen asbecoming increasingly important across a broad range of settings and circumstances.

The main problem that becomes evident from currently evolving PM research isthat there has little evidence presented relating to how stakeholders explicitly state andjustify their PM research value proposition. This in turn weakens the business case fororganisations to participate in research projects or to support staff in doing so as partof any higher degree study. Many practitioners and academics are also left with thegreat “so what” question unanswered. This results in a classical PM benefitsrealization problem where expected tangible and intangible outcomes need to beclarified before they can be delivered (Bradley, 2006).

This paper redresses this situation by focusing on how research models offered byWalker et al. (2008b) can be applied in practice. The aim of this paper, therefore, is todescribe and analyze several relevant recent examples of academic-practitionerresearch projects through focusing on examples of doctoral theses that have beencarried out at universities and business schools in clusters of research centred in NorthAmerica, Australia and Europe. This first requires a discussion of associatedstakeholder issues the nature of the value proposition to allow development of acost-benefit interpretation of academic-practitioner research. The cost/benefitperspective chosen relates to how it affects a RP’s capacity and motivation togenerate value through their lived project experience. The paper concludes withimplications for PM practice as well as suggesting a way that academia can betterengage with project managers who are deeply embedded in their projects.

Stakeholder value propositionsMuch of the current PM research is about defining and re-framing PM practice andstudying PM processes and practices. This is a highly pragmatic type of research thatuses a range of research methodologies, increasing those with a focus on actionlearning (Smith, 2001) or qualitative research methods that reveal the lived experienceof PM teams and their major stakeholders (de Fillippi, 2001; Keegan and Turner, 2001;

Projectmanagement

169

Bourne and Walker, 2006; Koskinen and Pihlanto, 2006; Smith, 2007). While this kindof research can be very valuable, it may be inhibiting stakeholders, who could morefully participate, from seeing the point in doing so if they believe that such researchdoes not lead to easily understood benefits being realized.

Walker et al. (2008b) refer to research models fulfilling the needs of each stakeholderin a collaborative research project. Before proceeding further, two terms used in thispaper need to be explained – stakeholder and value proposition. Walker et al. (2008a,p. 73) provide a comprehensive review of stakeholder theory with an emphasis on PMand they use the definition of stakeholders as:

[. . .] individuals or groups who have an interest or some aspect of rights or ownership in theproject, and can contribute to, or be impacted by, either the work or the outcomes ofthe project.

This paper is focused upon the process and outcome of research as a project and so thiscircumscribes consideration of stakeholders as being the researchers, organisationsand individuals being researched, institutions undertaking the research and the PMprofession that will absorb new knowledge arising out of research.

The term value proposition is well known from the marketing, value managementand total quality management literature (Walters and Lancaster, 2000; Male, 2002;Anderson et al., 2006). Value proposition will be taken to mean in this paper as theperceived value that a person (or group of people) expect to gain from theircollaboration and cooperation in a research project. This is in effect their expectedbenefit that can be tangible (find a better way to do something) or intangible (learningsomething new that may be useful or enjoying the experience of being involved inresearch or increasing absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Szulanski,2003)). Often researchers can get so involved in their learning experience that they areunaware of the value of the opportunity cost donated by participants they are engagingwith. Anderson et al. (2006) caution that delivering a “customer’s” (or target’s) valueproposition requires not only answering that target’s value question (what value can begenerated) but also requires knowledge of that target’s aspirations. It is necessary toknow what points of difference can be offered above that of the next best choice as wellas knowing what a target may consider worthwhile. Thus, while researchers may beoffering what they believe to be superb value, the target may feel that benefit to be ofmarginal value. Conversely, researchers may be unaware of the true value of what theycan deliver to a target and so do not frame their offering well and then may gainrewards and benefits for that vital value aspect.

Walker et al. (2008b) provide models of collaborative research that had valueproposition implications. In their Model 1, they discuss expertise building using theDreyfus (2004) model adapted by Cicmil (2006, p. 35). This infers value to PMorganisations and professionals gaining increased levels of competence from novicesto expert or virtuosos. Model 2 related to reflective learning (RL) from both reflectionon action and reflection in action. This infers value in shifting PM professionals tohigher levels of PM competence through a well structured process consistent with thatoffered by Schon (1983) for example. Their Model 3 involves structured academic studythat is solidly anchored in engagement with organisations through collaborativeprocesses. Thus, the value perspective is seen from the eyes of PM practitioners whowish to raise their competence levels as well as deepen their understanding of what

IJMPB1,2

170

good PM practice may be. Examples that are offered in this paper centre upon theorganisation’s value perspective in terms of what benefit it gains from the investmentin time, resources and management effort and strategic focus.

The analysis of research collaborations examples presented will provide detail onthe costs and benefits that make up the value proposition for four identified groups ofstakeholders. These value propositions are also summarized for those concerned andinvolved so that the PM community can better appreciate the contributions to PMknowledge being currently made. Cited examples of recent PM research that areconsidered in this paper are not meant to be a definitive summary of currentcollaborative PM research, rather these examples are indicative and illustrative.Therefore, this paper provides only a summary of what is happening in severaluniversities where leading edge PM research is being undertaken at the doctoral level.This realistically suggests how the trajectory of PM practitioner collaborative researchis developing.

Collaborative PM network examplesOne of the important threads in the recent debate and discussion generated by the“Rethinking project management” network (www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/management/rethinkpm/default.htm) (Winter et al., 2006b) was the issue ofhow to more effectively get the academic world to significantly engage with the PMpractice world. In the final report produced from that group the following quote isrelevant to our paper in that it articulates a useful value proposition from theperspective of both researchers and organisations. The report poses the question:

[. . .] how can scholarly projects that engage pressing questions relating to the management ofprojects, enhance the empirical breadth and theoretical sophistication of our work? andfinally, how may “engaged scholarship” transform aspects of the management of projects inpractice?

One of the themes explored by the network was practitioner development (Winter andSmith, 2006, p. 12). Their web site describes this activity as developing:

Relevant knowledge, skills and competencies. Learning and development processes, e.g.work-based and university-based. Selection of potential project managers. Learning oftechnical knowledge and tools vs development of pragmatic and reflective judgement.Learning to handle complexity and uncertainty in projects and programmes. The developmentof critically reflective practitioners (Rethinking Project Management, 2004-2006).

A reflective account of practitioners’ experiences titled Making Sense of ProjectRealities by Smith (2007) who was the “Rethinking project management” NetworkChief Co-ordinator was recently published. Interested readers could also refer to thespecial issue (8) of the International Journal of Project Management that wasintroduced by Maylor (2006) as Guest Editor. The papers published from that group(Atkinson et al., 2006; Cicmil et al., 2006; Morris et al., 2006; Winter et al., 2006a, b, c)stress the need for practical research that benefits and engages PM practitioners tobenefit the wider group of customers of project outcomes and the PM profession ingeneral to better deliver value (outcomes) rather than just products or services. Thisshould not be surprising as many of those taking part are, or have been, practicingproject managers and so the emphasis on research leading to practical outcomes is notsurprising. When reviewing this body of work, it becomes clear that the perception of

Projectmanagement

171

what constitutes a project, or what project work involves, and where projects mergeinto a wider context of a program or portfolio of projects being undertaken, is highlycontestable. The experience of people engaged in projects sometimes challengesprevailing PM theories and standards.

Complementary and parallel research was also being undertaken and presented at the“Making projects critical” network of international workshops founded in 2003. A researchbook that provides a range of ways of reflecting on projects through case studies of livingthe realities of projects emerged from this work (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006). This bookcontains several chapters (Green, 2006; Ivory et al., 2006) in which project managers areclearly not managing their projects as outlined in Project Management Institute (2004,PMBOKw Guide) or as prescribed by the PRINCE2 methodology (Bentley, 1997).

