There are two prominent theories in literature attempting to explain interests of multiple parties involved in a given project; i. Agency theory (1) and ii. Procedural justice theory. Agency theory explains that multiple parties involved in a new project, may have different interests. Procedural justice theory explains the process of decision making and how it may affect the relationship among the various parties involved when they have diverse interests (2).

Collaborative research projects are becoming increasingly important due to realization of need for people with complimentary skills to interact in order to increase efficiency and ease of communication. National Science Foundation's (NSF) ‘partnership-for-innovation grant' and National Institute of Health's (NIH) ‘glue grant' are two such examples. However over 50% collaborative research projects result into failure (3).

This paper discusses a cognitive approach using fundamentals of procedural justice theory wherein the success probability of collaborative research & development projects can be increased. A framework is proposed involving chemical and biochemical technology projects when parties involved are academia, business entity and/or government institute. Various historical as well as policy factors such as the Bayh-dole act are discussed.

Some of the stages identified in the framework are; project scope development and understanding expectations of each party involved, establishing appropriate communication channels, understanding expectations of other party, acceptance of responsibility augmented by constructive suggestions from other parties among others. A step-by-step analysis of a project and actions to be taken at each of the stages is proposed.

References: 1. Eisenhardt, Kathleen, ‘Agency theory: an assessment and review'. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57-74, 1989 2. Lind E.A. & Tyler T., The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum, 1988 3. Doz Y., The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning processes?, Strategic Management Journal, 17: 55-83 1996