論文 / 著書情報
Article / Book Information
Title

Managing Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation: A
Resource and Communication-Based Approach

Authors

Tomohiro Anzai, Shintaro Sengoku

Citation

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 70-81

Pub. date

2016, 9

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/2213809903666160419104146

NoteThis file is author (final) version.

Powered by T2R2 (Science Tokyo Research Repository)

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Volume 3, Number 2

1

Managing Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation: A
Resource and Communication-Based Approach
Tomohiro Anzaia, Shintaro Sengoku*baTranslational Research Initiative, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; bGraduate School of Innovation
Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

Please provide
corresponding author(s)photograph

Abstract: Academic research projects aimed at integrating interdisciplinary research fields are being
implemented at universities and research institutions. The present study focuses on action-based researchthrough two examples of academic interdisciplinary research projects, with the objective of observing
institutional activities and validating their effectiveness. First, we generated a managerial framework forinstitutional activities from the perspective of resource and communication management. Then we conducted a
set of surveillances in these two projects to understand the researcher’s activity of each project. Based on thesefacts, we tried to identify effective factors for the promotion of interdisciplinary research projects through: (i)descriptive statistical analyses across research institutions on the preference of communication partners,
communication element and organisational complementation and the transaction of resources and organisation
process, and (ii) cause-effect analyses on the performance of communication opportunities and the preference ofcommunication management, setting a bibliometric interdisciplinary index to a dependent variable. The
analytical approach we have proposed in this study could help to rationalise the management of academic interdisciplinary
research projects. Further, it could also be applied widely to project management and to benchmarking and evaluation of theacademic research project.
Keywords: project management; program management; interdisciplinary research; research administration; science and technology
policy; collaboration.

*

Address correspondence to this author at the Graduate School of Innovation Management, Tokyo Institute of Technology, P.O. Box: W9-114, Tokyo, Japan;
Tel/Fax: +81-3-5734-3571; E-mail: sengoku.s.aa@m.titech.ac.jp

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Volume 3, Number 2

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Current context in interdisciplinary research
The policies in the fields of science and technology
currently emphasise the importance of promotinginterdisciplinary research (IDR). IDR is defined as a research
activity that creates a new academic field by integrating
information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts,
and/or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of
specialised
knowledge
toadvancefundamental
understanding or to solve problems whose solutions arebeyond the scope of a single discipline or field of research
practice [1].
Many universities and public research institutions are
considering numerous organisational approaches for IDR [2];partly because science is under pressure to become more
relevant to society [3]. Currently, IDR is widely recognised
as a scientific path towards scientific breakthroughs and as ameans to promote innovation [4,5]. Previous efforts towards
promoting IDR have highlighted the importance ofreinforcing policies and garnering support from the public
sector, implementing autonomous management in research
institutes, and training key researchers with a broader
prospective. Simultaneously, methodologies and pitfalls forevaluating IDR have been investigated in the context ofpolicy research [6-8].
Recently, government policies have encouraged publicfunding programmes for scientific projects in which thepromotion of interdisciplinary collaboration was set as oneof their primary missions. On the other hand, themanagement of an IDR institute has been left to anindividual or a project leader, even though the establishmentof managerial practices is important [9,10]. Training of key
researchers has been recognised in scientific societies as anarea of meritocracy; however, more systemic approaches are
now required to address the recent need to diversify the
career paths of researchers [11].
The present study explores the different ways to adopt
organisation management at research institutes and toeffectively promote IDR. Specifically, case examples at two
research institutes are analysed for determining the types ofinteraction between researchers that lead to the promotion of
IDR based on an activity index obtained from surveys. In
addition, the type of policy that promotes/restrains IDR isanalysed based on the activity index and a performanceindex that is obtained from publication information. Further,based on the results of these analyses, the management
framework for IDR projects at research institutes is proposed.
IDR entails interactions between researchers who have a
different sense of value or knowledge. In particular, theinteraction at the generation stage of IDR projects is nonstationary compared with research projects that are closed to
one field (or mono-disciplinary research). The appropriate
management style thereof is thought to have a substantial
effect not only on the start of research projects but also on
the productivity after implementation. Accordingly, a2detailed observation and analysis of the interactions in thegeneration process of IDR is thought to be of greatsignificance.
1.2. Research backgroundIn this section, we examine three approaches that havebeen associated with the management of IDR to explore afusion for a managerial framework. The results obtained will
be analysed from the academic research perspective, andpractical tools will be identified for research institutes or
researchers to conduct IDR. Thus, this study covers theapproaches of scientometrics, organisation management, andtechnology management. These three approaches have beenreviewed in light of previous case studies. The approach ofthis study has been described in the last section.
1.2.1. Scientometrics
In scientometric evaluation, studies that have employedpatents and publication database have been actively carriedout thus far. For example, the number of forward citations ismainly employed as the measurement index of the value ofpatents [12,13]. For example, a study surveyed patentinventors through questionnaires regarding their technicaland economic importance [14]. It was shown that the numberof forward citations of patents filed had a positive effect on
the recognition of the technical and economic importance.
The number of publications, such as articles, and the numberof citations, such as successive articles, was used as themeasurement index of the value of publications [6,15-19].
This is otherwise known as an indirect peer review, and isalso recognised as an index that complements or replaces
direct peer review by experts [20].
This study particularly focuses on the interdisciplinary
index through case studies of research institutes of IDR.
Measures to quantitatively and objectively evaluate thedegree of interdisciplinary collaborations have been
demonstrated [6, 21-24]. For instance, a previous study tried
to evaluate interdisciplinary performance by using three
indicators: ‘variety’ (the number of academic disciplines),‘balance’ (the evenness of the distribution of disciplines),and ‘disparity or similarity’ (the degree of difference
between disciplines) [6]. Such metrics for interdisciplinary
performance have recently been employed to evaluate thestrategic fitness and effectiveness of funded research projects
with the purpose of promoting IDR [9].
1.2.2. Organisation management
Investigative research related to research anddevelopment activities of corporations prominently use
surveys, such as the Yale Survey I/II of the United States andthe CIS survey of Europe. However, comparative
investigation at universities and public research institution
levels, and organisation theory-based validation thereof isnot very active, except for a few examples [7,9].
The critical points for evaluating the performance ofuniversities and public research institutions is through theintroduction and operation of key performance indicators

Managing Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation(KPI) and activity measures. Furthermore, from the
management perspective, two important factors need to be
fulfilled: that the evaluation system is designed based on onsite needs for effective evaluation of the result feedback, andthat the system needs to be simple enough to be operable onsite [8].
This approach is also based on scientometrics andorganisation management and has been empirically andthoroughly investigated through practices at research
institutions. Although individual approach efforts have been
actively implemented thus far at each research institution,common recognition for the style of management is far frombeing created. This is because of a lack of social scientificstudies to generalise findings in individual practices into
theories. Moreover, one of background factors is the sparsecooperation between researchers of the social sciences field
who correspond to the development of such management
system and researchers of natural sciences field who arepractitioners.
One possible approach is focusing on key interactions in
IDR projects. For instance, the process from the generationand completion of research projects can be investigatedthrough detailed observations of researchers where astandard framework based on this measurement andevaluation generated in the process needs to be planned andpresented. Specifically, the focus is placed on transactions
within or outside organisations and the communicationinterface [25,26].
1.2.3. Project Management
Several academic research paths consider the integrationof interdisciplinary initiatives. One such path consists oftheories developed through case studies for institutional andproject management.
With a focus on institutional management, internal andexternal preconditions and organisational change forinterdisciplinary research have been explored [5,27,28]. The
case analysis of the creation of a new discipline ofbiomedicine at a French research institution noted that thedevelopment of carrier paths in new interdisciplinary fields
enabled the institution to integrate two disciplines [28]. It isalso articulated the organisational factors that influence thecreativity of organisational research activities by analysing
20 case studies of prize-winners [29]. Another study focusedon a multi-institutional collaborative project and postulated a
two-stage model: (i) establishing an interdisciplinary
research field as a new discipline and (ii) establishing a
research organisation for a new discipline, and further
defined the requirements to be fulfilled at each stage [2].
From the viewpoint of project management, in-depth
discussions on institutional challenges were discussed byclassifying the projects by their size and by their technicaland organisational complexity—i.e., variety of disciplines[30,31]Another research avenue has been to describe individual
behaviour at institutions with a collaborative process. A
comparative analysis of behaviour patterns such as daily
usage of time across researchers at academic
interdisciplinary research institutions and researchers
belonging to traditional departments showed that theTechnology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2 3

proportion of actual time spent on collaborative research was
higher at interdisciplinary research institutions [32].
However, in either case, no analysis has verified what kindof approaches at research institutions satisfies therequirements of interdisciplinary research formation or
creates changes in behaviour at the individual researcher
level. Another study verified what kind of benefits
researchers themselves expect in collaboration between
cross-field researchers [33]. As a result, it became clear thatin the natural sciences, exchanging information on
experimental methods, implementing collaborative research,and sharing experimental results were listed at the top of the
ranking, whereas creation of research ideas or formation of
personal networks was rarely emphasised. However, acorrelation between action and result in interdisciplinary
research, such as how these collaborations lead to actual
material improvement in outcomes, was not verified.
1.3. The approach of the present study
In this study, KAIs were newly applied to activities thatwere important for the operation of research institutes (inaddition to KPIs). The conceptual diagram is shown in
Figure 1. To validate this framework, two interdisciplinary
research institutes in Japan that acknowledge the promotionof IDR were investigated as empirical study cases.
Items for investigation/analysis are shown in Table 1.
The six points that should be validated throughcomparison/analysis of survey results are: (i) the preferenceof communication partners, (ii) the importance ofcommunication opportunities and the degree oforganisational complementation, (iii) the importance ofresources and the outcome of organisational approach, (iv)the preference of communication partners and the method oforganisational correspondence, (v) the preference ofcommunication opportunities in the interdisciplinary
performance connection/presentation process, and (iv) the
preference of communication management method as key
activity indicators (hereinafter ‘KAIs’). Based on thesepoints, evaluation and implication of the analysis result,future prospects, as well as the limitations of this study andfuture approaches were discussed.
The Introduction section should include the backgroundand aims of the research in a comprehensive manner, for the
researchers.
2. MATERIALS AND METHOD
In this section, the details of the approach (alreadydescribed in the previous section) will be explained.
2.1. Survey design
For the survey design, the theoretical model oftransaction management was employed to help configure thethree analytic viewpoints of transaction partners, transaction
resources and communication opportunities [25,26]. The
five-step Likert Scale was employed as the evaluation scale.
Faculty members affiliated with Kyoto University, theInstitute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (WPI-iCeMS,
N = 33, the number of PI = 17), and researchers affiliatedwith the University of Tokyo, Center for NanoBio
Integration (CNBI, N = 114, the number of PI = 35) were theinvestigation targets in this study. A total of 88 record

4Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2

samples were obtained as a result of an investigation throughquestionnaires, including 60 samples from CNBI (thenumber of PI = 27) and 28 samples from WPI-iCeMS (thenumber of PI = 15). These samples, excluding the ones withincomplete answers, were subjected to subsequent analysis.
These three viewpoints were integrated: (i) comparison
between the two research institutes of WPI-iCeMS and
CNBI, (ii) comparison between the PI and non-PI classes at
WPI-iCeMS, and (iii) comparison between the research
fields of biology and chemistry/physics at WPI-iCeMS. A Ttest was performed for the significant difference of scores of
explanatory variables rendered by the rank scale, and theimpact of each variable was estimated.
2.2. Definition of interdisciplinary index
To evaluate the interdisciplinary performance of eachresearcher, the following formula for the diversity evaluationof patents of corporations [34] was employed and theinterdisciplinary index for each researcher was defined. This
index ranges from 0 to 1 and a value closer to 1 indicatesthat the published articles corresponding to the research
fields are diverse.
This investigation is based on publications included in
the database of SciVerse Scopus (Elsevier B.V.) Eachpublication can be classified into 26 major research fields
and sublevel classifications thereof rendered by Scopus. The
specific method was as follows: based on the list of
published articles for each researcher created from Scopus,
the identity of each researcher was verified, and aninterdisciplinary index was calculated from the amended list.
Thus, the interdisciplinary index was set as the explained
variable, and variables that differed between the abovedescribed three groups were selected from the significantly
correlated explanatory variable groups to create a linear
multiple regression model. The relationship of each impact
factor was analysed, and the characteristics of researcherswith high interdisciplinary performance were extracted.
This section provides details of the methodology usedalong with information on any previous efforts withcorresponding references.
Any details for further
modifications and research should be included.
3. RESULTS
In this section, case examples at the two research institutesof CNBI and WPI-iCeMS are integrated to develop amanagerial framework. CNBI’s primary objective is topromote collaboration between departments inside theUniversity of Tokyo, in particular ‘medicines-engineeringcollaboration’. WPI-iCeMS’ central aim is to promote
cooperation between Kyoto University and internal andexternal research institutions, in particular ‘international
collaboration’. CNBI has completed a five-year project inMarch 2010, and WPI-iCeMS has completed the first term ofa project in June 2012. A brief overview of these two research
institutions is summarised in Table 2.
3.1. Descriptive statistics
This section shows the result of investigation of KAIs at
the two research institutes and the result of comparison
between the two institutions. All of the semi-quantitativeevaluations employed the five-point Likert Scale, which

