4. Management processes and supporting instruments
4.4. Top-down decision taking versus consensus decision-making
place by research teams for the management of their FP-funded projects?” on the subject of “division and delegation of tasks”. Findings are based on our 30 case studies of FP6 and FP7 projects and 6 non-case study interviews.
The division of tasks in these projects is often established during the proposal phase of the project. In some cases, motivation and willingness to contribute to the success of the project are taken into account in addition to merit. Decision making in these projects is typically consensus-based, with elements of top-down decision making to serve as tiebreakers. Other case studies of FP6 and FP7 projects with a high average performance score show a similar meritocratic division of work, yet with a more top- down oriented method of decision making, with more detailed outlines of the decision authority of different consortium members or sub-groups within a consortium.
The case studies of both FP6 and FP7 projects with a low average performance score show a similar approach towards the division of tasks compared with the FP projects with high average performance scores. Case studies of FP6 projects with a low average performance score show a meritocratic division of tasks, yet our study also shows projects in which tasks were divided based on combining specific organisations with one another, such as technology labs and clinical labs, or where a meritocratic division of tasks within a consortium that features non-European organisations turned out to be suboptimal due to cultural differences.
4.4.
Top-down decision taking versus consensus decision-making
This section answers the question “Which management processes are typically put in place by research teams for the management of their FP-funded projects?” on the subject of “top-down decision taking versus consensus decision-making”. Findings are based on our survey data, the case studies and the interviews on this topic.4.4.1. Partners involved in decision-making
Consensus-based decision-making is more common in FP-funded projects than top- down decision-making processes, especially if one interprets “top-down” management as not involving partners in decision-making at all. Table 4-1 illustrates this.
Table 4-1: Extent to which Project Coordinator or project manager involved partners in substantial decisions about the project (FP6 and FP7)
To what extent did the Project Coordinator or project manager involve partners in substantial decisions about the project?
Frequency Percentage
1. All partners were involved 4,535 56%
2. The main partners were involved 2,781 34%
3. Partners were informed but not directly involved 510 6%
4. Partners were neither involved nor informed 52 1%
5. Not applicable 237 3%
6. I don’t know 31 0%
Total 8,146 100%
Findings on division and delegation of tasks:
In both FP6, and FP7, and regardless of project performance, division and delegation of tasks is based on merit.
This finding is confirmed by the fact that more than 55 per cent of survey respondents reported that the General Assembly functioned effectively and 16 per cent even evaluated it to be highly effective in relation to the EC grant agreement. This information is relevant because the General Assembly is intended to be the instrument through which consortia make decisions based on consensus.
Figure 4-3: Extent to which the General Assembly functioned effectively, according to its formal tasks as described in the EC grant agreement
We have also asked FP participants and coordinators whether involving more partners would have yielded better outputs if they reported that not all partners were involved. Overall, more than half of these respondents were of the opinion that this would not have helped. However, an interesting distinction can be made between those respondents who answered that the main partners were involved and those that either mentioned that partners were informed but not involved, or that partners were neither informed nor involved. In case of the first, only 8 per cent of the respondents thought it would yield better outputs if more partners were included. In case of the second, 43 per cent of the respondents reported the project would have yielded better outputs if more partners were included.
4.4.2. Style of decision making
In most of our case studies of FP6 and FP7 projects with a high average performance rating, the coordinator tries to share information with other consortium members in a timely fashion, trusting them to deliver as needed, and discussing any issues one-to- one. Referencing contractual obligations and discussing individual accountability plays a small role in these consortia. Interestingly, our survey findings confirm that the latter management styles do not contribute to good research management (see section 5.3.2).
On the other hand, FP7 projects with a low average performance score show more emphasis on top-down decision making and less on a consensus-oriented decision- making style. One of the illustrations is that contractual obligations and discussing individual accountability are perceived as important for research management. In FP7 projects with a low average performance score where a consensus-oriented decision- making style is employed, the case studies show that some of the consortium members believe that this management approach has contributed to inefficiencies within the project. In one case, the Project Coordinator decided to abandon his consensus orientation and to switch to top-down decision making instead.
Case studies of FP6 projects with a low average performance score emphasise a consensus orientation, with coordinators relying on trust and timely sharing of information to allow consortium partners to get their job done. The one case study of an FP6 project with a low average performance score that featured a top-down
decision-making style indicates that this particular project could have generated better outcomes if more partners had been included in the decision making.