Appendix

Appendix B: Criteria for selecting ITOL projects to visit and interview

Since it was not possible for the research team to visit all of the 67 ITOL projects, a set of criteria was developed and used for choosing projects for the in-depth interviews. These selection criteria, drawn out of ITOL's guidelines for grant applications, are set out below:

Selection Criteria and Indicators

1. Innovation

Degree to which the project is implementing a unique approach
Degree to which the project would lead to increased industry competitiveness
Degree to which the project serves as a model for possible replication by other groups

2. E-commerce Criteria

Business model
Project type:
Degree to which the project will help improve industry awareness and adoption of particular online b2b solutions/technology by SMEs

3. Collaboration Experience

Number of consortium members
Composition of consortium (with or without industry association support; IT involvement; educational institution involvement; sectoral involvement)

4. Measurable Community Benefits

Industry/National significance
Target beneficiary/end-user type
Community involvement

5. Scale and diversity

Regional Focus
Proportion of Grant Size to Total Cost
Geographic Spread

Each project was assigned a score (from 1 to 3 or low to high) using this five point selection criteria. The total score for each project was then used to rank the projects in priority order. This was then used to draw a short list that cuts across the entire range of project categories and included a sampling from each Funding Round. The 27 projects for which interviews were conducted range from those that have been highly successful to those that barely met their original goals.

Appendix C: List of ITOL projects surveyed and/or visited

PDF Download PDF version (9kb)

Appendix D: Project categories

Grant Size

Lower range - $ 50,000 or less
Mid range - $ 51,000 to $100,000
Upper range - $ 101,000 to $150,000

Proportion of Grant to Total Project Cost

Less than 20%
21% to 40%
41% to 50% or more

Size of Consortium: Number of Partners in Consortium

3 or less
4 to 6
7 to 9
10 to 20
20

Scope of Collaboration

Metropolitan only - Partners based in capital city/cities
Non-metropolitan only - Partners based outside capital city
Both metro and non-metro
Global - With links to partners outside Australia

Sectoral Affiliation of Partners in Consortium (in addition to IT partner)

Single sector - Partners belong to same sector
Multisectoral - Partners belong to more than two sectors

Private vs. Public

Private
Private & Public

Focus of E-commerce Activities

Regional - beneficiaries based in non-metropolitan areas only
National - beneficiaries based in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas
Global - beneficiaries include those outside Australia

Target Beneficiaries

General Public
Association Members
Multi-industry
Industry-specific
Regional Community
Others

Appendix E: Detailed survey results

Note: Some questions (indicated with an *) allowed multiple answers

(Figures in Percentage; n = 35)

A. Nature of Collaboration

Table E1: Consortium members as competitors

Are any of the members of your consortium also competitors?
Yes	29.4
No	70.6

Table E2: Composition of consortium*

		Did your consortium include:				Yes			No
		Industry association				62.9			31.4
		Educational institution				31.4			51.4
		Government agency				42.9			48.6
		Technology provider				82.9			14.3
		Business enterprise				77.1			14.3
		Standards provider				11.4			65.7
		Consumer group				11.4			68.6
		Other				11.4			65.7
Table E3: Current status of project implementation
		What is the current status of project implementation?
		Just started (1- 4 months)				8.6
		Ongoing (> than 4 months)				40.0
		Nearing completion				17.1
		Completed				34.3
		Unable to complete				0.0
Table E4: Initiator of collaboration
		Who initiated collaboration?
		Principal grant recipient (PGR)				80
		Facilitator (not PGR)				20
		Other ______________				0
	Table E5: How partners became involved in consortium
		How did the consortium partners become involved in the project?
		Facilitator solicited support				45.7
		Worked together before				20.0
		Both 1 and 2				20.0
		Other				14.3
Table E6: Scope of project collaboration
		What was the scope of collaboration for the project?
		Metropolitan only (partners based in capital city)				34.5
		Non-metropolitan only (partners based outside capital city)				8.6
		Both metropolitan and non-metropolitan				54.0
		Global (with links to partners outside Australia)				2.9
Table E7: Motives for establishing consortium*
		Rank the following motives according to how important these were as your reasons for establishing your consortium:		N/A			Minor			Major
		To develop new products/services		14.3			14.3			71.4
		To increase credibility		17.1			25.7			57.1
		To enrich organisational ability and learning		5.7			42.9			48.6
		To facilitate regional or international expansion		20.0			34.3			42.9
		To implement industry standards		31.4			31.4			37.1
		To gain access to labour and expertise		17.1			42.9			34.3
		To gain access to capital/funds		31.4			34.3			34.3
		To share R & D costs		28.6			34.3			34.3
		To gain presence in new markets		31.4			31.4			34.3
		To transfer complementary technology		31.4			31.4			31.4
		To have economies of scale		31.4			31.4			31.4
		To conform to ITOL requirements		37.1			28.6			31.4
		Other		71.4			8.6			20.0
		To effectively compete against a common competitor		77.1			2.9			17.1
		To spread project risk across more than one firm		42.9			40.0			14.3
Table E8: Change to consortium composition
		Did the composition of your consortium change during the course of the project?
		Yes				40
		No				60
Table E9: Nature of consortium change
		In what way did the consortium change?
		New partners joined				8.6
		Some partners withdrew support				22.9
		Both				8.6
		N/A				60.0
Table E10: What happened to consortium afterwards?
		For completed projects, what happened to the consortium afterwards?
		Kept on working together on same / other projects				48.6
		Lost contact due to other commitments				0
		Disbanded due to (reason)				5.7
		Other				8.6
		Not Applicable				37.1
Table E11: Basis of collaboration
		What was the basis of your collaboration?
		An informal / non-legal agreement				60.0
		A formal / legal contract				40.0
Table E12: Changes to basis of collaboration
		Did the basis of collaboration change during the life of the project?
		No				64.7
		Yes				35.3
Table E13: Steps taken to strengthen partnership*
		What pragmatic steps did you take to strengthen your partnership?	Yes		No			N/A
		Identified partners who are truly committed	80.0		14.3			5.7
		Established clear written agreements delineating roles and responsibilities	31.4		62.9			5.7
		Communicated with project partners on a regular basis (emails, newsletters, phone)	85.7		11.4			2.9
		Conducted regular face-to-face meetings	65.7		31.4			2.9
		Other	20.0		60.0			20.0
Table E14: Clarification of roles, responsibilities and benefits
		To what extent did the consortium document processes so that each partner was clear about its roles, responsibilities, and benefits?
		Very well				25.7
		Good				48.6
		Not at all				17.1
*B. Achievements, Obstacles and Outcomes* Table E15: Location of target beneficiaries
		Where are your target beneficiaries located?
		Metropolitan only (beneficiaries based in capital city)				2.9
		Non-metropolitan only (beneficiaries based outside capital city)				20
		Both metropolitan and non-metropolitan				77.1
Table E16: Influence of location on e-commerce take up
		Did location have any influence on the take up rate of e-commerce technologies into your targeted beneficiaries or industry sectors?
		Major, Positive Influence				14.3
		No Influence				28.6
		Major, Negative Influence				0
		Minor, Positive Influence				20.0
		Minor, Negative Influence				20.0
		N/A				17.1
Table E17: Unforeseen challenges
		Did your consortium encounter any unforeseen challenges during the course of project implementation?
		No				14.3
		Yes				82.9
Table E18: Extent project goals were achieved
		To what extent has the consortium met project goals and achieved desired outcomes?
		Barely met original goals				17.1
		Satisfactorily met desired outcomes				62.9
		Exceeded original objectives				11.4
Table E19: Extent milestones were met
		To what extent was the project able to meet most of its project milestones?
		With significant delays				51.4
		As planned				31.4
		Ahead of schedule				8.6
Table E20: Effect of having a consortium
		What has been the effect of having the project run by a consortium rather than by a single company organisation?
		Positive (Project outcomes were achieved mainly due to consortium's efforts/contributions.)				68.6
		No effect (Project could have easily been implemented with or without a consortium.)