The Project Management Institute (PMIw), a global organisation established in theUSA in 1969 with almost 250,000 members world-wide, has been holding a biennialresearch conference since 2000. The PMIw also holds a full-day research workingsession four times a year and sponsors several research projects every year as well ascurrently sponsoring a major research network to determine the value to organizationsof PM. The International Research Network for Organizing by Projects (IRNOP),established in Sweden in 1993, has been holding a biennial research conference since1994. Additionally, the International Project Management Association started to offerawards for research in PM in 2007. Papers are published in research journals andpresentations are made at academic conferences such as those held by the Academy ofManagement and the European Academy of Management. These scholarly initiatives,networks and events contribute significantly to shaping the research agenda in PM.These initiatives, however, provide leading PM concepts, ideas and new practices thattake time to filter down to PM practitioners.

The complex and dynamic nature of PM work demands of its practitioner a deep levelof understanding of the whole process of living in the project world. After all, thosepractitioners are the shapers, facilitators and performers who turn project concepts intorealities. What is needed is shifting the profession’s understanding of the project worldfrom a better technical appreciation of the tools and techniques that can be deployed on aproject to understanding and appreciating the project world’s ecology. This presents, asargued by Crawford et al. (2006), a challenge of far greater scope than merely conveying aseries of best practices. This deep reflective understanding of the nature of the projectworld can be developed within organisations that are involved in project work, byacademic advisors and researchers, or as is most likely the optimal situation, acombination of both. This combination may well be best produced through the RP, anidea that has been with us for decades (Schon, 1983). However, as academics observewhen engaging with industry research partners, the RP is a rare gem to find in the “realworld” where 24/7 pressure, challenging deadlines, and short-term results weigh heavilyon the ability to be reflective while striking a sustainable work-life balance (Francis andLingard, 2004; Francis et al., 2006; Lingard et al., 2007).

Another important and innovative locus of PM research has been in Scandinavia.Sweden has a long history of industry-academia partnerships in the businessadministration area. Professors Norrman and Rhenman spearheaded this developmentand worked for many years to elaborate on action learning and clinical research invarious companies. Also, Sweden has some experience with industrial PhDs, however,normally these students have been associated with institutes of technology and rarely

IJMPB1,2

172

within the area of business administration and management. During the 1990s, twoimportant initiatives were taken to improve the cooperation between industry and PhDtraining: the Industrial Graduate School of Management and Industrial Engineering(IMIE) and Fenix. IMIE located at Linkoping University is primarily a graduate schoolfor full-time PhD students. Fenix is a graduate school organised in cooperation withStockholm School of Economics, Chalmers University of Technology and a number ofbig businesses, including Ericsson and AstraZeneca. Fenix is primarily aimed ateducating so-called executive PhDs. Both schools have an orientation towardsindustrial management and several of the PhD theses presented during the first fiveyears of these graduate schools were in the area of PM. Finnish universities with theirlinks to the Finnish research centre VTT together with global companies like Nokiahave also an enviable record of academic investigation that far exceeds the globalpopulation share that could be expected. This area of the world far exceeds its expected(by population) contribution to high-end research in PM.

Academic research developed with RPs is possible as evidenced by the work of therethinking PM network, the Nordic example as well as the many cooperative researchcentres around the world that rely on a model of academic and industry collaborationto solve “real-world” problems. However, it requires appropriate funding to facilitatethis from the academic side and considerable in-kind support from industry partners toprovide even limited time release to take part in collaborative workshops and otherresearch activities. Considerable energy is invested in such research exercises andimmediate benefits are rarely evident. This prompts questioning and challenging theviability and usefulness of research outcomes and leads to the question: is academicresearch useful to practitioners especially if their energy and input are so crucial?

A further dimension to this question is addressed by this paper in a second strand ofacademic research undertaken by many practitioners – studying for a PhD or aprofessional doctorate where the majority of the effort comprises research.Practitioners undertaking these advanced degrees are mainly involved with researchapproaches that involve reflection and action research/learning. Practitionercandidates are required to expend considerable effort as well as time of colleaguesthat they are engaged with through participating in workplace research. When the fullcost of time, energy and resources expended is accounted for, the questions remain:what are the costs and benefits? Who are the beneficiaries?

University/practitioner learning collaboration examplesThe validity of RL and the researcher as participant has been previously well established(Coghlan and Brannick, 2005). Walker et al. (2008b) also note that research leadership,which is driving the research topic agenda to achieve a specific value proposition, caneither predominantly remain with one party, such as a research network or research centrethat funds specific doctoral research projects, or it may shift to the researcher party. Thelatter occurs when doctoral candidates take charge of a research topic to the extent thatthey become more expert than their supervisors or funding representatives. The practicalresearch focus was also of interest to Walker et al. (2008b) as was the predominant researchdesign and approach. The predominant cost is of major interest in this paper as it affectsperceptions of the participants’ value proposition.

Several examples of doctoral level collaborations will now be explored. It isimportant to acknowledge that academics supervising doctoral candidates also learn

Projectmanagement

173

from and gain valuable insights through this process – this remains part of their valueproposition. Recent examples of this kind of research approach aimed to improve PMpractice from North America, Europe and Australia will be presented. The intent ofsuch research is to enhance opportunities for collaboration in PM education amonguniversities, faculty members, and students. Experimentation and widely sharingresults are compatible with university traditions and:

[. . .] as universities around the world interact more and learn from each other, thecontributions that they can make to their local, national, and international communities willsteadily increase [. . .] Meaningful cooperation should support improvements in projectmanagement knowledge and performance, and lead to enhancing the quality of life forsocieties throughout the globe (Umpleby and Anbari, 2004, p. 242).

Examples from North AmericaTwo examples of PhD research dissertations from The George Washington University inWashington, DC, USA, are presented as follows. The first example is a dissertationcompleted by a part-time PhD candidate (Watson, 2007) who works for a globaltechnology company. He developed a comprehensive framework for conceptualestimation of the deployment cost for integrated business transformation projects(integrated software application development projects), an area in which he is activelyinvolved in his work. The framework uses the Delphi technique and is based on theoreticalconcepts in parametric estimating, knowledge management, and diffusion of innovation.He executed the framework using a sample of four deployment projects conducted by hiscompany and representative of the types of projects towards which his study was aimed.The projects were assessed to have different levels of complexity and were deployed inAsia Pacific South, China, European Union, and Latin America. He compared the originalestimates to the framework results and found an extremely high correlation between them.He obtained feedback from project and senior managers to demonstrate that theframework is meaningful to practitioners, in addition to its academic contribution ofclarifying the relationship between parametric estimating, knowledge management, anddiffusion of innovation. Upon completion of his doctoral studies, Dr Watson continued towork for his global organisation that partially sponsored his advanced academic work,and he is serving as an adjunct faculty member in PM in an MBA program.

The second example is a dissertation completed by a full-time PhD candidate (Bani-Ali,2004) who works in information technology (IT) and PM for his government. He developeda model that integrates elements from sound theories and widely accepted research modelsincluding the computer self-efficacy (CSE) model, task-technology fit model, technologyacceptance model, and social cognitive theory to assess the acceptance and impact of ITand implemented that model in the PM field. The constructs he used were projectcharacteristics, project professionals’ CSE, PM software characteristics, PM softwareutilization, and project manager performance. He operationalised these constructs anddeveloped appropriate measurements for each of them. He developed a comprehensiveinstrument and tested it through subject-matter experts and a pilot study to check forclarity, readability, validity, and reliability. He used the final research instrument in alarge-scale, online survey, and analysed the collected data using multiple regressionmodels with interaction terms, analysis of variance, correlation analysis, cluster analysis,factor analysis, principal component analysis, and other relevant statistical techniques.This study enhanced knowledge of factors related to the acceptance of IT in PM and the

IJMPB1,2

174

impact of PM software utilization on project success. Some results of the study, itsapproach, and implications are discussed elsewhere (Bani-Ali and Anbari, 2004; Bani-Aliet al., 2007). Upon completion of his doctoral studies, Dr Bani-Ali continued on to aleadership position in IT and PM in the government that sponsored his advancedacademic work.

These two examples illustrate the practical value of applying sound theory andrigorous academic research methods to advance knowledge and contribute toenhanced understanding of key issues that have significant relevance and crucialimpact on PM practice. It also indicates that the value proposition of the individual inraising competencies levels has been achieved and evidenced by employer continuedcareer advancement as well as indicating that the organisation gained from thisexposure to academic rigour and academic resources.

Examples from EuropeThe first example is a dissertation completed by a PhD candidate (Marshall, 2007) whohas worked extensively on projects in the public sector. His studies investigated theearned value management (EVM) technique, a methodology which has steadily gainedin acceptance in recent years. Marshall’s motivation came out of own PM experienceswithin his organization, his interest in testing commonly held notions about EVM, andhis desire for a deeper understanding of EVM beyond the experiential accounts of otherproject managers. His research departed from existing studies and complemented themby taking a quantitative statistical approach with contract type as a pivotal element.Utilizing Pearson’s product moment correlation, linear regression analysis, and lineardiscriminant analysis, his research:

. investigated the direct relationship of EVM principles to project success oncontracted efforts;

. investigated any moderating effect that contract type may have on therelationship; and

. investigated between-group differences (fixed-price versus cost-plus contracts)with respect to the contribution of EVM mechanics to contract formation andadministration items.

Data collection was purposive and cross-sectional. A survey instrument using aseven-point Likert-type response scale was developed and made available online. Thefindings, based on 145 valid responses, show EVM to be a positive predictor of projectsuccess. The research further suggests that stronger implementation of the principlesof EVM results in greater levels of project success on contracted efforts. The resultsalso suggest that EVM principles are relatively greater predictors of project success onfixed-price contracted projects than on cost-plus contracted efforts (Marshall, 2007).They additionally show that EVM mechanics positively contribute to projectplanning during contract development as well as project control during contractadministration – regardless of contract type. His findings, first published in theproceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the International Research Network onOrganizing by Projects (IRNOP) (Marshall, 2006), taken together with prior qualitativestudies and the accounts of practitioners, served to strengthen the case for EVM as wellas deepen his own knowledge of the methodology. Dr Marshall continues to work forhis organization in project leadership roles, and was recently selected to serve as the

Projectmanagement

175

Chairman, EVM Special Interest Group (SIG) of the Association for the Advancementof Cost Engineering (AACE); as well as having been selected to serve as the Editor ofAACE’s Professional Practice Guide to Earned Value, 2nd ed.

The second example is the doctoral dissertation completed by Ravikiran Dwivedula,a PhD candidate and Research Assistant at ESC Lille School of Management(Dwivedula, 2007). His study explores motivation in collocated and virtual projects fromthe team member’s perspective. The literature review of key theories of motivationrevealed that motivation is closely related to team performance and that thecommonalities pertained to – nature of work, rewards, and communication. About 13variables related to these three dimensions were proposed and were used to compare thecollocated and virtual project teams in terms of expectations of the team members(referred to as “Want”) and characteristics of the project environment in terms ofpresence of these expectations (referred to as “Get”). The responses were graded on aseven-point Likert Scale. The respondents were a random sample of 132 respondentsworking in a project environment, 66 respondents belonged to collocated environmentand an equal number were drawn from a virtual project environment. A two prongedapproach first employing t-test for “within the group” and “between the group”comparisons was followed by using a principal component analysis to bring to foreunderlying factors which explain the motivation of project team members (Want), thecharacteristics of the environment in terms of support to the members expectations (Get)and the discrepancy between these two factor structures.

The study observes that there are significant discrepancies between what people“Want,” and what they “Get” in both collocated and virtual project teams with highestdifferences being reported with respect to the team members being given trainingopportunities and feedback on their performance by the management. Principalcomponent analysis of:

(1) the expectations (Want) of the project team member revealed a different factorstructure to that of; and

(2) the characteristic of the project environment to support the team member’sexpectation (Get).

The discrepancy between the two factor structures was explained by a lack of topmanagement’s support in terms of providing training opportunities, performancefeedback, not communicating user requirements and not creating task significance.Relating these findings to the current paper, it is suggested that project environmentsmay not provide opportunities for RL as they do not adequately provide learningopportunities such as training and feedback on performance to their employees. Theresults of these findings have been published in the proceedings of major researchconferences such as European Academy of Management-EURAM 2006 (Dwivedulaet al., 2006a), International Research Network on Organizing by Projects-IRNOP VII(Dwivedula et al., 2006b), European Institute for Advanced Studies inManagement-EIASM: 22nd Strategic Human Resource Management Workshop(Dwivedula et al., 2007a) and the International Research Network on Organizing byProjects-IRNOP VIII (Dwivedula et al., 2007b).

Two further Swedish theses are presented here that were produced by practicingmanagers at AstraZeneca, one of the big global pharmaceutical companies. Bothstudents did their PhDs at the Fenix graduate school. The first thesis, by Jonas Roth,

IJMPB1,2

176

focuses on knowledge management issues in project-intensive settings and consisted offive conferences/published papers – i.e. the thesis is a compilation of articles, not amonograph which still is the dominant model in Sweden. The thesis (Roth, 2002) isentitled “Knowledge unplugged: an action research approach to enhancing knowing inR&D organizations.” In total, the thesis contains an extended summary and overview of80 pages, and four papers of which three were accepted for publication (Ingelgard et al.,2002; Styhre et al., 2002; Roth, 2003). The studies reported are based on qualitative data,primarily cases from their own organization, but also action experiments carried out inAstraZeneca. The thesis analyses how knowledge is shared and converted into action.The role of the knowledge facilitator and the value of the knowledge facilitation processare analysed. The thesis also explores the notion of “care” and the ability to establishinterpersonal, sense-making mechanisms. It is stated that care plays a key role in theknowledge-creation process in project-based organizations.

The second thesis was written by Wickenberg and deals with the so-called“shadows of project management.” It analyses in-depth the simple yet intriguingquestion of what project managers really do. The thesis is called “Exploring theshadows of project management” (Wickenberg, 2004) and contains an extendedsummary an inside story of managerial aspects of the interface between the informaland formal systems of around 100 pages and four papers accepted for publication (Olinand Wickenberg, 2001). The thesis is concerned with project organisations. The authorintroduces the idea of “shadow systems in project management” and illustrates theconstructive qualities that these might have particularly in novel projects. The authoralso argues, contrary to much previous research, that shadow systems are bothaccessible and open to influence, i.e. informal systems could function as learningopportunities if they are seen as serving the interests of actors both from the formaland the informal systems. Additionally, shadow systems, it is stated, can be influencedin ways which make them more instrumental for the organisation. However, the formalsystems must not aim to control the shadow systems in order to make them parts of theformal systems. The thesis lays a foundation for increasing our understanding of whatgoes on in projects, the role of PM, and in particular the role of the informal and shadowsystems operating in project environments. Such shadow systems, it seems, are criticalfor learning and knowledge creation in projects.

One of the two Swedish thesis authors continued to work for AstraZeneca forseveral years to implement his findings and share knowledge about the topicsinvestigated in the theses. However, he has recently left the company and is nowworking as an independent consultant with quite a few assignments fromAstraZeneca. The model of knowledge facilitation and the role of the knowledgefacilitator are still used and have been furthered developed by the company. Thesecond Swedish thesis author is still an employee and practicing project manager atAstraZeneca, and has an active role in the improvements of PM and the role of projectmanager at the company. In several ways, the findings in the theses have influencedthe practice of PM at the company, and without doubt the careers of the students.

Examples from AustraliaExamples from two universities in Australia will be provided, one from a PhD studyand one from a professional doctorate program which is also classified as a researchdegree.

