Towards Management Guidelines for Collaborative Research Projects on Information Systems – Learning from Project Management Contingency Theory

  • Jan vom Brocke
  • Sonia Lippe
Conference paper


Large scale publicly funded research projects involving both academia and industry have gained tremendous importance in information systems research. However, little knowledge is available on how to suitably manage these projects. Project management contingency frameworks can help to characterize the specific type of a project and offer guidelines for its management. In this paper we apply these frameworks to collaborative research projects. As a result we present a first set of management guidelines derived from each framework and highlight further directions of research towards a comprehensive management approach for collaborative research projects


Management Guideline Collaborative Research Project Design Science Research Work Breakdown Structure Contingency Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Crawford L, Hobbs B, Turner JR (2006) Aligning capability with strategy: categorizing projects to do the right projects and to do them right. Project Manage J 27(2):38–50Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dvir D, Shenhar A, Alkaher S (2003) From a single discipline product to a multidisciplinary system: adapting the right style to the right project. Syst Eng 6(3):123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shenhar AJ, Dvir D (2004) How projects differ and what to do about it. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK (eds) The Wiley guide to project, program and portfolio management. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1265–1286Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shenhar AJ (2001) Contingent management in temporary, dynamic organizations: the comparative analysis of projects. J High Technol Manage Res 12:239–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    vom Brocke J, Buddendick C (2006) Reusable conceptual models. Requirements based on the design science research paradigm. Paper presented at the 1st international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 06), Claremont, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems. ICB research report, vol 7, Duisburg-EssenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turner JR, Cochrane JR (1993) Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with ill defined goals and /or methods of achieving them. Int J Project Manage 11(2):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keegan A, Turner JR (2002) The management of innovation in project based firms. Long Range Plann 35:367–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Erno-Kjolhede E (2000) Project management theory and the management of research projects. In: MPP working paper (ed) vol 3. Copenhagen Business School, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke TE (2002) Unique features of an R&D work environment and research scientists and engineers. Knowl Technol Policy 15(3):58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown CJ (1993) Can research be project managed? S Afr J Bus Manage 30(3):72–77Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sauser BJ, Reilly RR, Shenhar AJ (2009) Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – a comparative analysis of NASA`s Mars Climate Orbiter loss. Int J Project Manage 27(7): 665–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shenhar AJ, Dvir D (2007) Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Haward Business, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Office of Government Commerce (2005) Managing successful projects with PRINCE2, 4th edn. The Stationery Office, LondonsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Project Management Institute (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Project Management Institute, Newton SquareGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crawford L, Pollak J (2004) Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. Int J Project Manage 22:645–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiechtensteinVaduzFürstentum Liechtenstein
  2. 2.Sap Inc (Switzerland)St. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations