Section 5: Research Results

In this section, we summarise the results of the survey conducted in which the project managers of all 67 projects funded from Rounds 1 to 5 were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the background of their project, the nature of their collaboration, their project achievements, obstacles and outcomes, and their comments on NOIE's support. Of the total, 52% (n = 35; See Appendix C for list) responded to our survey, the results of which are presented in detail in Appendix E.

5.1 Background of projects funded

The survey was conducted from August to October 2001, at which time most projects given grants under Round 5 of the ITOL program had just started. Of the 35 projects who responded to the survey, 40% have been ongoing for more than 4 months, 34% had been completed while 17% were nearing completion. Three projects that were started during the first two funding rounds were still ongoing at the time of the research.

5.2 Nature of collaboration

Many of the consortiums included members who were business enterprises, technology providers, and industry associations. In most (80%) of the projects surveyed, collaboration for the project was initiated by the principal grant recipient. In a number of cases (20%), the consortium partners had worked together before. Partners were generally (54%) based in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, (sometimes in multiple states). There were nine project whose consortium members were based in metropolitan areas only, three projects with consortium members based in non-metropolitan areas and only one project surveyed that had a global scope or links to partners outside Australia.

The notion of "co-opetition" (as discussed in Section 3.1) was brought to life in 30% of the projects surveyed where members of the consortium were collaborating with their competitors. The primary contribution of project partners was in the form of 'knowledge and expertise' with most of the principal grant recipients providing project management support.

Survey respondents were asked to cite their motives for establishing their project consortium, the results of which are summarised below and shown in Figure 3:

• to develop new products or services (71%)
• to increase credibility (57%)
• to enrich organisational ability and learning (49%)
• to facilitate regional or international expansion (43%)
• to implement industry standards (37%).

These findings support Yeshekel et al.'s (2001) theoretical explanations for entering strategic alliances: to create synergistic and competitive advantages by expanding an organisation's resources base; and to build an organisation's skills and capacities through acquisition of specialised and vital knowledge from other organisations.

In 40% of the projects surveyed, the composition of the consortium changed during the course of the project, with 58% of this group saying some partners withdrew support (albeit at different stages of project implementation). But among those whose projects were completed already at the time of the survey, most said some, if not all, partners within their consortium kept on working together even after the ITOL funding period concluded - some continued working on the same project while others began new projects.

60% of the projects had informal or non-legal agreements as the bases of their collaboration with the rest saying they had a formal or legal contract signed by all consortium partners. This arrangement did not change for most (65%) as the project progressed. There were a few cases, however, where an informal agreement was changed to a formal agreement.

Figure 4 shows the proportion of respondents citing the pragmatic steps they took to strengthen their partnership:

However, as shown in Figure 4 only 31% of respondents said they established clear written agreements delineating each partner's roles and responsibilities. Only 26% said they documented processes very well.

This despite recent evidence (as discussed in Section 3.4) identifying the 'precise outline of performance expectations, goals, responsibilities and rights' as the most established critical success factor in strategic alliances. The consequences of this oversight are reflected in the interview results discussed in Sections 6 and 7. [Realising that this is critical to the success of any e-business collaboration, the ITOL program has formalised this as a requirement from Round 6. ITOL now requires each major consortium partner to sign a declaration of his or her commitment to the project. Consortium partners also have to clearly specify in their proposal the nature of any agreements between members of the consortium, including management of any resulting intellectual property.]

5.3 Achievements, obstacles and outcomes

With most (77%) of the surveyed projects, the target beneficiaries were located in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. In 46%, location did not have any influence on the take up rate of e-commerce technologies into their targeted beneficiaries or industry sectors. Nevertheless, a third said location had some positive influence on the e-commerce take up rate, while 20% said it had a minor, negative influence.

The research showed that the majority of all analysed ITOL collaborative projects could be regarded as successful. In detail this can be translated as follows:

• 63% of the projects surveyed said their consortium satisfactorily achieved desired outcomes with a further 12% saying they exceeded their original objectives. This is shown in Figure 6.
• Of the 12 projects that had already been completed at the time the survey was conducted, most said their consortium members kept on working together on the same or other projects even though the official grant period had already ended.
• 69% said project outcomes were better achieved due to the combined efforts and contributions of the different consortium members. Only 17% said the project could have easily been implemented with or without a consortium. On the other hand, 6% said project implementation was made more difficult because of problems with partners, or it would have been easier to implement the project as a single organisation rather than as a consortium.

While every effort was made by the researchers to solicit the support of all ITOL grant recipients, there was general reluctance on the part of the more problematic projects to participate in the research. Of the 35 who returned the survey questionnaire, 17% were candid enough to admit that they 'barely met original goals', but with a qualifying statement from two that their project had just started.

The majority (83%) said their consortium uncovered unforeseen challenges during the course of project implementation, which included: technological problems; delays in legal agreements; slowness of industry and/or project beneficiaries to respond to the e-commerce initiative; and an underestimation of the time and effort required. These problems notwithstanding, majority (63% of the projects surveyed) said their consortium satisfactorily achieved desired outcomes with a further 12% saying they exceeded their original objectives.

Although most survey respondents identified 'operational problems' alongside 'technology' problems as having most influenced the outcome of their ITOL project, the in depth interviews revealed 'change management' and 'relationship' issues as more crucial determinants to the success of e-commerce collaboration. Although still posing some concerns, those relating to 'standards development' were regarded as not as crucial as the other problem categories.

49% of the respondents said they did not experience significant delays in implementing their projects. Those whose projects were delayed said this was due to:

• an underestimation of the amount of effort and time required (57%)
• lack of funding and resources for project management (47%)
• underestimated awareness-raising and training required (46%)
• lack of time to devote to project due to heavy workloads (43%)
• lack of interest on the part of target beneficiaries, that is, e-commerce was seen as a low priority (37%)
• lack of commitment and follow-through on the part of consortium partners (34%)
• resistance to innovation by end-users or target beneficiaries (31%).

These results are shown in Figure 7.

As already presented in Table 1 (Section 2), the majority of the respondents characterised e-commerce in terms of the 'Internet' (86%) and 'application-to-application solutions' (77%). To a lesser degree, the concept of e-commerce was also equated with notions of 'standards/interoperability' (63%); 'interorganisational systems' (60%); and 'web design' (57%).  Other definitions cited include: "business re-engineering" and "e-business technologies". This is shown in Figure 8.

The majority (71.4%) said e-commerce will be 'critical' in their industry over the next three years with the rest saying it will be 'important'. When asked to assess their project's impact in increasing awareness of e-commerce and in accelerating e-commerce adoption, the majority said their project has had a major impact on their target beneficiaries, consortium members and industry sector.

Most of the survey respondents indicated that they plan to continue (or have already proceeded with) the project beyond the ITOL grant period. Many will seek additional funding from ITOL or from other sources so that they can fully commercialise the technology pilot-tested and/or expand implementation to other geographical or regional clusters.

For most of the portal projects, the plan is to provide full online e-commerce capabilities (e.g. online ordering and payment). However, many of the survey respondents have noted that funding constraints may limit full realisation of future plans for their projects. There is also some suggestion by some project teams that they might modify their project management structure to accommodate funding and personnel constraints.

5.4 Comments on NOIE support

Majority of the survey respondents provided very positive feedback on NOIE's support. When asked to comment on the process of applying for and getting the ITOL grant, most (63%) said it was 'as expected', 34% said it was 'surprisingly easy' and only one respondent found it 'more difficult than expected'. The same trend was observed in response to the question of how the ITOL grant recipients found the process of accounting for the grant and reporting on project status: 86% said it was 'as expected'; 11% said it was 'surprisingly easy'; and only 3% said it was 'more difficult than expected'.

The majority (60%) said they did not receive funding support from any other government organisation besides NOIE. However, 40% said that in addition to the NOIE grant, they received support through government funding programs such as Networking the Nation, COMET, DOTARS, etc. The respondents were unanimous in saying the ITOL grant has been 'very valuable' to their project. The following remarks by different project managers exemplify this view:

I found they provided a terrific balance of support and freedom. The accountability requirements were both thorough and reasonable. Staff were supportive, but not intrusive (Interview, 2001).

NOIE funding and participation creates a level of "credibility" for the project which assists in the raising of awareness and support among target beneficiaries (Interview, 2001).

The ITOL project is very beneficial to the Australian economy and should be continued (Interview, 2001).

To add more substance to the survey findings, the results of interviews conducted will be discussed next.