The steps taken to create the IUa innovation consortium
| Process step | Description | Advantage for academics | Advantage for practitioners | Evidence from the empirical study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network architects mobilising consortium development | Roles were balanced between a university actor and a leading industry actor to mobilise new actors joining the consortium and setting rules for collaboration | A professor-level principal investigator proposed research topics that would potentially lead to new scientific knowledge in operations management in construction | A professor with a strong background in operations management in construction was considered an objective third party with relevant practical knowledge to guide the mobilisation of the consortium | A professor visited several companies to find those willing to develop the sector in collaboration with other companies. He also facilitated the negotiation of rules for the consortium, which was crucial for reducing the fear of unintentionally sharing company-specific short-term strategic goals to competitors |
| Creating a joint governance body | A steering group was created consisting of core members to select new research projects, follow the execution of projects (time, cost, quality), and accept new members A CEOb group was created to make the consortium relevant at the industry level | The steering group made sure that companies committed to selected research topics, thus providing necessary resources for research activities The CEO group enabled researchers with access to multiple perspectives on focused managerial problems, which helped in formulating and validating artefacts and conceptual models | The steering group made sure that researchers conducted practically relevant research and that consortium members were committed to changing practices in the sector The discussions among the CEO group and researchers contributed to understanding of phenomena from multiple perspectives and enabled the creation of a shared vision that every member perceived as beneficial, thus creating a basis for systemic innovations | The steering group met three times a year to select new members based on their willingness to change the practices in the sector The consortium consisted of both competing and complementing companies in the same sector, including general contractors, designers, engineering and consulting offices, building product companies, software companies and specialised contractors. Access was open for new members to join the consortium. The group also selected research projects |
| Choosing a shared long-term vision | A long-term, shared vision provided a shared understanding of challenges and opportunities in the sector. The vision was considered crucial by each actor | The shared vision enabled companies’ headquarter-level commitment to the research and implementation, thus providing the researchers with easy access to empirical data | The shared vision extended beyond the companies’ current strategic period, thus ensuring collaboration instead of competition in the consortium | The CEO group, together with the researchers, created a long-term shared Vision 2030 for the construction sector to glue the companies together. The vision creation entailed a dialogue about the challenges, megatrends and benchmarks of best practices and opportunities |
| Jointly selecting research topics connected through reflection between annual research cycles | New research topics were jointly selected based on the need to connect with the shared vision and address unsolved and emerging issues found in previous years’ research. After each year, reflection on project results was used to guide decision making about new projects. There were two options to create connections between the topics: deepening the topic to the identified unsolved area or extending the topic in a new relevant direction | Continuation in research topics enabled PhD students and post-docs to deepen their expertise in the selected initial topic and widen it to the practically relevant area | Research was directed to relevant areas for practitioners so that new models created in the first year could be implemented in the second year | The steering group discussed and voted for research topics yearly. The selection of research topics was based on coherence, continuation and democracy. Based on the first year’s benchmarking study, new projects about prefabrication and takt in design and production were launched. The prefabrication theme was deepened during the third year to focus more on the topics of implementation and evaluation. The research was extended to logistics, which is a topic identified based on the requirements for takt in production |
| Investing resources in new research and development activities | Consortium members made long-term commitments to provide financial and personnel resources for research projects and to implement findings in pilot projects. The companies signed an ongoing consortium contract with the university with no predefined ending time | Researchers have a better outlook about future funding as well as incentives for conducting long-term research | Practitioners can familiarise themselves with the research group, decrease administrative bureaucracy and redirect research activities inside a funding vehicle instead of launching a new funding arrangement | All first phase members have remained in the consortium, and three of them have upgraded their status to the steering group level |
| Assessing scientific and practical impact through a systematic process for managing research projects | New scientific knowledge on solving relevant managerial problems has been discovered, and new operations and management practices have been successfully implemented | Each research project has lasted one year, had similar meetings structure (four to five per year) and created deliverables, which were relevant for both the practitioners and the researchers | Standard project process and timing has motivated practitioners to participate in projects, provide researchers with access to empirical data and prepare for the early implementation of results | New processes and management models were developed and tested with empirical studies; new knowledge on combinations of existing models and concepts was developed. The CEO group has provided the researchers with access to relevant construction sites. Some CEOs have written publicly about the research conducted and their companies’ commitment to executing research results |