Projectmanagement

177

A traditional PhD example is drawn from Macquarie University (Sense, 2005). Thisexample is a study of situated learning in a steel manufacturing plant where thecompany made a deliberate attempt to instigate a change management project toencourage organisational learning through a RL process. Expected change was linked tomaking a series of quality improvements in technical process together with culturaltransformation. This took place in a highly “blue-collar macho” workplace environmentwhere reflection and questioning had been discouraged and not part of the workplaceculture. The aim was to provide a model of behaviour that provided benefits in reducingwaste and re-work (single loop learning outcomes) as well as to develop smartersystems, processes and procedures that designed in high-quality outcomes and helpeddesign out poor quality outcomes (double-loop). The aim was both technical in that ademonstrated improvement in technical output could be observed and cultural in thatthe level of questioning and reflection demonstrated could begin to break down barriersimposed by a command-and-control ethos. Results of the study and its approach arediscussed elsewhere (Sense, 2003a, b, 2004, 2005, 2007a, b; Sense and Antoni, 2003).A salient point was that the large industrial organisation was willing to invest time,money, organisational human resource management support and other administrativesupport in the experiment and that it considered the effort worthwhile. The researcherwas not an employee of the organisation at the time, so his value outcome was thePhD degree and opportunities that the learning embedded within that research offeredhim since starting the research process.

The second example is from a professional Doctorate in Project Management (DPM)offered at RMIT University in Melbourne. The DPM is a research degree withapproximately one third coursework subjects that are focussed on PM leadership,knowledge management, PM procurement and ethics each with associated RL coursethat extend these coursework subjects. The RL courses are designed to broaden and/ordeepen the candidate’s knowledge in the core study areas through combined individualself-directed and supervisor-led study of the literature that provides the theoretical basisto pilot test making sense of a project that the candidate is involved in, or hasexperienced. The research component of the DPM is very similar to a PhD thesis in depthand scope and is highly related to PM practice in developing and experimenting with theuse of new PM tools through action learning and other reflective research approaches.

This DPM example (Nogeste, 2006) illustrates how a PM tool was developedthrough a research exercise involving five action learning cycles. The process was toidentify how to link both tangible and intangible outcomes from a project and how todevelop a series of PM planning and action processes to more effectively realise the fullrange of benefits expected from a project. PM is often perceived to be dominated by thetraditional, important, tangible outputs – the “triple constraint theory’” or the so-called“iron triangle” of time, cost and performance (or fitness for purpose, i.e. quality).However, in complex business projects, strategic and stakeholder service deliverybenefits may be just as important or the most important output. Further, tacit benefitexpectations are often problematic as the value of these and how they link to moretangible outcomes are often insufficiently considered as PM processes. Detailedfindings and explanation of the research process of this thesis has been presentedelsewhere in several journal papers (Nogeste, 2004; Nogeste and Walker, 2005) and in abook chapter (Walker and Nogeste, 2008). Again, those involved in each of the fiveaction learning cycles believed that reflection and challenging their assumptions about

IJMPB1,2

178

projects was of great value (Nogeste, 2006). The process has also been commercialisedas one of the tools that the candidate now has available to use in her consultancybusiness.

DiscussionThree types of practitioner/researcher collaboration experience are presented. Table Isummarizes the major characteristics of these research groups, in which the number ofticks indicates the relative strength of focus for each group.

Predominant participant skill levelOne of these, collaborative networks, involve highly experienced PM researchers andhighly experienced PM practitioners. The master degree students undertakingcapstone-type or minor research projects are to a minor extent focused on practical casestudy research examples in their assignments. They are mainly at the cusp of beingbetween novices and/or (being) advanced beginners when they reach that capstonelevel course of study. They are usually led by experienced academics with higher levelresearch expertise. The doctoral students illustrated in the above examples areproficient performers or experts/virtuosos led by highly experienced PM researchers.

Predominant research focusAll groups are strongly focussed on PM practice. At the lower skill level, the master’sgroup has a valid emphasis on PM problem solving and use simulation with somereflection to learn how to effectively use and experiment with existing PM tools,techniques and frameworks. All groups have a natural concern for mastering theseexisting resources.

The doctorates have a stronger research focus on developing and testing new tools,techniques and approaches that may have been theoretically proposed or speculatedupon from research collaborative networks. These networks are hothouse generatorsof ideas by questioning existing PM concepts to expand the boundaries and so theyform idea incubators that doctoral candidates (either PhD or professional doctorates)may become interested in and explore these ideas under their academic institutionalunit to translate them into practical outcomes.

Leadership of the research agenda indicated in Table I is summarised as follows.Collaborative networks jointly have high-level skilled industry and academicleadership. At the masters level, current practice tends to shape any case study orsimulation exercise explorations with academics acting as facilitators and supporterswho often formulate problems to be explored. The master degree students/practitionerslead in reflection and sensemaking for their research exercises as this is predominantlyan action learning exercise for them. Doctoral candidates experience a shift in leadershipof their research work as they absorb the required academic knowledge to take a lead –while they may have more salient practice knowledge at that beginning of a researchproject they take over total ownership by the end of the doctoral research process andacquire deeper practice and research insights through that process.

Predominant research approachA healthy mix of research approaches can be observed as being used by thecollaborative research networks. There are many researchers with background and

Projectmanagement

179

Ex

per

ien

ce1.

Col

lab

orat

ive

net

wor

ks

2a.

Eu

rop

ean

doc

tora

tes

2b.

Nor

thA

mer

ican

doc

tora

tes

2c.

Au

stra

lian

doc

tora

tes

3.M

SP

MM

BA

/MP

Mm

aste

rd

egre

es

Pre

dom

inant

part

icip

ant

skill

leve

lP

red

omin

antl

yat

adv

ance

db

egin

ner

lev

elU

U

Pre

dom

inan

tly

atp

rofi

cien

tp

erfo

rmer

/vir

tuos

ole

vel

UU

UU

UU

UU

U

Pra

ctit

ion

erle

ad-a

cad

emic

faci

lita

tes

U

Join

tle

ader

ship

ofre

sear

chU

U

Sh

ifti

ng

lead

ersh

ipof

rese

arch

UU

UU

UU

UU

U

Pre

dom

inant

rese

arc

hfo

cus

Pra

ctic

alP

Mw

ith

join

tp

ract

itio

ner

þre

sear

cher

coll

abor

atio

nU

UU

UU

UU

UU

UU

Pro

ble

mso

lvin

g/s

imu

lati

onU

UU

U

Pre

dom

inan

tly

imp

rov

ing

exis

tin

gP

Mte

chn

iqu

es,

tool

s,fr

amew

ork

sU

UU

UU

U

Dev

elop

ing

/tes

tin

gn

ewP

Mto

ols

UU

UU

U

Qu

esti

onin

gP

Mfu

nd

amen

tals

UU

UU

U(S

wed

enW

ick

enb

erg

)C

riti

call

yre

vie

win

gP

Mth

eory

UU

UU

U(S

wed

enW

ick

enb

erg

)U

UU

U

Pre

dom

inant

rese

arc

happ

roach

Mix

edp

osit

ivis

t/re

alis

t/in

terp

reti

vis

t/co

nst

ruct

ivis

tU

UU

Pre

dom

inan

tly

pos

itiv

ist

orre

alis

tU

U(F

ran

ce)

UU

UU

UU

Pre

dom

inan

tly

inte

rpre

tiv

ist/

con

stru

ctiv

ist

–v

ery

hig

hR

LU

UU

(Sw

eden

)U

UU

Deg

ree

ofac

tion

rese

arch

and

acti

onle

arn

ing

UU

U(S

wed

en)

UU

UU

UU

Pre

dom

inant

cost

Res

earc

her

s/p

arti

cip

ants

U(F

ran

ce)

UU

UU

UU

Inst

itu

tion

s/g

over

nm

ent

rese

arch

gra

nts

UU

U(S

wed

en)

Pre

dom

inant

benefi

tR

esea

rch

er/p

arti

cip

ants

UU

UU

UU

UU

Inst

itu

tion

s/g

over

nm

ent/

pro

fess

ion

sU

UU

Notes:

Som

ewh

at(U

);st

ron

gly

(UU

);v

ery

hig

h(U

UU

)

Table I.Summary of collaborativeresearch types

IJMPB1,2

180

expertise from many research, academic and practice applications. There is also agreater strength in emphasis on questioning fundamentals and so a range of researchapproaches is appropriate to match tools with tasks. The less experienced master’sgroup tends to need to adopt a more positivist research approach as they have not yetimbibed enough experience to have experienced sufficient paradoxes of thepractice/theory nexus to be able to question PM practice at that level.

The two Australian doctoral candidates’ examples indicated that they were morecomfortable with qualitative interpretive research, whereas the two USA doctoralcandidates’ examples indicated that they were more comfortable with quantitativepositivist research. The European candidates had mixed preferences thoughthe candidates, studying at Lille in France, favoured a more quantitative flavourwhile those studying in Sweden, like the Australian candidates, preferred a tighterfocus on qualitative work. This is not universal but perhaps reflects the cultural biasesthat may influence these universities’ institutionalised research methods and learningpreferences. This is possibly a useful focus for future papers but scope does not allowexploration of this aspect. Interested readers may refer to others that write on cultureand its impact on learning and understanding (Hofstede, 1991; Mainemelis et al., 2002;Yamazaki, 2005).

Predominant cost and benefits from this kind of collaborative researchTable I indicates the cost burdens and benefits. The research networks were formedprimarily by academics giving significant personal time but these have also beensubstantially funded with government and institutional grants that help defray travel,administrative and other associated research costs. Universities fund research throughscholarships and academic supervision at the master’s and doctorate level.

The researchers are the main beneficiaries in terms of knowledge gained, upskillingand gaining esteem and kudos from their research work – they may also intenselyenjoy interesting challenging practical research of this type. Institutions and the PMcommunity benefit from knowledge dissemination and successful research diffusionmay lead to improved practice benefits to organisations and society.

Evaluating the value proposition for useful collaborative PM researchWalker et al. (2008b) argue that an ideal outcome of encouraging a RP should include:

. improved PM practice leading to a more effective PM community;

. more effective and competitive organisations;

. emerging PM knowledge, theory and practice that is fed back to universities andother PM training and development organisations; and

. academic recognition of PM RPs.

The above also in part presents sound value to organisations as evidence from ourparticipation in research with industry partners leads us to believe that theirperceptions of value from the exercise supports that reported by the re-thinking PMinitiative (Winter and Smith, 2006). These benefits can be summarised as including:

. improved PM practices and processes;

. increasing the industry partners absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal,1990), that is ability and practice in recognising new knowledge and ideas from

Projectmanagement

181

outside the organisation and testing and applying these to gain potentialcompetitive advantage;

. building kudos in the community as being part of “responsible” industry that notonly takes advantage from community support through universities but alsogives back to the community in the form of collaborating and providing in-kindsupport for research;

. testing and benchmarking ideas and approaches; and

. potentially getting staff skills recognition through degrees acquired through thisprocess.

Each of the three groups of researchers (collaborative research/practitioner networks,doctoral candidates and master degree student) engages in collaborative practitionerand academic research that involves reflection on theory and practice at its core. Fourstakeholders are identified in facilitating the process illustrated in Table II. Theanalysis suggests that the value proposition supporting reflection and collaborativeresearch engagement and that novice and advanced beginner level projectprofessionals described by Dreyfus (2004) in Walker et al. (2008b) might betechnically well qualified, with much theoretical knowledge to benefit from thelearning experience but they may have limited experiential knowledge to reflect uponwhat they have experienced. Further, their ability to advance from this level to higherexpertise levels (proficient performer or expert) is limited by their capacity, ability andenvironmental conditions to reflect upon experience and consolidate their knowledge.

The principal aim of the paper limits the focus of this paper to practical PMacademic research requiring reflection. This is because the main interest of the paper isto test evidence relating to the value proposition for staff engaged in collaborativeacademic/practitioner research. This may be achieved by lifting the knowledge, skills,abilities, and other attributes of competent performers to help them become proficientperformers and expert virtuosos.

Walker et al. (2008b) argue that master’s level academic RL through researchundertaken by PM practitioners would begin to emerge at the later stages of many PMmaster’s programs through capstone case studies, minor thesis research study orreflective problem-based learning events that deeply challenge and stretch thestudent’s application of PM knowledge. This should have launched them on a path thatcauses them to reframe assumptions and begin the process of developing deepunderstanding of their lived-experience. At the doctoral level this is developed to amuch greater extent. This is because highly PM practice-focussed PhD or DPM studyrelies upon candidates demonstrating an extremely deep level of reflection, testingcause and effect links, action learning and development of the kind of wisdom that onesees in proficient performers and expert virtuosos.

Analysis of the above suggests that value is generated by this approach indeveloping the PM profession given the nature of the doctoral research work producedby those successfully completing doctorates as illustrated and exemplified in thispaper.

The value of reflection in learning has been stressed here and reinforced earlier byWalker et al. (2008b), however, compelling caveats are offered in Table II. Organisationsthat do not have the ability to be self critical or whose culture inhibits a questioningapproach will experience difficulties with their academic research networks partners

IJMPB1,2

182

Sta

keh

old

erA

dv

anta

ge/

imp

act

Req

uir

esT

he

cav

eat

1.O

rgan

isat

ion

–(O

rg)

In-h

ouse

con

sult

ing

cap

acit

yd

evel

opm

ent

Acc

epti

ng

the

opp

ortu

nit

yco

stfo

rin

-hou

sere

sou

rce

tim

e/co

st,

etc.

Inv

esti

ng

inin

-hou

sere

sear

chm

ayre

stri

ctex

tern

alcr

itiq

ue

Par

tof

staf

fd

evel

opm

ent

and

enco

ura

gin

gre

ten

tion

ofta

len

ted

staf

fL

ong

erte

rmte

nu

reof

rese

arch

acti

ve

emp

loy

ees

Par

tof

wor

klo

adra

ther

than

add

itio

nal

toth

eir

exis

tin

gjo

b

Gu

ard

agai

nst

rest

rict

ing

pol

itic

alse

nsi

tiv

ity

orp

olit

ical

corr

ectn

ess

ofre

flec

tiv

eou

tcom

es

En

han

cin

gab

sorp

tiv

eca

pac

ity

Op

enn

ess

tocr

itic

alap

pra

isal

and

exp

erim

enta

tion

Dev

elop

men

tof

anen

qu

irin

gcu

ltu

reca

nb

eth

reat

enin

gb

yen

cou

rag

ing

anic

onoc

last

iccu

ltu

reL

esso

ns

ten

dto

be

rem

emb

ered

Sou

nd

kn

owle

dg

em

anag

emen

tst

rate

gy

Gu

ard

agai

nst

inh

ibit

ing

un

lear

nin

gB

uil

din

gh

igh

-per

form

ance

team

s

Gai

nin

gd

iffe

ren

tiat

edan

dfo

cus

com

pet

itiv

ead

van

tag

e

Inte

gra

tin

ged

uca

tion

alre

gis

tere

dp

rov

ider

sas

men

tors

ton

ovic

es/b

egin

ner

sU

sin

gre

gis

tere

dp

rov

ider

sas

org

anis

atio

nal

lear

nin

gin

cub

ator

faci

lita

tors

May

req

uir

eu

p-f

ron

tan

dso

cial

infr

astr

uct

ure

cost

sb

efor

eim

pro

ved

resu

lts

are

clea

rly

dem

onst

rate

d

2.C

and

idat

e–

the

RP

sIn

tell

ectu

alst

imu

lati

onO

rgan

isat

ion

sn

eed

toen

sure

that

RP

sar

eg

iven

thin

kin

gsp

ace

and

asu

pp

orti

ve

env

iron

men

tto

refl

ect

Res

earc

hcu

ltu

reh

ijac

kin

gta

sk/e

mp

loy

erin

tere

sts

Pro

mot

ion

pro

spec

tsO

rgs

nee

dre

war

dsy

stem

sto

reco

gn

ise

con

trib

uti

onB

alan

celo

ng

and

shor

t-te

rmp

oten

tial

gai

ns

Car

eer

sati

sfac

tion

Bal

anci

ng

wor

k,

stu

dy

and

per

son

alli

feB

ein

gse

enb

yot

her

sas

elit

ist

Pee

rfe

edb

ack

Cri

tica

lan

daw

are

coll

eag

ues

Her

o-w

orsh

ip3.

Un

iver

sity

Goo

dat

trac

tor

ofh

igh

-qu

alit

yd

octo

ral

can

did

ates

Nee

dfo

rac

adem

icin

teg

rity

real

ity

chec

ks

Su

per

vis

ion

skil

lssh

orta

ge

Mor

ed

eman

din

gd

octo

ral

can

did

ates

4.T

he

pro

fess

ion

Gro

wth

and

dev

elop

men

tIn

ten

sep

rofe

ssio

nal

bod

ysu

pp

ort

Hij

ack

ing

kn

owle

dg

e

Table II.Summary of the value

proposition for academicfacilitated PM reflection

Projectmanagement

183

and doctoral candidates involved in RL research and development. Such difficulties canbe stressful to the organisation and counter productive so these types of organisationsmight be better served by adopting an innovation late majority or laggard approach andtry to adjust as best as they can to their competitors who have been early adopters orearly majority innovators (Rogers, 1995, p. 262).

Research and innovation can contribute greatly to the competitive position oforganisations and to societal progress. High-performance academic-practitionerresearch teams:

[. . .] are characterised by skilled collaborative team members willing to work with people ofdifferent styles and cultures with mutual respect. They operate in a collaborativeenvironment with committed senior executive support, and effectively use facilitationprocesses (Anbari and Umpleby, 2006, p. 38).

Table II illustrates some of the issues that should be considered by all parties involved.Much of the research value-for-money debate that continues within universities relatesto trying to measure or demonstrate benefits or impact of research to engagedstakeholders. The scope of this paper inhibits more detailed discussion but some issuesare worthy of elaboration.

The organisation as stakeholderMany companies do not hesitate to spend hundreds of thousand of dollars for reports from“big name” consultancies that are often quickly forgotten or ignored – thus potentialimpact or benefits are illusory. This is recognised as possibly a common design tacticwhere the objective of the study’s commissioner was not learning but political acceptanceof a biased position – terms of reference may shape the way a study is undertaken toexclude effective reflection. On many other occasions, however, the study’s motivation isfor business improvement through learning. Use of in-house resources such as a sponsoreddoctoral dissertation, can be highly effective not only to achieve the desired result but alsoto provide professional development for key identified talent. The caveat is that theorganisation must be genuine about being open to scrutiny and be willing to learn from itsacademic lived-experience. While resources required to effectively undertake such studiesmay seem large they are small compared to potential gains that, when kept in-house interms of participants and knowledge sharing, are probably less costly than hiring externalconsultants that have little chance of achieving the required emersion in the organisationalculture to be prepared to make significant long-term contributions.

Enhancing absorptive capacity requires real effort from an organisation. Thereneeds to be a cultural environment in which critical appraisal is accepted andwelcomed. This requires investment in both research and cultural aspects to allowpeople to be receptive to critical appraisal and to cope with taking criticismconstructively. If in-house research is undertaken then it tends to seep into the fabricand culture of the organisation as cultural artefacts, heroic war stories or fabledfailures (Schein, 2004). This may require a longer term view of the value of employees.For example, in a time of head-count reductions, it may be more effective to haveemployees with many years of valuable experience decant their tacit knowledge bybeing mentors, advisors or researchers at a later stage in their career. This needs to bebalanced with organisational defensive routines that reject change and attempt insteadto ossify knowledge – being an unlearning organisation can be as important as being alearning organisation (Huber, 1991; Lei et al., 1999).

IJMPB1,2

184

The candidate/reflective practitioner as stakeholderThe candidate, particularly if provided with an opportunity to take part of their regularworkload as an internal action-learning consultant, can be offered a unique opportunityto advance their long-term career prospects. Organisations can be viewed as employersof first choice so this fits well with strategic employee retention actions (Lloyd-Walkeret al., 2008). Rynes et al. (2002) found that HR professionals that regularly keep abreastof the more rigorous forms of their professional development literature tend to achievefaster promotion and end up in more senior positions. The caveat for this is thatorganisations offering this kind of opportunity should motivate or lock in thesecandidates with agreements to stay to realise some of that potential. By the same tokenthe organisation needs to ensure that the candidate that has successfully achieved thisresult should be rewarded. Baruch (2001) found that optimally employees that areparticipants in work-based professional development initiatives are most productive ifpromoted within one year of successfully completing their professional developmentassignments.

In terms of a caveat, there is always a danger that learning becomes an end in itselfand so it captures the moral higher ground in an organisation. Sound performancemanagement can counter this so that performance is aligned with strategic intent.

The university as stakeholderUniversities will no doubt continue to provide academic support to those in industrywishing to further their studies at an advanced post graduate master’s and doctorallevel. This is demanding and challenging in the current highly rationalist anduser-pays culture. Rewards can be apparent in terms of measures accepted at theuniversity leadership level (as opposed to mechanistic cost-benefit measures oftenaimed at the school level to be “financially efficient”). Completions of advanceddegrees, publications and follow-on research collaboration are performance measuresthat can indicate success from this kind of research.

The downside for universities is that practitioner candidates are more demandingdoctoral students. This is because they may be more likely to be accustomed to a levelof authority commensurate with their career position – they are probably alreadyrecognised as experts or at least in the Dreyfus (2004) typology as competent orproficient performers. They tend to be more aware of the value of their contributionand expect high-level supervisor interactions. This can be contrasted to a noviceresearcher undertaking doctoral studies shortly after undergraduate studies withlittle work or life experience who may feel less confident about demanding attention.The supervisor background for mature high-level practitioner doctoral candidates alsoraises challenges as their academic supervisors need to have credible PMknowledge/experience and sound knowledge of RL methodologies, in addition totheir robust academic qualifications. This may trigger greater cross-disciplinary andcross-university collaboration that is advocated but not so often realised.

The professional bodies can have a pivotal role in supporting high-level RL throughdeveloping and supporting communities of practice and SIGs, supportingpublication of leading edge PM knowledge and insights as well as fostering respectfor the high-performer PM practitioner without falling prey to engendering guru or cultstatus so that the RPs do not lose access to their peers to test and validate theirinsights.

Projectmanagement

185

Amabile et al. (2001) made several recommendations to others contemplatingforming an academic-practitioner research team:

. carefully select academics and practitioners for diverse, complementary skillsand backgrounds;

. clarify commitments, roles, responsibilities, and expectations;

. establish regular, facilitated communication, especially if team members are notlocated in the same place;

. find ways for the academics and practitioners to get to know and trust each otheras people;

. occasionally examine the effectiveness of the team’s functioning, set asidespecific time for the team to reflect on itself and explicitly discuss task, process,and relationship conflict; and

. ensure that academics’ and practitioners’ institutions will be supportive of theirinvolvement.

The profession as stakeholderThe PM profession has provided significant in-kind and limited financial supportthrough research grants and its ability to influence organisations to be more reflectiveand take practitioner/academic collaborative research more seriously. One advantagethat this type of research delivers is that it provides professional growth anddevelopment. The impact that is possible may be profound in that research sponsoredand supported may make quantum leaps in professional practice, better understandingof the way that sound practice may be pursued or it may fundamentally challenge theprofession to change outmoded practices or ways of seeing its world. It does requiresubstantial support and in-kind facilitation through encouraging specific interestgroups within professional bodies to help identify and interact with researchers. Thecaveat that needs to be considered is that knowledge should not be made inaccessiblethrough legal barriers, patents and restrictive access by either side of collaboration.

ConclusionsThe discussion presented in Walker et al. (2008b) relating to the value of reflection inlearning arising out of master degree capstone research projects or minor researchprojects to high level understanding of the context of PM practice and new tools,techniques and approaches derived from deeply reflective research undertaken bydoctoral candidates as well as doctoral level research. This paper presented actualpractical examples of research being undertaken by collaborativeresearcher/practitioner networks that has formed a crucible for idea generation andchallenging the dominant theory. Deep reflection forms a common thread to all theseactivities. Examples as illustrations from a global perspective were presented thathighlight advantages and caveats that need to be considered when undertaking thiskind of research collaboration.

The main aim of this paper was to provide examples of and to examine valuepropositions from the perspective of researchers (both academic and practitioner)engaged in collaboration as well as that of sponsoring industry partners. This wassummarised in Table II. For participants (as researchers or practitioner doctoralcandidates or master degree students) the value proposition is primarily skills and

IJMPB1,2

186

competencies development that may be recognised through a higher degree. This inturn may lead to career advancement and more fruitful life/work prospects. Intellectualstimulation and balancing satisfaction with frustration to learn more is anotheridentified benefit for individual participants. The cost of these benefits is expenditureof extra energy and effort above the “normal job” as well as opportunity cost offocusing on this aspect rather than other life choice opportunities. For organisations,there are both tangible and intangible benefits to be derived. There can be a shifttowards being a learning organisation and better management of knowledge as well asgaining dynamic organisational competencies. This may require a shift inorganisational culture that can pose a problem for some organisations. Universitiesstand to gain much from collaborative research but its funding models may hidebenefits returning to academic units that participate so this can pose an organisationalcultural challenge. It can offer more experienced and motivated doctoral candidates butthese may be more demanding. The profession has much to gain from these kinds ofactivities though it needs to invest in support and dissemination of knowledge and so itcannot assume that such knowledge will naturally flow to its members without takinga more active part in knowledge dissemination. This kind of research activity may leadto the PM profession reinventing itself.

The paper stresses the point that individuals at the level discussed in this paper(advanced degree candidates) are the key to success in delivering understanding aboutbetter PM practice benefits; however, they must gain the necessary support fromindustry partners and from academics that can harness and encourage these talentedindividuals to push forward the boundaries of PM knowledge and practice. The scopediscussion limitation of this paper needs to be acknowledged. Only post graduate levelacademic participants were considered and we examples of doctoral student work werelimited to only two illustrations from universities in North America, France, Swedenand Australia. Collegial network interactions suggest that there are many moreuniversities across the globe that can and do participate in similar collaborations tothat discussed in this paper. The impact of that wider work should not beunderestimated. Illustrations of examples of this type of research, from a valueproposition perspective, may help both academics and PM practitioners interested inundertaking this kind of research to better argue the value and benefits that they mayprovide to both researchers and business.

One point worth reinforcing is that businesses often do not consider investinghundreds of thousands of dollars in commissioning consultants to review theirpractices and to undertake various research activities. Many of these same activitiescould be undertaken more effectively in-house by suitably qualified staff as part ofacademically recognised program of PM upskilling that could yield “high flyer”participants with a doctorate. This not only could enhance the reputation of bothparticipating organisations and staff involved but it could also, by virtue of being athree to four year duration program (for a doctorate) be a useful motivational factor inretaining key “high flier” staff while they conduct their doctoral research andconsolidate results from that work. In this way, knowledge captured during the processis more likely to “stick” within the organisation, thus there is a prospect for a trulywin-win situation.

Universities, and their funding sponsors, often express concern that much researchlacks practical industry engagement and impact upon practice. The type of research

Projectmanagement

187

highlighted in examples presented stress the achieved impact in terms of knowledgegeneration and flow with engaged industry organisations, production of papers andexplicit dissemination of knowledge arising out of research collaboration and highlevels of personal development that should have longer term impact on improved PMpractice.

Finally, the sample of academic programs that offer the facility to PM professionalsdescribed in this paper is very small and the number of candidates globally, is alsovery small compared with many other professions. This perhaps illustrates the scale ofthe task ahead for expanding this path of improving PM knowledge development andpractice.

References

Amabile, T.M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P.W., Marsh, M. and Kramer, S.J.(2001), “Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: a case ofcross-profession collaboration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 418-31.

Anbari, F.T. and Umpleby, S.A. (2006), “Productive research teams and knowledge generation”,in Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (Eds), Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Use inInnovation Networks and Clusters: A Comparative Systems Approach across the US,Europe and Asia, Chapter 2, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 26-39.

Anderson, J.C., Narus, J.A. and van Rossum, W. (2006), “Customer value propositions in businessmarkets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 90-9.

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L. and Ward, S. (2006), “Fundamental uncertainties in projects and thescope of project management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8,pp. 687-98.

Bani-Ali, A.S. (2004), “An assessment of the impact of the fit among computer self-efficacy, taskcharacteristics and systems characteristics on performance and information systemsutilization”, PhD, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Bani-Ali, A.S. and Anbari, F.T. (2004), “Project management software acceptance and its impacton project success”, in Wikstrom, K. and Artto, K. (Eds), Proceedings of IRNOP VI ProjectResearch Conference, Turku, Finland, International Research Network on Organizing byProjects (IRNOP), Umea, pp. 16-37.

Bani-Ali, A.S., Money, W.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2007), “A study of information systems diffusion,acceptance, and utilization in the project management field”, International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis.

Baruch, Y. (2001), “Employability: a substitute for loyalty?”, Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 543-66.

Bentley, C. (1997), PRINCE 2 A Practical Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Bourne, L. and Walker, D.H.T. (2006), “Using a visualising tool to study stakeholder influence –two Australian examples”, Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Bradley, G. (2006), Benefit Realisation Management, Gower, Aldershot,.

Cicmil, S. (2006), “Understanding project management practice through interpretative andcritical research perspectives”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 27-37.

Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. and Hodgson, D. (2006), “Rethinking project management:researching the actuality of projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24No. 8, pp. 675-86.

Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2005), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, 2d ed.,Sage, London.

IJMPB1,2

188

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning andinnovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.

Crawford, L., Morris, P., Thomas, J. and Winter, M. (2006), “Practitioner development: fromtrained technicians to reflective practitioners”, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 722-33.

de Fillippi, R.J. (2001), “Introduction: project-based learning, reflective practices and learningoutcomes”, Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-10.

Dreyfus, S.E. (2004), “The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition”, Bulletin of ScienceTechnology and Society, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 177-81.

Dwivedula, R. (2007), Comparing Motivation in Collocated and Virtual Project Teams, ESC Lille,Lille Graduate School of Management, Lille.

Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C. and Ruiz, P. (2006a) in Olaisen, J. and Friedman, K. (Eds), Are ProjectTeams Getting What They Want?, European Academy of Management-EURAM 2006,Oslo, May 17-20.

Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C. and Ruiz, P. (2006b), “The two dimensions of virtual and collocatedproject teams or what project team members want and get: an empirical study”, in Gao, D.and Zhao, H. (Eds), IRNOP VII Research Conference, Xi’an, China, NorthwesternPolytechnical University, Xi’an, October 11-13, pp. 163-75.

Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C. and Ruiz, P. (2007a), “An empirical study of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation in collocated and virtual project teams”, paper presented at EIASM-22ndWorkshop on Strategic Human Resource Management, Brussels.

Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C. and Ruiz, P. (2007b), “Internal and external motivation factorsin virtual and collocated project environments: a principal component investigation”,in Brady, T. (Ed.), IRNOP VIII Research Conference, Brighton, IRNOP, Umea,September 19-21, p. 33.

Francis, V. and Lingard, H. (2004), “A quantitative study of work-life experiences in the publicand private sectors of the Australian construction industry”, Final Report, ConstructionIndustry Institute Australia, Brisbane, p. 142.

