Page 109 -

CASE STUDY 4.1

RESEARCH TEAM

A university research team was working on a project to develop new knowledge in a
particular subject area. The team consisted of four principal investigators (PIs), who
wrote the original proposal, four research officers (ROs), and one full-time adminis-
trator. These individuals worked at three universities (with two PIs and two ROs and
the administrator working at one university and one PI and RO at each of the other
two universities), which were geographically separated, although all in the United
Kingdom. The PIs and ROs also had different disciplinary backgrounds and experi-
ence to offer to the project (including, e.g., experience in engineering, operations
management, marketing and organizational behaviour). The project was supported
by a research grant from a government Research Council together with funding from
a major industrial partner.
The case is described in relation to three phases of the project: Phase 1, where
the PIs worked together to submit a project proposal to the potential funding body;
Phase 2, where the ROs and administrator had been appointed and were working
together with the PIs on the project; and Phase 3, which considers the outputs from
the project.

>> PHASE 1: SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL
Initially the project team consisted of the four PIs who came together as a result of a
complex set of interrelated contacts; in particular through their joint membership of
an expert panel, but also because of contacts made at conferences and other academic
networking. In addition, two of the PIs were professors who had been friends since
their university days together. The team decided to work together when they learnt
that the Research Council was prepared to sponsor a large project in the research
area they were all involved in, albeit from different disciplinary perspectives. The four
PIs thus identified a potential mutual benefit from winning the research contract and
started to work together collaboratively to put together a proposal.
While two of the four PIs knew each other well, the other two PIs had no prior
‘history’ other than casual acquaintance. Yet trust had to be established quickly if this
group was to meet the deadline for the proposal specified by the funding body. This
was achieved since competence could be inferred from the fact that each of the four
PIs had published in credible journals and each belonged to a reputable university.
There were no grounds for expecting harmful behaviour from others. The only cues
available signalled expectations of high levels of competence that would allow them
to put together, and subsequently deliver on, a creative research project.

6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 98
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 98 6/5/09 7:00:26 AM