Having ascertained that we had a satisfactory measurement model, with acceptably reliable and valid measures of the constructs, we then proceeded to assess the structural model.

The structural model and hypothesis testing

In a PLS structural model, the loadings of the measures of each construct are interpreted as loadings in a principal components factor analysis. The path coefficients are interpreted as standardized beta weights in a regression analysis. To assess the statistical significance of the path coefficients, a bootstrapping procedure (i.e., through random re-sampling with replacement from the original sample, 100 re-samples each of n = 156 were obtained) was used to obtain estimates of the standard error of the coefficients and enable the application of t tests (Chin 1998b). As a measure of the predictive power of the model, an R2 value was calculated for the endogenous constructs and this indicates the amount of variance in the construct that is explained by the preceding constructs. Both Relational Trust and Project Management Competence are second-order constructs reflected by first-order constructs in the model (i.e., Relational Trust is reflected by Contractual Trust, Competence Trust and Goodwill Trust; while Project Management Competence is reflected by Project Planning Capability and Project Control Capability). Because PLS Graph does not directly support the representation of second-order latent constructs, each first order construct was first tested in a sub-model (Figure 2) and the computed first-order factor scores were then treated as manifest indicators of the second-order construct in the full model. The results for the second order structural model are shown in Figure 3.

As shown in the structural model, Relational Trust in conjunction with Project Management Competence explained 37% of the variance in Partner Collaboration Experience. In turn, Partner Collaboration Experience explained 47% of the variance in Project Success. Given the relatively parsimonious nature of the model, and the potentially large number of factors in the study context that could contribute to these endogenous constructs, the variances explained are fairly substantial. The model therefore appears to have some utility in predicting the perceived experiences of partners in cross-sector R&D collaborations at the end of the project cycle.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The main effects depicted in the model were supported by the survey data. With a positive and highly significant path coefficient (coefficient = 0.688, t = 15.30, p < 0.001), the model provides support for our first hypothesis ([H.sub.1]) that the more positive the partners' experience of the project, the more likely it is that the project will be seen as a success. With a positive and highly significant path coefficient (coefficient = 0.294, t = 3.17, p < 0.001), the model provides support for our second hypothesis ([H.sub.2]) that the higher the level of relational trust amongst the partners in a cross-sector R&D collaboration project, the more positive will be the partners' experience of the project. With a positive and highly significant path coefficient (coefficient = 0.391, t = 3.61, p < 0.001), the model provides support for our third hypothesis (H3) that the higher the level of project management competence in the project team, the more positive will be the partners' experience of the project.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our study contributes to the body of theory on interorganizational relations in two main ways. Firstly, we provide formal empirical support for two widely-recognized phenomena in the field: the importance of trust for collaborative relationships and the association of positive collaborative experience with successful outcomes. The former finding is consonant with a wide range of previous studies that have argued trust (conceived of as a positive expectation of a partner, in whom an actor has confidence and with whom the actor accepts relationship vulnerabilities) is not only necessary for effective partnerships, it also contributes to collaborative venture performance (e.g., Mohr & Spekman 1994; Rousseau et al. 1998; Dyer & Chu 2003; Bstieler 2006). Trust reduces uncertainty among partners, it enhances cooperative behaviour so contributing to higher partner satisfaction and partnership efficacy, it minimises the effort required for contract negotiation and monitoring, and through such mechanisms reduces transaction costs as well as the perceived risk of entering into a relationship (Nooteboom 1999; Boersma et al. 2003). Given the context of the study, our findings also confirm the importance of trust in cross-sector interorganizational relationships (e.g., Geisler 1995; Davenport et al. 1999). The finding on collaboration experience supports the proposition, central to relationship marketing (e.g., Sheth & Parvatiyar 1995; Lages et al. 2005), that relationship quality is an important mediator between relationship management activities and relationship outcomes. That is, the more a collaborative relationship is perceived by the partners to deliver fair and equitable outcomes, to meet or exceed expectations and to create longterm expectations about future collaboration (all of which result from partner activities aimed at building the relationship), the more likely it is that the collaboration will achieve its stated objectives and be considered by the partners to be a 'success'. The result also confirms the utility of using such subjective measures as indicators of successful collaboration outcomes. However, we recognise that there is a reciprocal relationship between these constructs (i.e., perceptions of project success affect perceptions of partner collaboration experience and this in turn may affect the preceding components), but this was not addressed in our recursive model. In further theoretical development, consideration could be given to a nonrecursive model containing feedback loops.

