Managing goals is a key network management function and is critical in the implementation of industrial R&D projects. In this paper, we explore the implementation of an industrial R&D project, focusing in particular upon the role of means-ends decoupling work to understand how the goals are managed. We combine several data sources in our case research to explore project implementation through an understanding of means-ends decoupling work. We collected in-depth interviews, archival records and field observations within the R&D research setting of an industrial R&D project in the period of 2015 to 2017. Our findings identify three types of means-ends decoupling work in R&D project implementation: ‘work on’ causal complexity, ‘work at’ behavioural invisibility, and ‘work with’ practice multiplicity. In addition, we uncover six dynamic micro-mechanisms that collectively influence the making and nature of means-ends decoupling work and therefore serve to allow for the fluid switching of work as the institutional conditions permit. Overall, our findings have significant implications for understanding means-ends decoupling as a highly skilled network competence for managing R&D project implementation goals.

Introduction

Industrial research and development (R&D) projects are intentionally created business networks. Such networks are defined as goal-oriented, value-creating systems (Matinheikki, Artto, Peltokorpi, & Rajala, 2016; Medlin & Törnroos, 2014; Möller & Rajala, 2007). These business networks require managers to mobilize or influence a wide range of industrial R&D actors through relationships to achieve goals (Aarikka-Stenroos, Jaakkola, Harrison, & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, 2017; Mouzas & Naudé, ۲۰۰۷). However, industrial R&D projects often require multi-sectoral collaboration (Raapersad, Quester, & Troshani, 2010), or involve public and private actors (e.g., Reypens, Lievens, & Blazevic, 2016). Furthermore, an array of R&D market institutions also shape R&D project collaboration, including funding authorities (Perkmann et al., 2013); environmental authorities (Ngugi, Johnsen, & Erdelyi, 2010), as well as project sponsors (Raasch & Hippel, 2013). While the involvement of diverse networks is essential for R&D activity, this also complicates management in terms of different goals, interests and pressures in project implementation (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017; Baraldi & Strömsten, 2009; Matinheikki et al., 2016; Möller & Rajala, 2007; Munksgaard & Medlin, 2014). The management of goals is a key network function (Järvensivu & Möller, 2009). Industrial marketing studies show that the nature of relationship (e.g. asymmetric) and also the status and position within of networks (e.g. centralised hub firms) shape industrial business goals (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017; Matinheikki et al., 2016; Medlin & Törnroos, 2014). Other extant research points to the influence of implementation on business goals; this is, different actors can implement work in different ways or differently to that which advocates had designed or intended (Leischnig, Ivens, Niersbach, & Pardo, 2017; Rapert, Velliquette, & Garretson, 2002).