Anzai et al.

defines 1 as "not important at all" or "not sufficient at all" and5 as "extremely important" or "completely sufficient" and 3 asneutral.
3.1.1. Preference of communication partners
Table 3 summarises the investigation results of primary
preferences of communication partners in each phase of the
IDR projects with researchers in different fields.
Consistently in each phase, from initialising to planningand then to executing/controlling, communication between
principal investigators (PI) of the own group and the partnergroup was emphasised. This is a reasonable result consideringthat every PI is the chief of his/her research group and he/she
has the responsibility to decide on the implementation ofcollaborative research projects, especially in the initialisingphase when their experience and broad human network can be
useful. On the other hand, it should be noted that researchersof the own and the partner groups were similarly emphasised
to the PI. At least in research fields targeted by these caseexamples, it is suggested that a more diverse specialised
knowledge or research methodology is necessary, andtherefore recruitment of a relatively large number of
researchers is desirable.
3.1.2. Importance of communication
organisational complementation

element

andTable 4 shows the investigation results of the importanceof various elements for communication and the degree ofcomplementation by each project in the planning phase of IDR
projects.
The following eight items were set as key success factorsof communication: (1) language skills (English proficiency incase of international communication); (2) physical distance(the distance between each other’s research facilities oroffices); (3) sense of values (consent of attitude or ethicalviews towards scientific research); (4) credibility (complianceon decided matters); (5) comprehension of significance(degree of commitment); (6) logicality (having a logical mind
and consent of the discussion style); (7) research approach(understanding the research methodologies or techniques ofeach other’s fields); and (8) specialised knowledge(understanding of expertise or technical terms of each other’s
fields).
The results of the investigation showed in Table 4 that
researchers from both research institutes emphasised on
credibility (having the highest interest), followed bycomprehension of significance. This suggests that complianceon agreed matters and commitment are universally important
for the smooth implementation of IDR projects. Two itemswith significant difference between the two institutions werelanguage skills and physical distance. This difference isconsistent with the difference in strategic policies of the two
institutions, i.e. emphasising cooperation between otherdepartments within the university at CNBI, and cooperation
with other foreign universities as the primary policy at WPIiCeMS.
Focusing next on the degree of organisational
complementation for these factors, evaluation related to trust
was the highest at both research institutes. This suggests thepossibility that compliance on agreed matters, which could beManaging Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovationdifficult at the level of individual researchers or research
projects, became easier by organisationally implementing
research project management. Another noteworthy matter isthat both institutions placed a relatively high evaluation on thesense of values, particularly CNBI. Thus, it can be more
appropriately construed that the attitude or ethical views
towards scientific research, which sometimes differs between
fields, can be eased or bridged by focusing on organisational
policies, such as setting up conversation opportunities between
researchers of different fields, rather than venturing into thesense of value of individual researchers.
3.1.3. Importance of the transaction of resources andorganisation process
Table 5 shows the investigation results of the importanceof resources and the degree of organisational complementation
thereof in the implementation phase of IDR projects withresearchers of different fields.
The following 13 items were set as classifications oftransaction resources: (1) human resources - project leaders; (2)human resources - other researchers; (3) human resources technicians and assistants; (4) physical assets such as space,
instrument, equipment, or facility; (5) intangible assets such as
database, experiment or know-how; (6) opportunities for
information exchange; (7) funds - direct expenses; (8) funds indirect expenses including personnel expenses; (9) authority
to use the above-mentioned resources; (10) administrative
tasks; (11) operational know-how such as project management
skill; (12) brand such as appeal or power; and (13) platforms
such as applicable research programmes or schemes.
An almost identical tendency was observed between thetwo research institutes. In other words, needs related to humanresources (items 1, 2 and 3 above) were relatively high at bothresearch institutes, and in particular, need for project leaders
was the highest at both, implying that project leaders that leadthe IDR on-site are scarce. The second highest were researchfunds (items 7 and 8 above) and the tendency to emphasise
securing funds for direct expenses. This suggests an issue inacquiring research funds, which tend to lack a specialised
understanding of each field than single field researches, owing
to the existence or scope of two or more target fields while
implementing IDR. Further, needs of physical assets such as
space and instrument, equipment or facility for IDR, was also
highly evaluated.
According to the answers for the organisational
complementation, opportunities for information exchange
gained the highest evaluation. The evaluation of the highneeds items were human resources (other researchers), funds(direct expenses), and physical assets. However, investigation
results were lower than 4.0 for almost all items. This suggeststhat devising organisational support for IDR still has room for
improvement.
3.2. Cause-effect analysis
Next we analysed what kind of management policy would
promote IDR. We analysed the impact of KAIs (obtained fromthe survey) on KPIs (obtained based on the publication
information). In this analysis, among the two case examples,
we focused on WPI-iCeMS that has diverse communication
opportunities with domestic and foreign research institutes inTechnology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2 5

addition to opportunities within the institute and within
universities.
Before analysis, evaluation of interdisciplinary
performance for past publications for PIs or equivalent at
WPI-iCeMS (N=28) was implemented by employing themethod shown in the methods section. The result obtained wasset as a KPI. On the other hand, management efforts that wereaddressed at both institutions were set as KAIs such as: (i) the
impact of preference of communication opportunities oninterdisciplinarity in the initialising phase of IDR projects and(ii) the impact of preference of communication management
method on interdisciplinarity in the executing/controllingphase of IDR projects.
3.2.1. Impact of communication opportunities on the IDR
performance
Two multiple regression models with an interdisciplinary
performance set as the explained variable and survey results
related to the usefulness and participation frequency ofcommunication opportunities as each explanatory variables
are shown in Table 6. Communication opportunities were
opportunities normally performed in the observation caseexample, which were organised into six categories: (1) hosted
international symposia; (2) faculty meetings; (3) othermeetings or gatherings within the institute; (4) other meetings
or gatherings within other departments; (5) academic
conferences and symposiums; and (6) external committee.
Firstly, in an evaluation of usefulness, other meetings orgatherings within the institute and other meetings orgatherings within other departments had positive impacts(p<0.05 and p<0.1, respectively). On the other hand, looking
at participation frequency, the former had a negative impact(p<0.05) and the latter did not have any significance. Thismeans that ‘other meetings and gatherings within theuniversity’ provides useful conference opportunities toinitialise IDR projects, but reckless meetings/participation has
an inhibitory influence. In other words, the result suggests thattactical planning and selection of communication
opportunities is necessary.
With regards to participation frequency, ‘hosted
international symposia’ and ‘external committee’ had positive
impacts (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). On the other hand,academic conferences and symposiums had a negative impact(p<0.01). International symposiums are held about 4-6 times ayear at WPI-iCeMS. Each of these focuses on particular
academic areas while setting themes that emphasiseinterdisciplinary prospects. Speakers from various fields areinvited from within the research institution/university andoutside the university. Although their usefulness is not always
recognised by the parties involved, it is suggested thatorganisational
planning
and
implementationofcommunication opportunities aimed for such inter-fieldinteractions will become the basis for the generation of IDR
projects. On the other hand, academic conferences andsymposiums are often prone to be specialised in a single area.
Consequently, the theory is that the participation in suchopportunities or research projects generated therefrom resultsin the loss of generation opportunities of IDR projects.
3.2.2. Impact of communication management method on the
IDR performance6

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2

The multiple regression model with an interdisciplinary
performance set as the explained variable and survey results
related to communication management method as eachexplanatory variable is shown in Table 7. Communication
management were management methods normally performedin the observation case example, which were organised into 13
categories: (1) the conference and meeting is scheduled with
sufficient leeway on time; (2) the agenda is specifically set andshared; (3) discussion materials are prepared beforehand andshared; (4) material of the other presenter is distributed at themeeting; (5) PI or representative is attending; (6) time andnumber of topics are appropriate; (7) the participants areearnest; (8) the participants are actively speaking out; (9) few
conflicts in opinions; (10) the meetings are operated smoothly;(11) late arrival and early dismissal are allowed; (12) action
items and future plans are clear after meetings; and (13) the
meeting minutes are created and circulated after the meeting.
The results show that (2) and 4) had positive impacts on
interdisciplinary performance (both p<0.05). All of these items
were held before such communication opportunities, whichmeans that the tactical setup and advance preparation areimportant (which gives similar suggestions as the previous
section). On the other hand, (11) and (12) gave a negative
although weak impact. These results need to be interpreted
carefully, because the former is an action that needs to be
avoided in ordinary meetings or discussions, whereas the latter
needs to be encouraged. This may suggest that a degree of
flexibility rather than constraints in meeting operations or expost consents will contribute to the creation of an atmospherethat will facilitate discussion of IDR possibility or realisationof ground-breaking ideas. Thus, it can be concluded that theessence of communication management for generation of IDR
projects is prior consent, including getting across the objective
or sharing of information.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Characteristics of the present study
Recently, innovation is defined as the creation of newsocial value that originates from breakthrough discoveries orinnovative inventions produced through new combinations.
Broad innovative changes in technology, human,organisation, and society are promoted in the process ofinnovation promotion. In this context, the IDR is widelycurrently recognised as one of promising approaches tocreate breakthrough scientific findings and/or disruptive
technology through a fusion approach across different wayof thinking, knowledge and talent mix. The analysis of thedatabase on the article citation number in patents, i.e. sciencelinkage, has been recently used as an objective evaluation
approach of the impact of research activities, including basic
research on innovation; trends thereof will be discussed later.
A noteworthy benefit of our study is its contribution toestablishing a viewpoint to evaluate the transaction-based
approach. As stated in the introductory section,communication avenues such as meetings and conferences,where researchers from various disciplines can interact andplan research projects, are vital for conducting IDR projects.
This is because IDR projects require such interdisciplinary
communication, unlike mono-disciplinary projects; therefore,
all information should be presented with a high degree ofAnzai et al.

clarity. In this respect, the IDR project management
approach used in this study is the most effective and valid
approachforfacilitating
suitablecommunication
opportunities and environments. This approach is also idealfor optimising such communication opportunities to evaluate
and determine the nature and manner of the distribution ofresearch resources.
In the present study, we divided the task of optimisinginteraction or communication opportunities into thefollowing four main elements: (i) the use of a multi-layer
communication design that also includes non-PI (the‘who/whom’ aspect) rather than a top-to-top approach, (ii)
optimal design with respect to interaction frequency/locationand physical aspects (the ‘when/where’), (iii) the form ofinteraction, for example, addressing organisations in terms ofcredibility and comprehension of significance (the ‘how’),and (iv) establishing exchange resources for the participant
components of the interaction (the ‘what/which’). Given the
expectations for IDR in terms of producing pioneering
inventions or discoveries, interaction management can be an
important and far more leveraged than improving theefficiency of execution.
In the present study, instead of establishing a normative
analytical framework, we applied optimised descriptive
processes through surveys or face-to-face interviews.
Accordingly, the present study devises two schemes. The
first scheme strives to avoid a rigid top-down approach and,instead, explores the potential for improvement at researchsites, as well as striving to induce spontaneous improvement
by providing interactive opportunities. The other scheme
involves conducting assessments while benchmarking
methods from several research institutions by applying
standardised investigative and evaluative criteria.
Specifically, this scheme focuses on enabling improvementsby comparing viewpoints from other research groups andinstitutions based on actual investigative cases, facilitating
researchers’ intellectual curiosity about the projects of otherresearchers, and creating motivation by generating‘awareness’ of the researchers at an individual level.
These initiatives reveal that development project
management methods involving technology management
require the implementation of research projects that include
basic research. Our experimental study was in harmony witha continuous improvement approach in later R&D stages, aswell as the climate and culture of the university andresearchers.
4.2. Implications to the IDR management
This section discusses the implication to the managementof research institutes from the series of results, in particular,
the impact on the promotion of IDR projects, and thepossibility of the application thereof.
4.2.1. Managing IDR projects
The KPI-KAI framework can be primarily applied toeffectively promote IDR projects. As described in the
introduction section, many previous studies have been
carried out to understand the significance and validation of
IDR projects. On the other hand, as discussed in the section,
the management at research institutes has not been
sufficiently discussed in spite of its importance. FutureManaging Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation

research in academic organisation management needs to
explore the means to fill the gap between these needs and themethodology as well.
The previous case example in the U.S. presents one
viewpoint [35]. In this report, each of the following factors
are fundamental to promote IDR at universities and publicresearch institutions: (i) innovative changes in organisational
structures, (ii) research fund distribution that is notdependent on the conventional academic system, (iii)
employment of faculty that does not depend on theconventional framework of departments or school ties, (iv)setting up employment/promotion standards of faculty
members along the value standards of interdisciplinary
fusion, and (v) continuous consideration of interdisciplinary
fusion research implementation process. Eight obstructions
and approaches to overcome them are specifically listed
further.
In addition, numerous business management approaches
for research and development management have been
proposed in the industrial world. Managerial approaches
such as Activity Based Costing (ABC), Balanced Score Card
(BSC), and Business Process Management (BPM), aretypical examples that are applied to the management of many
corporations today. Particularly, as a modern project
management system, Project Management Body ofKnowledge or PMBOK proposed by the ProjectManagement Institute [36] forms a standard in research anddevelopment management.
The time has come to develop business management
approaches at universities/research institutions in the coming
years to facilitate goal setting or process management inacademic basic research with reference to theories by theseprevious studies or practices in the industrial world.
4.2.2. Managing IDR talents and human resources
One of the applications of this KPI-KAI framework ishuman resources management at IDR institutions. In thispaper, human resources management is generally classified
into performance management of researchers and personalevaluation of each individual.
KAIs are complementary management tool to KPIs. One
of its advantages, as shown in this study, is that evaluation
between two research institutes with different locations andobjectives will be sufficiently possible through common
evaluation indices and items. In other words, if individual
researchers compare the activity situation of affiliatedresearch institutes with best practice or other practices, ormonitor the activity situation over time, relative confirmation
as well as real-time discussion and implementation ofnecessary improvement plans will become possible. To
introduce such performance management, organisational
healthiness that will allow and recommend visualisation andsharing of investigation results, scientific analysis, andpositive application, are prerequisites.
For personal evaluation, aggressive application of KAIs
as process evaluation, in addition to KPI as performance
evaluation, is important. In particular, it is also envisionedthat researchers who have newly moved from single fieldresearch projects to IDR projects will have a longer lead time
and time lag until the generation of the research outcome

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2 7versus those researchers who are familiar with IDR. In sucha case, the possibility of under-estimating the ability of
newly participating researchers cannot be dismissed if
performance evaluation was carried out only with KPIs. On
the other hand, if KAIs are indexed and achievement thereofis evaluated, situations during the course of the approach canbe confirmed, and evaluation, according to its progression,
will become possible to some degree.
From the viewpoint of research institutions which
promote IDR, it is important to establish the methodology tomatch the expertise of the researchers with different
disciplines and to organize the IDR teams. In the case of
CNBI, the management members defined three core area forthe research before starting this project and assigned the
project members who could share the similar goal to thethree teams accordingly. After this, management highly
promoted matching of expertise and collaborative research
inside the team. In the case of the WPI-iCeMS, same to themanner at CNBI, the leadership defined the mission andvision of the centre based on the common mission statements
set by the entire WPI Program: leading science, global
perspective, fusion science, reform. Furthermore, the WPIiCeMS intentionally formed three domains of expertise i.e.
cell biology, chemistry and physics, at the beginning phaseof operation and all the staffing process was undertaking inaccordance with the domain criteria.
4.2.3. Managing IDR institutes
As described hitherto, reinforcement of a management
system at academic research institutes is essential today. In
the future, we must attempt to establish an academic research
management body while striving to understand and reflect onrules or division of the labour system specific to academicorganisations, but we must always be aware of being
universal or systematisation as scientific/technologicalmanagement research.
The evaluation approach based on KAI-KPI presented inthis study, and the quantitative and qualitative analysis
framework provides many suggestions for organisational
policy of research institutes, in particular, the optimisation ofcommunication opportunities such as operation ofconferences or symposia, procurement of resources that are
not sufficient with individual researchers or laboratories for
IDR projects, and seeking intervention from the research
institutes. We expect that the managerial approach extracted
by the method suggested in this paper will lead to
identification of the so-called PDCA (plan, do, check, andaction) cycle or best practice in research and development at
research institutes.
In addition, this study proposes a new practical academic
system that integrates social and natural science i.e.
researchers of social sciences, including businesses andapplied economics, playing a central role in close
collaboration with researchers of natural sciences, who may
be central players in collaboration research. It is by no means
impossible
to
form
new
research
areasofscientific/technological management and innovation theory,and further expand this approach to research management atuniversities and public research institutions in general.

8Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2

In order to in incentivise young researchers for IDR, both
CNBI and WPI-iCeMS had several tools including a small
research funding for internal researchers to start andaccelerate the IDR. In the case of CNBI, even non-PI
researchers could make short research presentations at theannual meetings with participation of all the members,
providing them with an opportunity for the newcollaboration with senior PIs with different disciplines andfor their career development. The WPI-iCeMS has been
taking a similar approach to that at CNBI to facilitate
internal peer-to-peer interaction for mutual understanding ofactivities and prospective discussion for IDR by holding
yearly retreat as an intensive communication opportunity.
4.2.4. Managing IDR policy programmes
Research institutes, based on competitive funds, typicallydemand an interim report by performing an on-site review or
peer reviews during the project. In such a case, setting of theevaluation criteria is extremely important for self-evaluation
by operation members of the research institutes. Moreover,determining the achievement goal of the research project
demanded from the government/research aid agencies thatplan/publicly offer competitive funds as well as forming anagreement related to evaluation within research institutes,
will be essential in this process. In such self-evaluation,
reporting by KPIs, such as the number of articles or thenumber of patents as well as quantitative presentation of themonitoring result of KAIs at the institution level, are thought
to be effective. In doing so, qualitative comprehension of
KAIs by a survey of affiliated researchers as well as broad
extraction of future tasks of the operation should also be
done.
For evaluation at the end of the research project or expost evaluation, it is desirable to report the ultimate
achievement status of KAIs and KPIs that were set at thetime of grant application. A certain quantitative evaluation ispossible for early-stage articles, even for the number ofbackward citations of articles, which is a KPI that is difficult
to evaluate during the research project. In addition, sufficientdescription is also necessary for the diverse propagation
effect of the research project. Further, the change in answer
results of the questionnaire at the time of the interim reportdue to a later managerial approach should be sufficiently
applied in reporting opportunities, because they directly
show the organisational management effort at the research
institute.
4.3. Limitations of research and future prospects
The policy for elaboration/visualisation of the evaluationindex based on more elaborate data as well as a flexible
framework for the improvement trial thereof, and the policy
for research activity promotion has been described above.
However, the limitations of this ground-breaking researchand the direction of approach towards the future must also be
clarified.
This study conducts analysis and discussion that is targeted
at research institutes of IDR having life sciences as the basic
axis. Accordingly, whether the discussed business
management approaches are applicable to other fields mustbe sufficiently examined. To this end, comparison with

Anzai et al.

research institute programmes in other fields must be further
expanded.
In addition, investigation target researchers are also
limited. Only principal investigators were targeted in thisstudy. However, many junior faculty members and research
associates are enrolled, and evaluation of their contribution
was not performed. Moreover, education activity which isone of the most important roles of universities was not the
subject of evaluation because all of the case examples wereresearch departments. It is essential to encompass each of theprevious points to establish a more universal/comprehensive
business management style.
The interdisciplinary index, which is a KPI employed inthis research, was calculated based on the academic
publication data. However, achievements of academic
research are not necessarily limited to publications. In
particular, focusing on economical values generated by theoutcomes of scientific technology (for example, creation ofpatents, transferring/licensing of patents to private
corporations, etc., and distribution of products/services bythese private corporations) are essential evaluation indices in
discussing innovation from universities and public research
institutions.
Accordingly, a research project management style related
to collaboration between industry and academia must be
elaborated. Specifically, extraction of requirements
demanded of universities and public research institutions thatare necessary for the promotion of collaboration between
industry and academia activity should be the top priority. It
is necessary for these institutions and private
corporations/venture corporations to perform measurement
surveys for cooperation of industry and academia in a bid toattempt multi-layering of evaluation standards andadaptation to industrial/social needs.
In that sense, the quantitative survey result obtained in
the demonstrative research is still at a nascent stage. Further,even as a theory of movement in actual organisations, this is
implemented only by repetitively/continuously performing
comparison between research institutes, job positions, fields,
and research groups rather than completing such an approachin a single turn, as well as through repeated optimisation
effort of KPIs and KAIs. In other words, it is vital that the
research outcomes of scientific/technology management aresequentially returned to the on-site scientific/technology
management or project management. The study will become
action-based only when practice outcomes are applied to
strategy building of academic research project throughreinforcement of the PDCA cycle.
CONCLUSION
This study aims to effectively promote IDR, and attempts todevelop a business management style that includes theapproaches of scientometrics, organisation management, andtechnology management. As for the policy, KPIs and KAIs
were defined, and indices were set from the three analytic
observation angles of transaction partners, transaction resources,
and communication opportunities for KAIs, and aninterdisciplinary index based on publication information was set
for KPIs. Then, an action style expressed by KAI was observed
based on case studies at the two research institutes, and theManaging Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2 9impact of KAI on KPI was analysed. As a result, common
characteristics were seen for each KAI from: the preference ofcommunication partners, the importance of communication
element and organisational complementation, the importance oftransaction resources, the outcome of organisational approach,the impact of communication opportunities, and the preferenceof management method on KPI. Further, the meaning ofmanagement of IDR projects or human resources as well as inmanagement of research institutes or policy programmes was
discussed. This series of results and discussions illustrates thatorganisational interdisciplinary cooperation management iseffective in universities and public research institutions, andsuggests that this approach should be more deeply cultivatedthrough both theory and practice.

[5] Hage JT, Hollingsworth R. A strategy for analysis of idea innovation
networks and institutions. Org Studies 2000; 21: 971–1004.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST[9] Anzai T, Kusama R, Kodama H, Sengoku S. Holistic observation andmonitoring of the impact of interdisciplinary academic research projects: An
empirikodamcal assessment in Japan. Technovation 2012; 32: 345–57.

The authors have no other relevant affiliation with afinancial interest in or financial conflict with the subject
matter mentioned in this manuscript. This research is part ofan approach at the Funding Program for World-Leading
Innovative R&D on Science and Technology by the Ministryof Education, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan(MEXT, TA), the World Premier International ResearchCenter Initiative Program (WPI Program) by MEXT (SS)and the Center of Innovation Program from MEXT and JST(TA and SS). This research is financially supported by
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (grant no. 26285084, SS), theFunding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on
Science and Technology (FIRST Program) initiated by theCouncil for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP, TA).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All individuals listed as authors contributed substantiallyto the design, performance, analysis, or reporting of the work.
Relevant persons at C&C Innovation Research Laboratories
of NEC Corporation (CCIL, Ikoma City, Nara Prefecture)
substantially cooperated with this research by providing caseexamples. We thank Professors Cihiro Suematsu andTakanori Ida of Kyoto University for providing advices;
Professors Kazuhiro Kataoka and Ung-il Chung of the
University of Tokyo for their cooperation to the empiricalresearch. Our gratitude is extended to each of the parties
listed above.
REFERENCES[1] Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute ofMedicine, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington D.C;
National Academies Press; 2004.
[2] Corley E, Boardman C, Bozeman B. Design and the Management ofMultiinstitutional Research Collaborations: Theoretical Implications fromTwo Case Studies. Res Policy 2006; 33: 975-93.
[3] Nightingale P, Scott A. Peer review and the relevance gap: Tensuggestions for policy-makers. Sci Public Policy 2007; 34(8): 543–53.
[4] Gibbons M., Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M.
The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research incontemporary societies. London: Sage; 1994.

[6] Stirling A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science,technology and society. J Royal Soc Interface 2007; 4: 707 –19.
[7] Rafols I, Leydesdorff M, O'Hare A, Nightingale P, Stirling A. Howjournal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison
between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Res Policy 2012;41(7): 1262–82.
[8] Shibata N, Kajikawa Y, Takeda T, Sakata I, Matsushima K. Detecting
emerging research fronts in regenerative medicine by the citation network
analysis of scientific publications. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 2011;
78: 274–282.

[10] Kodama H., Watatani K., Sengoku S. Competency-based Assessmentof Academic Interdisciplinary Research and Implication to University
Management, Research Evaluation 2013; 22: 93-104.
[11] Lauto G, Sengoku S. Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a
Japanese
university
research
center,Futures2014;
doi:
10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.010.
[12] Harhoff D, Narin F, Scherer F, Vopel K. Citation frequency and thevalue of patented inventions. Rev Econ Stat 1999; 81(3): 511–5.
[13] Lanjouw J, Schankerman M. The quality of ideas: Measuring
innovation with multiple indicators. NBER Working Paper 1999; 7345.
[14] Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M, Fogarty M. The meaning of patent citations:
Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve Survey of Patentees. NBER
Working Paper 2000; 7631.
[15] Oppenheim C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992
research assessment exercise ratings for British library and information
science university departments. J Documentation 1995; 51(1): 18–27.
[16] Oppenheim C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992
research assessment exercise ratings for british research in genetics,
anatomy and archaeology. J Documentation 1997; 53(5): 477–487.
[17] Rinia E, van Leeuwen Th, van Vuren H, van Raan A. Comparative
analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria
evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Res Policy 1998;
27(1): 95–110.
[18] Katila R, Ahuja G. Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal
Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction Acad Mgt J 2002;
45(6): 1183-94.
[19] Hayashi T. Is bibliometrics useful to support peer review? A case studyof NIAD’s research evaluation in science. Res Univ Evaluation 2003; 3:
169–87.
[20] Gibbons M, Georghiou L. Evaluation of research: A selection ofcurrent practices. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) 1987; Chapter III.
[21] Porter A, Cohen A, Roessner D, Perreault M. Measuring researcher
interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics 2007; 72(1): 117–47.

10 Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2[22] Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators ofinter-disciplinarity: Case studies in bio-nanoscience. Scientometrics 2010;
82(2): 263–87.
[23] Leydesdorff L, Rafols I. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals:
Diversity, centrality, and citations. J Informetics 2011; 5: 87–100.
[24] Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, et al. Approaches to understanding
and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of theliterature. J Informetrics 2011; 165, 14–26.
[25] Suematsu C, Makabenta-Ikeda M. Interface from transaction cost
approach. Kyoto Economic Review 2006; 84.

Anzai et al.
[30] Jordan GB. actors Influencing Advances in Basic and Applied
Research: Variation Due to Diversity in Research Profiles. In: Hage J,
Meeus M, Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change: A Handbook of
Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006; pp. 173-95.
[31] Shenhar AJ. One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring ClassicalContingency Domains. Mgt Sci 2001; 47(3): 394-414.
[32] Boardman C, Corley, E. University research centers and thecomposition of research collaborations. Res Policy 2008; 37: 900-13.
[33] Haythornthwaite C. Learning and knowledge networks ininterdisciplinary collaborations. J Am Soc Info Sci Tech 2006; 57(8), 1079–
92.

[26] Hamada S, Shibata A, Urushihara H, Sengoku S, Suematsu C,
Kawakami K. Transaction Cost Analysis of the New Drug Application
Process: A Case Study of a Multinational Pharmaceutical Company in Japan.
Therapeutic Innovation Regulatory Sci 2014; 48(3): 371-7.

[34] Hall B, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citations data file:
Lessons, Insights and methodological tools. CEPR Discussion Paper 2001;
3094.

[27] Klein JT, Porter AL. Preconditions for interdisciplinary research. In:
Birnbaum-More PH, Rossini FA, Baldwin DR. International Research
Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1990; pp. 11-9.

[35] Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Facilitating
Interdisciplinary
Research.
2004.
Availablefrom:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11153 [cited: 30th Sep 2015].

[28] Hage JT. Organizational innovation and organizational change, Annual
Rev Sociol 1999; 25: 597-622.

[36] Project Management Institute. A guide to the project management bodyof knowledge, 3rd ed. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute 2004.

[29] Heinze T, Shapira P, Rogers JD, Senker JM. Organizational andinstitutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Res Policy 2009;
38: 610-23.

Managing Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2 11

Fig. (1). The KPI-KAI Framework. This figure schematically describes the concept of an ordinary managerial framework and the proposed
framework in this study. The ordinary model has three issues: (i) elements of the input side were not fully identified, (ii) the relationshipbetween input and output has not been addressed, and (iii) institutional outputs have not been well defined, and thus have not been evaluated.
To overcome these problems, the proposed framework defined key performance indicators (KPIs) and also key activity indicators (KAIs) atboth individual and institutional levels. Furthermore, the contribution of these KPIs to the KAIs was statistically examined through regression
analyses.

Table 1. Items for investigation and analysis.

Classification
Reflection to the
management ofinterdisciplinary
research

Survey items

Initialising
Searching collaborators
Proposal for a collaborative
research projectPreference oncommunication partners
Preference on opportunities
for communication

Planning
Negotiating thecollaboration
Agreement on thecollaboration

Preference oncommunication partners
Importance ofcommunication elements
and organisational
complementation

Executing/controlling
Sourcing
Promoting the project
Generating interim and thefinal results
Preference oncommunication partners
Preference on management
methods for communication

Importance of resource
items and organisational
complementation

12 Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2

Table 2. The overview of two research institution examples.
Description
Center for NanoBio Integration(CNBI)
Organisation
University of Tokyo
Project Leader
Kazunori Kataoka (Professor of Graduate
Schools of Engineering and Graduate
School of Medicine)
Total Funding Size
JPY 2.59 billion
Annual Average
JPY 0.51 billion
Number of Researchers
114 (33) as of the end of FY2010(PIs)
Management Strategy
Create three cross-disciplinary groups(i.e., groups of Bioinspired
Nanomachines, Nanobio Sensing, andCell Therapy) that constitute researcherswith a wide variety of specialties
Principal of sharing the researchresources among CNBI researchers toincrease unity of CNBI
Setting up events such as Research Camp
with the participation of all researchers toachieve smoother communication
between researchers and to promoteresearch collaboration within CNBI

Anzai et al.

The Institute for Integrated CellMaterial Sciences (iCeMS)
Kyoto University
Norio Nakatsuji (Professor of Institute for
Frontier Medical Sciences)
JPY 4.94 billion as of FY2010
JPY 1.35 billion in FY2010
174 (18) as of the end of FY2010
Create new integrated disciplines of cellmaterial sciences on the basis of thecross-disciplinary fields of chemistry,
physics, and cell biology
Become a global hub of careerdevelopment for scientists
Contribute to human wellness inenvironmentally friendly chemistry by
meso-control, detoxification and drug
synthesis in the body, and regenerative
medicine by controlling stem cells withsmart materials

Table 3. Primary preferences of communication partners in each phase of the IDR projects with researchers in different fields.
Questionnaire
Initialising
Planning
Executing/controlling
CNBI iCeMS
CNBI iCeMS
CNBI iCeMS(1) The PI or equivalent of your affiliated
4.31
4.92
4.40
4.75
4.25
4.42
research group (laboratory)(2) Researchers other than (1) in your
4.05
4.00
4.17
4.15
4.28
4.11
affiliated research group(3) Researchers other than (1) and (2) in
3.47
3.23
3.33
2.93
3.55
3.07
your affiliated department(4) The representative of the research
4.53
4.67
4.47
4.74
4.52
4.61
group of the different field(5) Researchers other than (4) in the
4.42
4.15
4.44
4.26
4.56
4.25
research group of the different field(6) Researchers other than (4) and (5) in
3.53
2.89
3.39
2.59
3.58
2.64
the department
**
***
***
(7) Researchers other than the above that
3.06
2.78
2.67
2.30
2.66
2.25
belong to the academic society of yourresearch field(8) Researchers other than the above that
2.88
2.85
2.61
2.26
2.47
2.18
belong to the academic society of thedifferent field(9) Administrative department of your
2.77
2.78
2.72
2.82
affiliated research department(10) Administrative department of the
2.63
2.70
2.63
2.50
department the collaborative research
partner belongs to(11) Academic media such as articles
3.56
3.89
database and journals(12) Other medias such as newspapers and
2.73
2.56
television
Mean of the items above
3.65
3.59
3.49
3.35
3.52
3.28
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Managing Academic Interdisciplinary Research towards Innovation

Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2 13

Table 4. The importance of various elements for communication and the degree of complementation by each project in theplanning phase of IDR projects.
Questionnaire
Importance
Organisational
complementation
CNBI iCeMS
CNBI iCeMS
1) Language skills
3.20
3.71 *
3.27
3.75 *
3.69
2.89
3.95
3.96
2) Physical distance***3) Sense of values
4.44
4.21
3.61
3.25
4) Credibility
4.73
4.79
4.06
3.96
5)
Comprehension
of
4.56
4.54
3.91
3.75
significance6) Logicality
4.17
4.21
3.52
3.36
7) Research approach
4.25
4.18
3.86
3.54
8) Specialised knowledge
4.00
4.21
3.94
3.57
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.
Table 5. The importance of resources and the degree of organisational complementation thereof in the implementation phase of
IDR projects with researchers of different fields.
Questionnaire
Importance
Organisational
complementation
CNBI iCeMS
CNBI iCeMS
1) HR (project leaders)2) HR (other researchers)3) HR (technicians/assistants)
4) Physical assets
5) Intangible assets
6)
Info.
opportunities

4.92

3.92
*

4.69

4.93

3.79

3.84

4.05

4.14

3.49

3.76

4.38

4.43

4.06

3.84

4.30

4.21

3.55

3.76

4.23

4.21

4.23

3.96

4.53

4.54

3.83

3.72

4.39

4.57

3.26

3.68

4.20

4.25

3.53

3.52

3.53

3.56

3.09

3.28

3.67

3.36

3.32

3.16

3.53

3.54

3.64

3.60

3.89

3.64

3.72

3.56

exchange7) Funds (direct expenses)
8) Funds (indirect expenses)
9) Authority
10) Administrative tasks11) Operation know-how
12) Brand
13) Platform*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

14 Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 3, No. 2

Anzai et al.

Table 6. Multiple regression models with interdisciplinarity and survey results related to the usefulness and participation
frequency of communication opportunities.
Variable
Usefulness
Frequency
βSEβSE1) Hosted international symposia
2) Faculty meetings3) Other meetings or gatherings within the institute4) Other meetings
departmentsorgatherings

within

**

0.52

other

0.02

*

0.55

0.20

0.02

Constant
N

**

0.04
0.03

**

0.05

0.03

5) Academic conferences and symposiums6) External committee activities

0.88
0.20
0.77

***

1.61

***

0.05

2.05

***

0.04

***

0.12

0.11

28

28

0.43

0.58

2

R adjusted for the degrees of freedom*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

Table 7. A multiple regression model with and survey results related to communication management method.
VariableβSE1) The conference/meeting is scheduled with sufficient leeway in time
0.16
0.03
2) The agenda is specifically set and shared
3) Discussion materials are prepared beforehand and shared
4) Materials of other presenter are distributed at themeeting5 ) PI or representative is attending6) Time and number of topics are appropriate7) The participants are earnest

0.44

0.58

**

**

0.02

0.03

0.25

0.03

0.19

0.02

8) The participants are actively speaking out9) There are few conflicts in opinions
10) The meetings are operated smoothly11) Late arrival and early dismissal are allowed12) Action items and future plans are clear after meetings13) The meeting minutes are created and circulated after
the meeting

0.37
0.41
0.33

Constant
N
R2 adjusted for the degrees of freedom*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

*
*
*
***

28
0.33

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.14