The background of the project manager

The fourth proposition on project related factors is Proposition 10. The proposition is that if the

project manager of the FHF project comes from the industry, the project is more successful. As

mentioned in chapter four, the theory states that the leader of an R&D project from the industry

116 will have greater motivation and efforts towards commercialization (Spanos et al., 2014). In this event, the theory is similar to that of participants from the industry being favorable for success.

On this proposition, all our tests show significant results in line with our proposition. This means that a project manager with an industry background is associated with a higher project success score, compared to a project manager from a research institution. This applies in both a firm and an industry perspective. A project manager from the industry being associated with higher success is interesting and can also provide useful information to FHF. In this event, FHF could aim to make sure that the manager of the project is from the industry whereas the similar argument as for proposition 9 applies.

8.2.5 Ownership of the project

Regarding ownership of the project, we have two propositions. Propositions 11 and 12. The fifth proposition on project related factors is Proposition 11. The proposition is that if the respondent of the questionnaire were part of the project description (its goals, activities, deliveries) the project would be more successful. The sixth proposition on project related factors is Proposition 12. The proposition is that if the idea came from the industry or the firm, the project is more successful.

Propositions 11 and 12 are in accordance with the theory about whether most participants in the project are from the industry and whether the leader is from the industry. Proposition 11 relates to this theory because the respondent is an employee from the firms that have received funding from FHF previously. In other words, the person belongs to the industry, making the same theory apply to him/her. Proposition 12 relates to the same theory because it states that ideas from firms or industry will positively affect the success.

On proposition 11 all our test shows significant results in line with our proposition. This means

that being part of the project description does significantly and positively affect project success,

both in a firm and in an industry perspective. On Proposition 12 we have four significant results

that are in line with our proposition. The results show that if the idea originates from the firm

or the industry, it is significantly more successful than if it originated from elsewhere, both

regarding the firm and for the industry. Furthermore, if the respondent has no idea where the

117 idea came from, this is significantly associated with lower project success, both for the firm and the industry, respectively. We fail, however, in making any statements about the significance of ideas originating with FHF, or from a university or research institution.

This is interesting because it clearly shows us that having strong ownership to project description and that the industry or firm itself fostered the idea for the project significantly increases project success. Perhaps FHF should prioritize projects originating with firms/industry over those from FHF or research institutions while making sure the participating firms are active in developing the project description.

8.2.6 The partners´ previous experience with R&D projects

The seventh and last proposition on project related factors is Proposition 13. The proposition is that the project is more likely to succeed if the partners have prior experience in R&D projects.

As mentioned in chapter four, the theory states that one of the most critical factors for the success of an R&D consortium is partners previous experience with R&D (Child and Yan, 1999; Fiol and Lyles; 1985; in Constantopoulos et al., n. a.). This is because the learning effect enables a firm to develop a relational capability useful for managing inter-organizational relationships (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Constantopoulos et al., n. a.). Furthermore, that some members of the project are expected to develop superior capabilities at managing such consortia (Constantopoulos et al., n. a.). And that firms with prior R&D consortia experience, in general, have significantly greater project performance (Anand and Khanna, 2000; in Constantopoulos et al., n. a.).

On this proposition, there are two significant results in line with the proposition. One being that projects where the responsible from FHF are in the bottom quartile of prior experience result in significantly lower success score in an industry perspective (not found in a firm perspective).

The second is that projects where the responsible organization is in the bottom quartile of prior experience result in significantly lower project success score in a firm perspective (not found in an industry perspective). In total proposition 13 does not hold, only based on these results.

Since we base the previous experience of partners in relation to R&D through their participation

on other FHF projects (in the period from 2012-2015), this limits our search for such previous

experience. The responsible organization of the project, the responsible from FHF and the

118

project manager, may have been part of other R&D projects in which we do not have data. We

wanted to check if this proposition could hold based on this data. However we fail to reject the

Null hypothesis on this proposition.