Success Factors in Funding Acquisition for Research Projects through Competitive Calls: A study of R&D Public Centres

Research purpose In recent years, the capacity of public research and development (RD Lee and Om, 1996; Munoz, 2007; Santamaria, Brage-Gil and Modrego, 2010). Although the current literature describes the features and impact of international funding programmes (Galsworthy and McKee, 2013; Grimpe, 2012; Laudel, 2005, 2006), the magnitude of work groups efficacy in RD Lin, Yang, Arya, Huang and Li, 2005), and the influence of support from managerial structures on R&D work teams (Kennedy, Loughry, Klammer and Beyerlein, 2009), the factors that may influence the capacity of national research and development groups to apply for and obtain competitive funding does not seem to have been studied in depth. The objective of this study was to identify and analyse which factors can have a significant influence on the success of research groups in international competitive fund application and acquisition within public R&D entities, paying special attention to the role of project management offices and R&D groups. The research established work teams as unit of analysis, with coordinators or Heads of Areas that manage their research performance. Research Management Offices, as organizational structures for supporting research teams, have also been considered, and how these departments promote and influence the success of applications for internationally funded projects has been analysed. The research is supported by the Attention-Based View of the Firm Theory (Barnett, 2008; Barreto and Patient, 2013; Cho and Hambrick, 2006; Kahneman, 1973; Kaplan, 2008; Ocasio, 1997, 2011), the Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985a; Eby, Freeman, Rush and Lance, 1999; Gagne and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2000; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990), and the Contingency Approach (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967; Zeithaml, Varadarajan and Zeithaml, 1988). Based on these theoretical frameworks, we have addressed the aforementioned gap in the research by introducing a model which tests three sets of hypotheses about key relations between the main actors in the determination of researchers’ final performance within public research organizations with respect to the application (proactivity of R&D Groups) and acquisition (efficacy of research centres) of international competitive funding, as well as the relation between these two variables. The model analyses the effect of the priorities of public R&D centre Heads of Areas and the incentives and workload of Project Management Offices on the proactivity of R&D groups and the efficacy of their public institutions, controlled by the effects of the number of researches or the size of these institutions. Methodology and data analysis The model focuses on R&D activities carried out in Spanish public centres in the areas of Health and Biomedicine, since these research fields perfectly illustrate the current patterns of modern Science and Technology R&D systems. Moreover, we conducted our analysis among Spanish public R&D non-profit making entities, since records reveal that Spain is relatively unsuccessful in terms of R&D results and intellectual property performance in comparison with other European Member States (Informe COTEC, 2014), with one of the priorities of the Spanish National Strategy being the reinforcement of internationalization parameters. For the empirical analysis, we tested this model with both secondary data and primary field survey data from 68 research centres, through different types of questionnaires addressed to the CEO or Director, Heads or persons responsible for the different R&D Areas, and Heads or persons responsible for the Project Management Office or International Projects Management Department of the R&D Centres included in the study. The research model was tested using the partial least square (PLS) technique, a variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) method. We used PLS given our focus on the prediction of behavioural outcome constructs as well as a small sample size (Ching and Newsted, 1999). Main results Results revealed that priorities for the Heads of the R&D Areas and the workload of the Research Management Offices are significantly associated with the proactivity of R&D groups and efficacy of the centre in question. In addition, our analysis showed that the incentives policies of Research Management Offices are significantly associated with the proactivity of R&D teams, regardless of the size of the centre or the number of researches it employs, which was taken as a control variable. Overall, our study presents new empirical evidence for the different interested parties (research institutions, R&D groups, research management offices, etc.) that affords insight into the variables that determine success in obtaining international competitive funds. This insight may be of use in helping to carry out an internal analysis, implementing the appropriate measures to improve outcomes in obtaining and securing greater competitive funds. In fact, by analysing the relative relevance of these factors in terms of their influence on success in obtaining funds within public institutions (their proactivity and resulting efficacy), we can help R&D centres to improve their research strategy in general and the performance of research groups in particular, so that they will assign their resources more effectively and become more successful in obtaining external funds. Further, the results obtained in this study may help to clarify the Spanish paradox –national performance below international expectations in terms of R&D, innovation and intellectual/industrial property outcomes–, and could also be applied to other European countries showing similar patterns. Additionally, national research systems may benefit from this knowledge by increasing their possibilities of obtaining resources among competitive funds and improving the overall sustainability of their science and technology systems.