| Process step | Description | Advantage for academics | Advantage for practitioners | Evidence from the empirical study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network architects mobilising consortium development | Roles were balanced between a university actor and a leading industry actor to mobilise new actors joining the consortium and setting rules for collaboration | A professor-level principal investigator proposed research topics that would potentially lead to new scientific knowledge in operations management in construction | A professor with a strong background in operations management in construction was considered an objective third party with relevant practical knowledge to guide the mobilisation of the consortium | A professor visited several companies to find those willing to develop the sector in collaboration with other companies. He also facilitated the negotiation of rules for the consortium, which was crucial for reducing the fear of unintentionally sharing company-specific short-term strategic goals to competitors |
| Creating a joint governance body | A steering group was created consisting of core members to select new research projects, follow the execution of projects (time, cost, quality), and accept new members | The steering group made sure that companies committed to selected research topics, thus providing necessary resources for research activities | The steering group made sure that researchers conducted practically relevant research and that consortium members were committed to changing practices in the sector | The steering group met three times a year to select new members based on their willingness to change the practices in the sector |
| Choosing a shared long-term vision | A long-term, shared vision provided a shared understanding of challenges and opportunities in the sector. The vision was considered crucial by each actor | The shared vision enabled companies’ headquarter-level commitment to the research and implementation, thus providing the researchers with easy access to empirical data | The shared vision extended beyond the companies’ current strategic period, thus ensuring collaboration instead of competition in the consortium | The CEO group, together with the researchers, created a long-term shared Vision 2030 for the construction sector to glue the companies together. The vision creation entailed a dialogue about the challenges, megatrends and benchmarks of best practices and opportunities |
| Jointly selecting research topics connected through reflection between annual research cycles | New research topics were jointly selected based on the need to connect with the shared vision and address unsolved and emerging issues found in previous years’ research. After each year, reflection on project results was used to guide decision making about new projects. There were two options to create connections between the topics: deepening the topic to the identified unsolved area or extending the topic in a new relevant direction | Continuation in research topics enabled PhD students and post-docs to deepen their expertise in the selected initial topic and widen it to the practically relevant area | Research was directed to relevant areas for practitioners so that new models created in the first year could be implemented in the second year | The steering group discussed and voted for research topics yearly. The selection of research topics was based on coherence, continuation and democracy. Based on the first year’s benchmarking study, new projects about prefabrication and takt in design and production were launched. The prefabrication theme was deepened during the third year to focus more on the topics of implementation and evaluation. The research was extended to logistics, which is a topic identified based on the requirements for takt in production |
| Investing resources in new research and development activities | Consortium members made long-term commitments to provide financial and personnel resources for research projects and to implement findings in pilot projects. The companies signed an ongoing consortium contract with the university with no predefined ending time | Researchers have a better outlook about future funding as well as incentives for conducting long-term research | Practitioners can familiarise themselves with the research group, decrease administrative bureaucracy and redirect research activities inside a funding vehicle instead of launching a new funding arrangement | All first phase members have remained in the consortium, and three of them have upgraded their status to the steering group level |
| Assessing scientific and practical impact through a systematic process for managing research projects | New scientific knowledge on solving relevant managerial problems has been discovered, and new operations and management practices have been successfully implemented | Each research project has lasted one year, had similar meetings structure (four to five per year) and created deliverables, which were relevant for both the practitioners and the researchers | Standard project process and timing has motivated practitioners to participate in projects, provide researchers with access to empirical data and prepare for the early implementation of results | New processes and management models were developed and tested with empirical studies; new knowledge on combinations of existing models and concepts was developed. The CEO group has provided the researchers with access to relevant construction sites. Some CEOs have written publicly about the research conducted and their companies’ commitment to executing research results |
Notes:
IU, industry—university;
CEO, chief executive officer