Our second contribution to theory is formal support for the view that a task focus, manifest through project management competence, is also essential for effective R&D collaborations which are concerned with producing commercially-exploitable results. The successful management of R&D projects involves both: (a) effective planning to ensure that mutually-agreed objectives and responsibilities are clearly-defined and seen as realistic, and that the project is appropriately resourced; and (b) effective control systems, involving monitoring, communication and adjustment mechanisms, to ensure that the plans are indeed realised. This task focus in turn ensures that partner expectations and commitments are in alignment throughout the project, partners are kept committed and engaged, and that a sense of achievement is built, all of which contribute to a positive and rewarding collaboration experience.

The practical implications of the findings are very clear for managers in our study context. To establish an effective R&D collaboration among organizations in the public and private sectors, one which is seen by the partners to be a very positive experience and which delivers on its objectives, managers should pay particular attention both to the interorganizational relationship and to project management. The first starts with the selection of suitable partners (who should be compatible, trustworthy, and have complementary resources), but will involve throughout the tenure of the collaboration reciprocal efforts to ensure that the partners deliver on their commitments, deploy the required capabilities, and display goodwill thereby building relational trust among them. This, of course, can be a complex process given the 'cultural gap' in cross-sector collaborations, but a discussion of this is beyond the scope of this paper. The second will involve the establishment of effective project management systems and procedures (see Project Management Institute 1996), and will start with the formulation of a mutually-agreed project plan with clearly-defined objectives, the allocation of responsibilities, and appropriate resource planning. We would emphasise that our study deals with completed or near completed commercially-focused projects, in contrast with those that are in their early phases, concerned with 'public good' knowledge production or more exploratory research and wherein the importance of clearly defined objectives might be less of a consideration.

The study also makes a number of methodological contributions to the field of interorganizational relations. The use of the Sako conceptualization of trust was found to be of particular value in the study's context, but we have moved beyond earlier studies based on strategic partnering (Kadefors 2004: 175) to develop more useable measures of the three dimensions of relational trust. We believe we are the first to formally define, operationalize and measure the construct of Project Management Competence, and we hope that other researchers will engage with this initial attempt. Finally, we have established the predictive utility of using a relationship quality type of construct in understanding the conditions which contribute to successful collaboration outcomes.

However, our study was not without its limitations. We identify three as being of especial significance. Firstly, this was a single informant study in which a project leader was asked to make judgements about the project experience and outcomes on behalf of the project team, and this could have lead to biases in the survey data (Ernst & Teichert 1998; Ketokivi & Schroeder 2004) though we used a number of methods to address this problem in the survey design (see Krishnan et al. 2006, especially Appendix C). Secondly, the study findings were based on a relatively small sample drawn from a very specific population in Australia, so there may be issues of generalizability to comparable cross-sector contexts in other countries. Thirdly, our instrumentation (especially our measures of trust) is still rather exploratory and requires further development, so there may be issues of construct validity. Reflecting on the development of the trust scales, where some items were purged on the basis of the survey data, we can speculate on why certain items did not perform as expected. For example, for Contractual Trust where two items were eliminated due to low loadings, the notion of having everything spelt out in contractual agreements (Partdet) is likely to be less relevant at the end of the project. Also many contractual issues are likely to have been dealt with early in the project's life and at a much higher organizational level. Similarly, the second eliminated item, 'not sticking to project schedules' (Partsche), might evoke a stronger positive response from business rather than university respondents, because even though 'cooperation failures' with university partners are high for businesses they are often less costly for them in terms of investments than are their collaborations with competitors (Lhuillery & Pfister 2009: 47, 53). Another instrumentation issue was that of the reverse-worded items in the trust scales. Three of the four trust scale items that were deleted after initial measurement model assessment were reverse worded in our instrument, and this constitutes one-half of all reverse-worded items. This suggests that there was a problem with these items: either respondents found them difficult to interpret and/or the assumptions we had made about measuring trust rather than distrust were incorrect. This is clearly an area for further exploration and development.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates