308 Int. J. Innovation and Learning, Vol. 4, No.

3, 2007

Collaborative information system for university-based

research institutes

David OSullivan and David Mulligan

CIMRU
National University of Ireland
Galway, Ireland
Fax: 0035391758441
E-mail: dos@nuigalway.ie
E-mail: david.mulligan@nuigalway.ie

Lawrence Dooley*
Department of Management and Marketing
University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Fax: 00353214903377
E-mail: l.dooley@ucc.ie
*Corresponding author
Abstract: University-based research is recognised as an increasingly important
factor for economic growth. One of the mechanisms for improving university
research is to support the collaboration between research teams. Information
Systems that support collaboration have gained widespread application
in industry in recent years. They offer organisations various facilities for
managing, sharing and documenting mission-critical information. Two distinct
types of systems have evolved unstructured collaborative information
systems and structured collaborative information systems. This paper presents
the background to the development of a structured collaborative information
system, designed to help manage information in a university-based research
institute, and presents a detailed case study of the system in use.

Keywords: collaborative information system; virtual teams; virtual institutes;

research institutes; collaboration; learning; innovation.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: OSullivan, D.,

Mulligan, D. and Dooley, L. (2007) Collaborative information system for
university-based research institutes, Int. J. Innovation and Learning, Vol. 4,
No. 3, pp.308322.

Biographical notes: David OSullivan (PhD) is a Lecturer at National

University of Ireland, Galway and Director of Research at CIMRU. Davids
research interests include innovation management and enterprise modelling and
analysis. OSullivan has 80 publications, including books and international
journals. OSullivan is also a successful business consultant and has worked in
research and consulting assignments with leading manufacturing organisations.

David Mulligan (BE, MEngSc) is a Project Manager for the Digital Enterprise
Research Unit at National University of Ireland, Galway. His interests focus on
SME innovation and issues related to public support given to small businesses.
Mulligan is currently completing his PhD in the area of regional development
for SMEs.

Copyright 2007 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 309

Lawrence Dooley (MComm, PhD) is a College Lecturer in Enterprise and

Innovation at University College Cork (UCC). His core research interests focus
on organisational innovation and issues related to inter-enterprise collaboration
and venture creation. He has published widely in recent years and actively
liaises with industry through both applied research projects and consultancy.

1 Introduction

In 2000, Quelin (2000) conducted a series of interviews and found that there is often little
correlation between market needs and the internal activities of an R&D organisation. He
found that research is a costly and resource-intensive activity that needs to be managed
very carefully. There have been several solutions put forward that guide the development
of a management environment for research organisations. These solutions focus heavily
on improving the communication of knowledge within the research organisation (Quelin,
2000). Often, communication is left to the individual, who can choose which information
to share. Nieto (2003) presents a list of decision models used in a research organisation.
These models include decisions around such areas as organisational activities,
knowledge, budgets and resource management. Many of the tools are static economic
models and do not reflect the dynamic process of innovation and research, which Nieto
identifies as a process of continuous mutation, capable of overthrowing economic
structures from within.
Nieto (2003) observes that R&D is often a serendipitous activity and needs to be
moved more into the strategic planning activities of the organisation, where change is
planned. This strategic approach calls for more systematic management of the research
activity (Daghfous, 2004). In recent years, collaboration has gained significant attention
as an effective approach to facilitating the planning of research activities (Precup et al.,
2006). It provides an effective platform for the cross-fertilisation of thoughts and
ideas. There have been many approaches taken for the development of information
systems that support different types of business models (Lai et al., 2006). However,
many of the groupware applications that are currently on the market have merely
enabled the technological capability to transfer knowledge. How knowledge is structured
has remained a customised solution proposed for each individual organisation. If
organisations are to develop the capability to collaborate with each other, a generic
solution is required to structure the sharing of information. This is especially true in
university-based research, where much of European research is undertaken across a
network of researchers dispersed throughout Europe. This paper outlines both the
approach to building a generic collaborative information management within
university-based research and the software framework to provide a structure for the
exchange of information both within and outside the research organisation.

2 Collaborative information systems

Collaborative systems have gained considerable attention in recent years, as they have
provided many advantages, such as enhanced supplier relations, knowledge sharing,
increased problem-solving capabilities and increased product and process development.
310 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

However, many of these collaborative ventures fail owing to the lack of a common goal
definition and poor allocation of resources (Zhang and Doll, 2001). Collaboration lends
itself to many different domains and is especially useful in knowledge-intensive activities
such as research and development. There are a number of key aspects that can affect the
success of collaboration within a research environment, and these include a) knowledge
sharing; b) collaboration planning; and c) collaborative groupware.

2.1 Knowledge sharing

More and more organisations realise that in order to innovate, knowledge generation and
sharing are important. There is a continuing pressure to generate new knowledge through
collaborative means and to manage these actions in a way that will provide innovative
and productive actions for the organisations (Precup et al., 2003). Davenport (1993)
argues that varying levels of collaboration are required for the effective creation, sharing
and application of knowledge. Much of an employees knowledge within an organisation
remains untapped (OSullivan, 2001). Individual knowledge has to be shared with others
in order to enhance the organisations cognitive space (Brennan and Dooley, 2005) and
maximise the overall result of the project (Bhatt, 2000). Therefore, a very important task
for managers of inter-organisational projects is to facilitate the interactions between the
virtual team members and make them sensitive towards the knowledge present both
within and outside the project environment. This way the individual tacit knowledge will
be amplified and individuals motivated to contribute to the global project knowledge
base (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Freedom for individuals to establish their own
relationships and share knowledge with others of the same cognitive capacity is vital to
overall success. The knowledge-transfer process is that by which virtual team members
share their knowledge and information among fellow virtual team members, thereby
promoting both trust and learning, as well as producing new knowledge. Thus any
structured collaborative information system thereby needs to support the capturing
of unstructured knowledge and the spontaneity of interaction between individuals of
virtual teams.

2.2 Collaboration planning

Organisations involved in research and development have made a considerable
investment in the area of collaborative technologies in order to reduce the information
bottlenecks that occur in the development life cycle. Collaboration helps to overcome the
time-place constraint that exists with conventional paradigms, such as concurrent
engineering practices (DSouza and Greenstein, 2003). Reed (2001) also discusses the
application of electronic work instructions to allow plant floor operators to pull required
information when and where they need it, in order to do their jobs more effectively.
According to Reed, collaborative technology provides the ability to align operational
actions to the overall goals of the organisations. The importance of transparency between
the operational actions and overall organisational goals provides a level of holistic
integration that enhances both goal achievement and motivation within employees
(Kaplan and Norton, 1996).
A key reason for the failure in collaborative initiatives is that they are shrouded
by uncertainty. Zhang and Doll (2001) define uncertainty as lack of information on
goals, alternatives and consequences. Gupta and Wilemon (1990) describe how
 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 311

uncertainty concerning customer requirements may result in a poor product definition.

Sources of environmental uncertainty that contribute to the failure of collaborative
initiatives include:
lack of clarity of information
general uncertainty of casual relationships between decisions and the
corresponding results
time span of feedback about the results of the decision (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1969).
Other issues surrounding collaborative failure include a lack of a common understanding
of overall goals and objectives, lack of universally agreed performance metrics, version
control of information and intellectual property disputes.
To be effective, collaborative groupware must support actual work practices as the
participants construct them, rather than simply the officially sanctioned and documented
practices (Murray and Hewitt, 1994; Biloslavo, 2005). While much of the groupware
provides the technological capabilities to communicate across time and place, they do not
provide clarity on issues surrounding goals.

2.3 Collaborative groupware

Collaborative groupware examines how people work together in groups and how
groupware technologies can support collaboration (Ishii et al., 1994). Groupware is a
label for computer-based systems explicitly designed to support people working together,
e.g., bulletin boards, e-mail and so on. In the development of a Computer-Supported
Collaborative Works (CSCW) system, DSouza and Greenstein (2003) summarise the
three main system requirements as:
1 the collection of information about potential users, e.g., tasks, environment and
preferences (Gould et al., 1991)
2 the use of ethnography to uncover tacit knowledge and implicit work practices
(Hughes et al., 1993)
3 the use of data that reflect the context of users performing their tasks in the
workplace (Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998).

3 University-based research management

University-based research depends on a high amount of collaboration between the

knowledge workers. Knowledge sharing and transfer depends on personal networks and
the willingness of the individuals to share (Nonaka et al., 2000). Knowledge-based
activities related to innovation and responsiveness are intensively collaborative (Tiwana,
2000). According to Cormican (2001), a great deal of what people learn and therefore
what the organisation comes to know results from interaction among and between team
members. Hence, any groupware that is developed should support the interaction between
the actors in a research and innovation domain.
312 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

University-based research is a resource-intensive activity. The objectives of a

university engaged in research are multiple; they include the publishing of new
knowledge, the solutions for industry problems, the generation of additional funding and
the continued pursuit of their desired discovery trajectory. Industry may then use this
knowledge to leverage competitive advantage in the marketplace (Daniel et al., 2002).
The following section provides an insight into the activities of a research institute within
a university setting. According to Dooley and OSullivan (2003), there are a number of
design goals when creating a collaboration environment for any organisation. A number
of these are particularly important for the effective management of the research and
development environment. These are that the new system should be goal centred, action
based, team focused and results oriented and should support groupware communication.

3.1 Goal centred

In order to reduce the uncertainty that exists in an environment of high-level research
and innovation, there must be a clear statement of goals. Any proposed software should
allow the determination of the institutes research goals in terms of its vision,
requirements, strategies and performance indicators (Hayes et al., 1988; Montegomery
and Levine, 1996; Zairi, 1999). The process of formulating research goals that reflect a
holistic perspective of the organisation should be undertaken by the senior management
teams through supporting group interaction (Hayes et al., 1988; Rosenau, 1998). The
university research environment is complex and has multi-dimensional objectives. Such
functionality ensures that specific requirements, strategies or performance indicators are
not neglected. Kaplan and Norton (1996) link actions, stakeholders and indicators to
ensure effective correlation. Likewise, university performance indicators need to be
linked to research projects to ensure that the results of the project are aligned with the
university research goals and not just those of a project or individual. University research
staff typically consists of students working on masters or PhD programmes, and it is
important that their work links with the university goals and objectives. The defining of
research goals allows the universitys overall direction to be communicated to researchers
and empowers them to participate in the innovation process (Kotter, 1995). This
university research innovation should facilitate the capturing of proposed future research
and the measurement of this research in terms of the universitys research objectives.

3.2 Action based

A collaborative information system for university-based research should provide an
infrastructure to support the flow of actions through the various stage gates of the systems
innovation process (Cooper, 1998). These stage gates are creativity, investigation, draft
projects, action implementation and results management. The innovation begins with the
drafting of a creative proposal for research, which is a response to a call for proposals
from a funding agency. This investigation is carried out when the funding body issues
invitations for research institutes to propose research projects for potential funding. The
project, if accepted, is then executed over a number of years. The results of these projects
need to be captured in terms of future proposal material, publications, grants and funding,
as well as the project deliverables. Collaborative groupware should provide functionality
that encourages employee participation by capturing minimum critical project
information (Rothwell, 1992).
 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 313

To ensure a level of consistency within the decision-making over time, management

needs a tool to support the decision-making process concerning the selection of actions or
projects for investment (Meredith and Mantell, 1995). Each of these actions must have an
efficient number of personnel assigned to them, with a leader being ultimately
responsible for action achievement (Leintz and Rea, 1995), together with managing
specific project resources (Katzenback and Smith, 1993; Duncan, 1996). The personnel
responsible for each of the projects will be a project manager and a number of full-time
researchers. The research team will need to have the appropriate skill base to meet the
project requirements. The project teams will need to focus on both the publication
requirements of the university and the project requirements.

3.3 Team focused

Dooley and OSullivan (2003) and Lee-Kelley and Blackman (2005) identify the
importance of employee interaction with the innovation process in a number of key areas.
These are goal formulation, idea generation and problem solving, action investigation
and development, and the eventual action implementation. The individual description
of the researchers in the university should be described in terms of role (academic,
student or manager), task description and role responsibility, and relevant area of
research. The research environment requires significant creativity, problem solving and
teamwork, and thus any management practice should support all aspects of human
resources (Coulson-Thomas and Coe, 1991).
The research management approach (Figure 1) views the innovation process as
consisting of three interrelated sub-processes. These are constraints (both Goals and
Teams), actions and results (Dooley and OSullivan, 2003). Each of the research projects
undertaken by the research institute must be aligned with holistic goals, team resources
and constraints of the institute.

Figure 1 Research management approach

GOALS
S ta te m e n ts
R e q u ir e m e n t s
S t r a t e g ie s
In d ic a t o r s
A C T IO N S C a lls
L ib r a r y RESULTS
J o u r n a ls
E x c e p t io n s
Id e a s
R e p o rts
P r o p o s a ls
P u b lic a t io n s
P r o je c t s
eDem os
P o r t f o lio
Feedback
P ro g ra m m e s
A s s ig n m e n t s
C o u rs e s
TEAM S
R e s e a rc h e rs
C O M M U N IT Y
A p p lic a n t s
N o t ic e s ,
Team s P o lic ie s ,
R e v ie w s N e w s , L in k s ,
* L e a r n in g M o d u le s T im e s h e e t s F o r u m , L ib r a r y
314 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

3.4 Results oriented

A key aim of any university engaging in funded research is to provide financial support
to fund scholarships and resources for research students. The research presented in the
projects provides material and the environment to gain access to further knowledge in
each specific area and to expand on the core competencies and knowledge base of each
research institute. One of the key performance metrics of any university department and
staff member is the number of publications (journals, books, conference papers) it
produces. Content for these publications is generated from the deliverables of projects.

4 Collaboration for research management a case study

There is a need in research to collaborate with people from different disciplines and
different projects in order to solve problems, owing to the complexity of the knowledge
base involved. In order to have successful high-performance results, an appropriate
technological infrastructure and a well-developed environment is needed. A solution
which overcomes and eliminates the problems that arise from different locations, time
zones, limited space, static representation and knowledge capture has to be found
(Lipnack and Stamp, 1997). In this section we present a software system entitled the
Research Portfolio Manager, which has been developed in order to improve the
collaborative management of information between project teams within a university
research environment. Figure 2 provides a screenshot of the interface for the key modules
that are required for effective management of innovation within a university research
environment. The modules are divided into a number of groupings: goals, actions, teams,
results, learning, and community and resources.

Figure 2 Research portfolio manager

 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 315

This collaborative environment is open to all researchers as a collaborative portal. It

communicates the goals of the organisation, identifies projects that are currently taking
place and those that are at the proposal phase; and identifies teams of people, together
with a description of their roles. Furthermore, it contains a number of online courses and
information sources to facilitate the learning environment. We will now explore a number
of the core modules in a little more detail.

4.1 Calls module

Within the Goals area, the Calls module (Figure 3) provides the ability to capture all
calls for proposals from the main funding agencies applicable to the institute. Capturing
and displaying calls encourages all researchers to engage in idea generation towards
providing proposals for a particular call. Most research institutes developing proposals
depend on one or two individuals and their network of contacts. In this virtual
environment, all participants can log in and identify calls of particular interest and
have the opportunity to discuss writing proposals with more senior colleagues. In the
screenshot (Figure 3), the user has instant access to all details relating to the call,
including the source of funding, whether the call is open or closed, and links to other
sources of information such as the call text and application forms. Calls are grouped
under the goals of the research institute, since most research goals are created through a
synergy between the ideal goals and interests of individual researchers and the goals of
the funding agencies that provide funding to support the research activity.

Figure 3 Module: calls

316 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

4.2 Indicators module

An Indicators module is used to continuously review key performance metrics of the
research institute (Figure 4). Identifying and sharing research performance indicators
among fellow researchers help to remind researchers precisely why they are conducting
research and also indicate the relative success of the institute. Ideally, indicators also help
to promote an improvement culture, where researchers can work together to meet specific
research goals, such as journal publications. In the screenshot (Figure 4), various
indicators have been selected that show the relative health of the research institute and
also foster an improvement culture. In this particular case study the research institute has
divided key indicators into key organisational improvement areas, such as improved
communications, better management of the institute, part-time research goals and a
key area publications. Specific targets have been divided into firm goals (i.e., the
target to be achieved within one year of the start of the plan) and stretch goals (i.e., the
loose target that, if achieved, will indicate exceptional performance).

Figure 4 Module: indicators

4.3 Proposals module

The projects of the research institute are divided into two groupings proposals and
live. Developing proposals is a key activity within successful research institutes and
often constitutes a vast proportion of the time expended by senior researchers. This
particular module has proved invaluable in keeping researchers up to date with regard to
the status of various proposals. Figure 6 illustrates a screenshot of the proposals modules,
 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 317

and in this particular case study, all proposals are divided into three areas proposed
(i.e., live proposals currently being written), shelved (i.e., proposals which are shelved or
have been rejected by a funding agency. These proposals are used for learning and in
certain circumstances may be recycled for future calls!) and submitted (i.e., proposals
which are completed and submitted to the funding agency and are awaiting decision).
Proposals can take one of two routes when reviewed by funding agencies they are
accepted and become live or they fail and either become shelved or deleted from the
system altogether. The screenshot (Figure 5) shows some of the critical information
stored on each proposal, including financial data and supporting documents.

Figure 5 Module: proposals

4.4 Publications module

One of the key results of any university-based research is to produce and publish
knowledge. It is vital for every researcher to gather and store this information, as it is not
only a key objective of the university but also for the individual. Research centres
typically capture their knowledge in the form of conference papers, journal papers, books
and thesis of masters and doctoral students. The Publications module is simply a store
for allowing all researchers to capture and share publications as they are developed
(see Figure 6). The module has been designed not only to capture accepted publications
but also draft and recycled (e.g., rejected) publications. These publications are the
ultimate results of the university-based research endeavours and hence may be used to
provide a knowledge platform that future researchers can build upon.
318 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

Figure 6 Module: publications

5 Virtual research institutes

The virtual organisation is a concept that has received increased attention in recent years.
Within the academic research setting, the application of virtual research and development
groups can be viewed as a response to the physical dispersal across countries of
collaborating personnel and laboratories (Quelin, 2000). Venkatraman and Henderson
(1998) define virtual organising as a strategic approach that focuses on creating,
nurturing and deploying intellectual and knowledge assets while sourcing physical assets
in a complex network of relationships.
According to Mowshowitz (1997), the virtual organisation requires dynamic
organising that is explicit about goals and selection criteria, objective in making choices,
and ever responsive to changing conditions. The tool described in this paper (the
Research Portfolio Manager) provides an excellent platform for the generation of a
knowledge management system for virtual organisations by providing a common
ontology and structure across individual research institute nodes of the network. Using
the concept of a generic portal for a consortium of institutes (Figure 7), users can enter
the specific portfolio managers for any institute in the network. Once there, the interface
provides the user with a similar look and feel that allows them to find relevant
information easily. This common ontology across the research network allows users to
identify relevant information from a rich reservoir of collaborative knowledge. The
system also allows users to establish contact with researchers from other institutes who
 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 319

share common or similar research interests. In this way, the pool of potential
collaborators for developing new proposals increases. The cognitive space of the
researcher participating in the network is also enhanced, since they share thoughts and
ideas with their peers across the network and both parties learn from the exchange.

Figure 7 Virtual Research Institute portal

CIMRU
Organization
IRELAND

BIBA
Organization
GERMANY

Research
Associates

6 Conclusions

Successful university-based research is critical to the success of any developed economy

and as such must be managed effectively. This process is heavily reliant on the effective
collaboration of staff within and across universities. A holistic perspective must be
adopted in order to enhance the collaborative process, which supports knowledge sharing,
collaborative planning and collaborative structures. The collaboration itself must be
based on common management objectives that are communicated across the entire
organisation and network.
Collaborative management tools and techniques can be of great benefit to the success
of university-based research by structuring and sharing knowledge through the use of
information systems technologies. Effective collaboration technology can facilitate
researchers from dispersed research locations to work together for mutual benefit. It can
also support the process of creation and implementation of research proposals through the
use of a stage-gate approach, which achieves alignment with commonly shared goals.
The impact of a well-structured collaborative information system can enhance the
research environment by increasing both the reservoir of information and the research
capability available to an individual researcher. This increased access to research
information can improve the quality and scope of the research proposals generated and
ultimately their likelihood of success in achieving funding. Over time, the use of the
320 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

system increases the level of trust and collaboration at both an institute and individual
researcher level. Ultimately, as the network of collaboration and knowledge sharing
develops, the overlapping capabilities of organisations provide creativity and illumination
with regard to the research. The Research Portfolio Manager provides a generic approach
for collaborative research management that enables university research centres to
effectively collaborate within and between different research organisations. It has had a
positive impact on enhancing cohesion between research institutes and improving the
success of their efforts to attain research funding.

References
Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. (1998) Contextual Design, Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco.
Bhatt, G.D. (2000) Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.1526.
Biloslavo, R. (2005) Use of the knowledge management framework as a tool for innovation
capability audit, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 2, No. 4,
pp.402424.
Brennan, A. and Dooley, L. (2005) Networked creativity: a structured management framework for
stimulating innovation, Technovation, Vol. 25, pp.13881399.
Cooper, R. (1998) Winning at New Products, London: Kogan Page.
Cormican, K.T. (2001) Product innovation management for networked organisations, Computer
Integrated Manufacturing Research Unit, PhD Thesis, Galway, National University of Ireland.
Coulson-Thomas, C. and Coe, T. (1991) The Flat Organisation: Philosophy and Practice, British
Institute of Management, London.
DSouza, M.E. and Greenstein, J.S. (2003) Listening to users in a manufacturing organization: a
context-based approach to the development of a computer-supported collaborative work
system, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Corrected Proof, Article in Press.
Daghfous, A. (2004) Knowledge management as an organisational innovation: an absorptive
capacity perspective and a case study, International Journal of Innovation and Learning,
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.409422.
Daniel, H.Z., Hempel, D.J. and Srinivasan, N. (2002) A model of value assessment in
collaborative R&D programs, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31.
Davenport, T.H. (1993) Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information
Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dooley, L. and OSullivan, D. (2003) Developing a software infrastructure to support systemic
innovation through effective management, Technovation, Vol. 23, pp.689704.
Duncan, W.R. (1996) The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project
Management Institute Standards Committee, Upper Darby, PA.
Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J. and Lewis, C. (1991) Making usable, useful productivity-enhancing
computer applications, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.7485.
Gupta, A.K. and Wilemon, D.L. (1990) Accelerating the development of technology-based new
products, California Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.2444.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clarke, K.B. (1988) Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the
Learning Organisation, New York: The Free Press.
Hughes, J.A., Somerville, I., Bentley, R. and Randall, D. (1993) Designing with ethnography:
making work visible, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.239253.
Ishii, H., Kobayashi, M. and Arita, K. (1994) Iterative design of seamless collaboration media,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp.8397.
 Collaborative information system for university-based research institutes 321

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system, Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, pp.7585.
Katzenback, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams, Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review,
MarchApril, pp.5967.
Lai, C.L., Koong, K.S. and Williams, D. (2006) Some observations on knowledge management
software product development, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp.115.
Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, L. (1969) Organisations and Environment: Managing Differenciation
and Integration, Irwin: Illinois.
Lee-Kelley, L. and Blackman, D. (2005) In addition to shared goals: the impact of mental models
on team innovation and learning, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 2,
No. 1, pp.1125.
Leintz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (1995) Project Management for the 21st Century, London: Academic
Press.
Lipnack, J. and Stamp, J. (1997) Virtual Teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organisations
with Technology, UK: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Meredith, J.R. and Mantell, S.J. (1995) Project Management: A Managerial Approach, 3rd ed.,
New York: John Wiley.
Montegomery, J.C. and Levine, L.O. (1996) The Transition to Agile Manufacturing: Staying
Flexible for Competitive Advantage, Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Publishing.
Mowshowitz, A. (1997) Virtual organization, Communications of the ACM, September, Vol. 40,
No. 9, pp.3037.
Murray, D. and Hewitt, B. (1994) Capturing interactions: requirements for CSCW, in
D. Rosenberg and C. Hutchison (Eds.) Design Issues in CSCW, London: Springer, pp.2758.
Nieto, M. (2003) From R&D management to knowledge management an overview of
studies of innovation management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 70,
pp.135161.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nonaka, I., Ichijo, K. and Von Krogh, G. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation, New York: Oxford
University Press Inc.
OSullivan, D. (2001) Framework for managing business development in the networked
organization, Computers in Industry, Vol. 47, pp.7788.
Precup, L., Mulligan, D. and OSullivan, D. (2003) Collaborative tool to support knowledge
sharing and innovation in an R&D project, ICE 2003, Finland Conference.
Precup, L., OSullivan, D., Cormican, K. and Dooley, L. (2006) Virtual team environments
for collaborative research projects, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp.7794.
Quelin, B. (2000) Core competencies, R&D management and partnerships, European
Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 5.
Reed, R. (2001) Aligning the plant floor to the board room, IIE Solutions, Vol. 33, No. 7,
pp.3437.
Rosenau, M.D. (1998) Successful Project Management: A Step by Step Approach with Practical
Examples, 3rd ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rothwell, R. (1992) Successful industrial innovation: critical success factors for the 1990s, R&D
Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.221239.
Tiwana, A. (2000) The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for Building a
Knowledge Management System, Upper Sadle River, Prentice Hall PTR.
322 D. OSullivan, D. Mulligan and L. Dooley

Venkatraman, N. and Henderson, J.C. (1998) Real strategies for virtual organizing, Sloan
Management Review, Fall, pp.3347.
Zairi, M. (1999) Best Practice: Process Innovation Management, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Zhang, A. and Doll, W.J. (2001) The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a
causal model, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.95112.