Francis, V., Lingard, H. and Gibson, A. (2006), “A qualitative study of work-life experiences inthe public and private sectors of the Australian construction industry”, Final Report,Construction Industry Institute Australia, Brisbane, p. 142.

Green, S. (2006), “The management of projects in the construction industry: context, discourseand self-identity”, in Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds), Making Projects Critical, PalgraveMacmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 232-51.

Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2006), Making Projects Critical, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”,Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 88.

Ingelgard, A., Roth, J., Styhre, A. and Shani, A.B.R. (2002), “Dynamic learning capability andactionable knowledge creation: clinical R&D in a pharmaceutical company”, The LearningOrganization, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 65-77.

Ivory, C.J., Alderman, N., Ian, M. and Vaughan, R. (2006), “Sense-making as a process withincomplex projects”, in Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (Eds), Making Projects Critical, PalgraveMacmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 316-34.

Keegan, A. and Turner, J.R. (2001), “Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices”,Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 77-98.

Projectmanagement

189

Koskinen, K.U. and Pihlanto, P. (2006), “Competence transfer from old timers to newcomersanalysed with the help of the holistic concept of man”, Knowledge and ProcessManagement, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-12.

Lei, D., Slocum, J.W. and Pitts, R.A. (1999), “Designing organizations for competitive advantage:the power of unlearning and learning”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. 24.

Lingard, H., Brown, K., Bradley, L., Bailey, C. and Townsend, K. (2007), “Improving employees’work-life balance in the construction industry: a project alliance case study”, AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 133 No. 10, pp. 807-15.

Lloyd-Walker, B.M., Lingard, H. and Walker, D.H.T. (2008), “Project procurement and the questfor talent”, in Walker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (Eds), Procurement Systems – A CrossIndustry Project Management Perspective, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, pp. 311-57.

Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A. (2002), “Learning styles and adaptive flexibility:testing experiential learning theory”, Management Learning, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-33.

Male, S. (2002), “Building the business value case”, in Wilkinson, S., Kelly, J. and Morledge, R.(Eds), Best Value in Construction, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 12-37.

Marshall, R.A. (2006), “The contribution of earned value management to project success oncontracted efforts: a quantitative statistics approach within the population of experiencedpractitioners”, in Gao, D. and Zhao, H. (Eds), IRNOP VII Research Conference, Xi’an,China, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, October 11-13, pp. 739-51.

Marshall, R.A. (2007), A Quantitative Study of the Contribution of Earned Value Management toProject Success on External Projects under Contract, Lille Graduate School ofManagement, Lille.

Maylor, H. (2006), “Special issue on rethinking project management (EPSRC network2004-2006)”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 635-7.

Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T. and Hodgson, D. (2006), “From projectification toprogrammification”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 663-74.

Morris, P.W.G., Crawford, L., Hodgson, D., Shepherd, M.M. and Thomas, J. (2006), “Exploring therole of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession – the case of projectmanagement”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 710-21.

Nogeste, K. (2004), “Increase the likelihood of project success by using a proven method toidentify and define intangible project outcomes”, International Journal of Knowledge,Culture and Change Management, Vol. 4, pp. 915-26.

Nogeste, K. (2006), “Development of a method to improve the definition and alignment ofintangible project outcomes with tangible project outputs”, Doctor of Project Management,DPM, Graduate School of Business, RMIT, Melbourne.

Nogeste, K. and Walker, D.H.T. (2005), “Project outcomes and outputs – making the intangibletangible”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 55-68.

Olin, T. and Wickenberg, J. (2001), “Rule breaking in new product development – crime ornecessity?”, Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 15-25.

Project Management Institute (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,3rd ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.

Rethinking Project Management (2004-2006), “Focus areas”, available at: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/management/rethinkpm/focus.htm (accessed March 22, 2007).

Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.

Roth, J. (2002), Knowledge Unplugged: An Action Research Approach to Enhancing Knowing inR&D Organizations, Department of Project Management & Fenix Research Center,Sweden Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.

IJMPB1,2

190

Roth, J. (2003), “Enabling knowledge creation: learning from an R&D organization”, Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 32-48.

Rynes, S.L., Colbert, A.E. and Brown, K.G. (2002), “HR professionals’ beliefs about effectivehuman resource practices: correspondence between research and practice”, HumanResource Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 149-74.

Schein, E.H. (2004), Organisational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schon, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action, BasiAshgateARENA, Aldershot.

Sense, A.J. (2003a), “Learning generators: project teams re-conceptualized”, Project ManagementJournal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 4-12.

Sense, A.J. (2003b), “A model of the politics of project leader learning”, International Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 107-15.

Sense, A.J. (2004), “An architecture for learning in projects?”, Journal of Workplace Learning,Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 123-45.

Sense, A.J. (2005), “Cultivating situational learning within project management practice”, PhD,Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Sense, A.J. (2007a), “Learning within project practice: cognitive styles exposed”, InternationalJournal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 33-40.

Sense, A.J. (2007b), “Structuring the project environment for learning”, International Journal ofProject Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 405-12.

Sense, A.J. and Antoni, M. (2003), “Exploring the politics of project learning”, InternationalJournal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 487-94.

Smith, C. (2007), Making Sense of Project Realities: Theory, Practice and the Pursuit ofPerformance, Gower Publishing Ltd., Aldershot.

Smith, P. (2001), “Action learning and reflective practice in project environments that are relatedto leadership development”, Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 31-48.

Soderlund, J. (2004), “On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a modelfor analysis”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 655-67.

Styhre, A., Roth, J. and Ingelgard, A. (2002), “Care of the other: knowledge-creation through carein professional teams”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 503-20.

Szulanski, G. (2003), Sticky Knowledge Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Umpleby, S.A. and Anbari, F.T. (2004), “Strengthening the global university system andenhancing project management education”, Review of Business Research, Vol. IV No. 1,pp. 237-44.

Walker, D.H.T. and Nogeste, K. (2008), “Performance measures and project procurement”, inWalker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (Eds), Procurement Systems – A Cross Industry ProjectManagement Perspective, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, pp. 177-210.

Walker, D.H.T., Bourne, L. and Rowlinson, S. (2008a), “Stakeholders and the supply chain”, inWalker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (Eds), Procurement Systems – A Cross Industry ProjectManagement Perspective, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, pp. 70-100.

Walker, D.H.T., Cicmil, S., Thomas, J., Anbari, F.T. and Bredillet, C. (2008b), “Collaborativeacademic/practitioner research in project management: theory and models”, InternationalJournal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-32.

Walters, D. and Lancaster, G. (2000), “Implementing value strategy through the value chain”,Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 160-78.

Projectmanagement

191

Watson, R.J. (2007), “A cost estimating framework for deployment of integrated softwareapplication development projects”, PhD, The Graduate School of Decision Sciences,The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Wickenberg, J. (2004), “Exploring the shadows of project management”, PhD, Department ofProject Management & Fenix Research Center, Chalmers University of Technology,Gothenburg.

Winter, M. and Smith, C. (2006), “EPSRC network 2004-2006 rethinking project managementfinal report”, Final Report, EPSRC, Manchester, p. 15.

Winter, M., Andersen, E.S., Elvin, R. and Levene, R. (2006a), “Focusing on business projects as anarea for future research: an exploratory discussion of four different perspectives”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 699-709.

Winter, M., Smith, C., Cooke-Davies, T. and Cicmil, S. (2006b), “The importance of ‘process’ inrethinking project management: the story of a UK government-funded research network”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 650-62.

Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P.W.G. and Cicmil, S. (2006c), “Directions for future research inproject management: the main findings of a UK government-funded research network”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 638-49.

Yamazaki, Y. (2005), “Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: a theoretical andempirical comparison”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 29 No. 5,pp. 521-48.

Corresponding authorDerek H.T. Walker can be contacted at: derek.walker@rmit.edu.au

IJMPB1,2

192

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints