collaboration workshop draft report - department of · web viewthe karpin review of...

Fourth Academics' Workshop Report11 June 2014 - Promoting Productive Industry-Research Collaboration

Content

s

Background.......................................................................................................................... 3

Overview.............................................................................................................................. 3

Workshop Program..............................................................................................................4

Opening Presentations.........................................................................................................6

Welcome – Dr Rob Porteous ...........................................................................................6

Keynote address – Anne-Marie Lansdown.......................................................................6

Session 1: ‘Where are we today? Barriers and Opportunities’.............................................8

Professor Rachel Parker, Queensland University of Technology......................................8

Dr Jonathan Staggs, Dr Anna Stephens, & Professor Mark Dodgson, University of Queensland.................................................................................................................... 11

Dr David Ireland, CSIRO..................................................................................................13

Dr Alastair Hick, Monash University...............................................................................14

Dr John D Bell, FTSE, ACIL Allen Consulting....................................................................16

Session 2: ‘Australian Success Stories’................................................................................17

Scientia Professor Veena Sahajwalla, University of New South Wales...........................17

Dr Howard Leemon, UniQuest.......................................................................................19

Dr Phil Robertson, NICTA................................................................................................20

Hamish Hawthorn, ATP Innovations...............................................................................21

Dr Sarah Pearson, ANU Enterprise.................................................................................23

Session 3: ‘Where do we need to be and how do we get there?’......................................25

Professor Nicky Solomon, University of Technology Sydney..........................................25

Dr Kevin Cullen, NewSouth Innovations.........................................................................25

Ash Salardini, NSW Business Chamber...........................................................................30

Group and Round Table Discussions: Recommendations for Policy...................................32

University-industry pathways.........................................................................................32

Learning from international experience.........................................................................32

Linking research and industry.........................................................................................32

Industry-research brokers..............................................................................................33

Work integrated learning (WIL)......................................................................................33

Way Forward......................................................................................................................33

of 37

Appendix: List of the Workshop Participants.....................................................................35

Background

The Workshop on 11 June 2014 held at the Crawford School (ANU, Canberra) was the fourth Innovation Academics’ Workshop hosted by the Department over the last two years. These workshops have provided a collaborative environment for innovation experts and government officials to come together and build stronger and more productive relationships, helping to:

encourage better researcher-government engagement; provide opportunities for researchers to inform policy; and provide signals to the research community of innovation policy research needs.

Overview

The Innovation Academics’ Workshop held on 11 June 2014 was titled ‘Promoting Productive Industry-Research Collaboration’. The theme was chosen in response to the government’s agenda of increasing Australia’s productivity through more effective translation of research, as well as to the feedback provided by the participants of the 2013 Academics Workshop who wanted to see more discussion on research meeting industry needs.

The workshop brought together over 50 participants - academics from 14 universities, business people, and public servants from a number of Commonwealth departments - the Department of Industry, the Department of Education and IP Australia.

The Workshop featured fourteen presentations followed by discussion centred around the barriers to successful industry-researcher collaboration, and the critical ingredients of success stories. In light of the lessons from Australia as well as other countries, the participants discussed what the government, universities and businesses can do to promote productive industry-research collaboration.

The following sections include brief summaries of the presentations, key issues addressed in group and round table discussions, and recommendations for policy suggested by the participants. The participants’ feedback indicates that such workshops are viewed as being a valuable component in government-researcher dialogue to be continued into the future.

of 37

Workshop Program

Time slot Activity

8.15-8.45 Registration, tea & coffee

8.45-9.00 Opening: Welcome – Dr Rob Porteous (Department of Industry), and Keynote Speech – Anne-Marie Lansdown (Universities Australia)

9.00-10.45 Session 1: Short presentations, followed by round table discussion

Where are we today? Barriers and opportunities

Prof Rachel Parker (QUT) – Institutional and Behavioural Barriers to University-Industry Research Collaboration

Dr Jonathan Staggs, Dr Anna Stephens, & Prof Mark Dodgson (UQ) – The factors and the actors that have both enabled and constrained research-industry collaboration

Dr David Ireland (CSIRO) – CSIRO: Designing globally successful industry-research partnerships

Dr Alastair Hick (Monash University) – UK initiatives in knowledge transfer: What can we learn for Australia?

Dr John Bell (FTSE) – Industry-research cooperation: What can be done to increase it?

10.45-11.00 Morning tea

11.00-12.45 Session 2: Short presentations, followed by round table discussion

Australian Success Stories

Prof Veena Sahajwalla (SMaRT@UNSW) – Green Materials – A successful example of industry-research collaboration

Dr Howard Leemon (UniQuest) – Collaboration in the Sewers: The SCORe Project

Dr Phil Robertson (NICTA) – NICTA's model for industry-university research engagement

Mr Hamish Hawthorn (ATP Innovations) – Business incubation as a cornerstone of the commercialisation ecosystem: Lessons from ATP Innovations

Dr Sarah Pearson (ANU Enterprise) – Collaborative, Innovative, Proactive: Operating at the interface of research, policy and practice

12.45-13.30 Lunch

of 37

Time slot Activity

13.30-15.00 Session 3: Group discussion

Where do we need to be and how do we get there?

Prof Nicky Solomon (UTS) – Work Integrated Learning: The UTS node on the ATN Industry Doctoral Training Centre

Dr Kevin Cullen (New South Innovations) – Encouraging and measuring university-industry engagement and knowledge exchange

Mr Ash Salardini (NSW Business Chamber) – Stakeholder insights: Practical approaches to effective industry-university collaboration

15.00-15.15 Afternoon tea

15.15-16.30 Session 4: Group discussion (continued) and Recommendations

Where do we need to be and how do we get there? Recommendations for policy making

16.30-16.45 Close

of 37

Opening Presentations

Welcome – Dr Rob Porteous

In his welcome to the workshop participants, Dr Rob Porteous, Head of the former Science, Research and Innovation Division at the Department of Industry, highlighted the significance of university-industry linkages in the current challenging socio-economic environment due to both global challenges and domestic fiscal constraints. Promoting research and facilitating its impact is an area of focus for government and universities, and productive industry-research collaboration is an important vehicle for achieving this. It is important that research addresses social, economic and industry issues with collaboration throughout the process, including during the definition of the problem. Whereas the ARC’s ERA assessment process is critical to ensuring Australia’s international ranking in academic output, the current funding model does not encourage collaboration, and so exploration of complementary models would be appropriate.

Keynote address – Anne-Marie Lansdown

Key Points:

Continuity of government support for university research critical Strong demand for a cost/benefit analysis that shows immediate returns on

government investment Growing evidence of the importance of business-research partnerships to successful

innovation Complexity of university-business relationships, not limited to IP Success of programs supporting researchers working with businesses Need for Australia to develop and maintain a world class research base to meet the

challenge of accelerating investment by our Asian neighbours and our traditional competitors

Anne-Marie Lansdown, the Policy Director for Research and Innovation at Universities Australia, made a keynote presentation, highlighting the importance of continuity of government support for and funding of university research. She said that as a community, we have understood the need for innovation policy but have consistently grappled with program design, continuity of funding, and more importantly the lack of a systemic understanding of the elements of a well-functioning science, research and innovation policy.

The positive economic and societal impacts of research generally need to be more widely discussed, particularly when we are in an environment where there is little apparent awareness of research timeframes and less preparedness to commit to ’patient capital’. The demand for a cost/benefit analysis that shows immediate returns on government investment is very strong.

The Karpin review of entrepreneurial skills from the 1990s still has resonance today. The 2000 National Innovation Summit (NIS), which resulted in the Backing Australia’s Ability packages, provided an opportunity to look at the respective parts of the Australian system and resulted in a massive injection of funds.

of 37

The evidence of the importance of business-research partnerships to successful innovation has grown steadily. However, Australian firms have the lowest incidence of collaboration with higher education and public researchers in the OECD and Australian firms are the third lowest collaborators for innovation in the OECD.

There will be important opportunities for stakeholders to highlight the insight that now exists in the researcher/business community about how these interactions and arrangements are best supported by government.

This will need to broaden the very transactional view that appears to be prevailing in some circles, with a business just looking to researchers to assist in development of a product, and IP being the critical issue. While not dismissing the importance of IP, these views miss the nuancing of the complexity of the development and maintenance of these links.

With an eye on both our culture and our industrial structure, possibilities need to be considered. Through the work of the participants in this workshop, and the work of others such as the Australian Council of Learned Academies and the Chief Scientist, we know what many of the solutions look like. The success of the Commonwealth programs which support researchers working with businesses has been acknowledged. There are also examples of policy action being undertaken by other countries that should be considered – for instance, such high performing OECD countries as Finland, Denmark and Sweden have a significantly higher level of researchers in business.

In the light of accelerating investment by our Asian neighbours and our traditional competitors, Australia could be close to the proverbial ‘tipping point’ where our lack of investment demands a process on the scale of the NIS to redefine the system and its balance.

The ideas highlighted at of the 2000 National Innovation Summit still have relevance today. Australia’s future depends on investing wisely today in the foundations of economic competitiveness. Increasingly that competitiveness rests on the ability to develop and utilise new ideas and technology. To be successful, Australia will need a world class research base, easy pathways for the commercialisation of new ideas and good access to the latest ideas and technology. Equally importantly we need a culture where innovation is actively pursued and encouraged in all businesses and in every research establishment.

of 37

Session 1: ‘Where are we today? Barriers and Opportunities’

Professor Rachel Parker, Queensland University of Technology

Institutional and Behavioural Barriers to University-Industry Research Collaboration: Co-production as a specific form of University-industry research engagement

Key Points:

Institutional factors: discouraging genuine co-production of knowledge between universities and business:

ERA creates a disincentive for academics to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries or with end-users, and

Increasingly competitive funding environment encourages universities to engage with industry for funding purposes, whereas genuine co-production is about how knowledge is created and how research problems are defined

The way forward: research impact assessment to supplement the ERA

Difficulties with both models of research impact assessment currently proposed: (1) a case study approach involves difficulty of dissecting the contribution of a particular research program to a social or economic outcome; also the time lag involved renders it a historical exercise; (2) a metrics approach would encourage academics to engage with industry for funding purposes only, and may also discourage universities from pursuing high risk radical research.

Alternative approach: universities articulating their mission for research impact in which they would need to demonstrate they value engagement between academics from different disciplinary backgrounds and with innovation actors throughout society and the business system both nationally and internationally

The purpose of university-industry research collaboration is to ensure the ‘relevance’ of academic research. The problem of ‘relevance’ is sometimes conceptualised as a knowledge-transfer problem, in which academic researchers fail to communicate their findings in languages or forums which are readily accessible by those outside of academia. That implies that the ‘relevance’ of university research is something that can be managed at the end of the research process. However, innovation researchers have shown that relevance is achieved through the co-production of knowledge involving engagement across academic fields and with end-users throughout the research process (Van de Ven 2007). However, knowledge co-production is time-consuming and requires academics to value industry knowledge in the research process.

The institutional and behavioural barriers to genuine co-production

Several institutional factors discourage the kinds of attitudes and behaviours necessary for genuine co-production. These institutional pressures are translated into behavioural responses through University performance systems.

of 37

1. The Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) initiative evaluates the quality of University research outputs either through citation counts or in some disciplines through a process of peer review. The quality measure is essentially the extent to which the research is valued by academic communities. Currently, research impact (beyond academic communities) is not part of the evaluation framework. Research evaluation exercises have been shown to create a strong disincentive for academics to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries or with end-users (given that interdisciplinary research and end-user applied research is given less value within academic communities). This creates a challenge for the longer term relevance of university research in Australia which will become increasingly oriented towards academic measures of excellence.

2. The research funding environment is becoming more competitive and universities are therefore giving greater attention to the attraction of commercial funding. This is creating pressure for academics to engage with industry (for funding purposes). Industry funded research is a very narrow proxy for actual industry engagement (or co-production as explained above). The fact that industry has funded a project does not mean it is engaged in the research associated with that project. In fact, genuine co-production can occur in the absence of industry funding because it is not about who pays, it is about how knowledge is created and how research problems are defined. As a consequence, academics are increasingly engaged with industry for funding rather than for knowledge generation. Evidence suggests that within industry-university research collaborations, academic and industry partners bring an assumption that it is not the role of industry partners to contribute to knowledge generation (McCabe and Parker 2012).

New institutional arrangements (or policy settings) are required to encourage co-production of knowledge across disciplinary boundaries and with end-users. This is necessary to ensure publicly funded research and research training address critical social and economic problems and are impactful beyond academic communities.

The way forward: encouraging University-Industry research collaboration through a research impact assessment exercise

In order for universities to encourage genuine co-production of knowledge involving academics from a range of disciplines engaging throughout the research process with end-users of knowledge, we need a research impact assessment exercise to supplement the ERA exercise. For the exercise to change behaviours it would need to have consequences for University research block funding.

Co-production is necessary to achieve relevance. Genuine co-production does not necessarily result in higher levels of industry funded research and development expenditure. Evidence from the OECD suggests that only around 5-6 percent of higher education research expenditures across the advanced economies are funded by industry and that is also true for Australia. However, university-industry research collaboration is essential to ensure that publicly funded research is relevant to industrial, social and economic problems.

There are difficulties in both models of research impact assessment currently proposed in policy debate. The first is a case study approach in which universities submit narrative accounts of how their research has resulted in significant social, health, environmental or

of 37

economic outcomes. The second is a metrics approach focused on ‘pathways to impact’ (such as the graduation of higher degree research students, commercial research income or licensing/patents).

Both approaches have limitations. In relation to the case study approach, a key limitation is the difficulty of dissecting the contribution of a particular research program to a social or economic outcome where the outcome is often a result of inputs from a large number of researchers and end-users throughout the innovation system both within universities and beyond. In addition, the time-lag from high risk research to impact is often decades such that universities would need to be discussing the impact of research involving researchers employed decades earlier, many of whom would have left the organisation. A case study approach would amount to a historical exercise and would not provide a good indication of the likely impact of current research agendas.

A metrics approach also has limitations as one of the key measures it would inevitably focus on is the level of commercial research income in a University’s research funding profile. This would encourage academics to engage with industry for funding purposes only and it would encourage universities to copy the types of research undertaken currently by private sector organisations. There is a danger that public funding of research would increasingly be directed to private gains. It also means that Universities might be discouraged from pursuing high risk radical research which has fuelled many of the most fundamental technological advances.

Alternative approach

An alternative approach would focus on Universities articulating their mission for research impact in which they would need to demonstrate that they value and support engagement between academics from different disciplinary backgrounds and with innovation actors throughout society and the business system both nationally and internationally. If University’s adopt research co-production as part of their mission, then they will have the elements in place to achieve demonstrable future economic and social outcomes from their research activities.

of 37

Dr Jonathan Staggs, Dr Anna Stephens, & Professor Mark Dodgson, University of Queensland

The factors and the actors that have both enabled and constrained research-industry collaboration

Key Points:

Cluster ecosystems consisting of small firms, corporations, research institutes, and innovation intermediaries offer a way to address present day challenges of funding and business-research collaboration.

Five principles to help guide the development of innovation policy and for cluster participants to more effectively reach their goals:

1. Leadership

2. Time for ecosystems to evolve

3. Broad-base of innovation actors

4. Evaluation, and

5. Learning (including learning how to cluster).

Cluster ecosystems

Today’s research and business leaders are confronted by complex challenges. Companies facing immediate and complicated innovation problems are seeking to engage with universities in ways very different from the past. Changing funding conditions also mean that universities require fundamentally different strategies for how they engage with business. One of the main areas we can begin to address these challenges are in cluster ecosystems, consisting of small firms, corporations, research institutes, and innovation intermediaries. We have only begun to understand the growth trajectory of cluster ecosystems in Queensland and Victoria and how these may lead to positive economic outcomes such as growth in employment and exports, and increases in productivity.

Five principles

We offer five principles to help guide the development of innovation policy and for cluster participants to more effectively reach their goals.

Leadership

Cluster ecosystems rise and fall on the convictions and vision of leaders who can overcome political obstacles in pursuit of a culture of innovation. We observe the significant influence of political leaders (including those in opposition) who have shaped public policy support for university and industry collaboration. We also observed leadership in research through the establishment of intellectual infrastructures that inspires leadership from the bench, and that provides material support for talented and visionary researchers. Leadership in business, through civic or industry associations, was also vital. Bottom-up, industry led initiatives played an important role in the development of a collaborative ethos and a shared cluster identity.

of 37

Time

Cluster ecosystems take time to evolve, and a degree of stability, consistency, and patience is required. Staged and patient capital is vital in bridging the long-term orientation of university research with the short-term profit imperatives of business. Patience also enables the ‘right type’ of human capital to be recruited. Finally, innovation capabilities and trust develop through productive and repeated interactions over time; hence the capacity to work together also takes time to fully mature. On the other hand, we also observe the importance of timeliness with respect to quick decision-making and responsiveness to opportunities that present themselves.

Broad-base of innovation actors

Cluster ecosystems require a variety of innovation actors to function optimally. These actors include SMEs, MNCs, government, researchers, innovation intermediaries, and a mix of occupations. Getting this mix right is important, as is having boundary spanners who can speak multiple ‘languages’ and operate on multiple levels of governance. Further, the relative importance of different innovation actors may change at different stages of cluster development, meaning that at certain times there is a need to ‘pass the baton’.

Evaluation

A regular and a proactive stance to evaluation is imperative if institutional barriers between industry and universities are to be overcome. There are benefits, for example, to have researchers operating on a “knife-edge”- to receive feedback about performance, including collaboration patterns, and to make adjustments when and where necessary. We argue that evaluation can also contribute to the reflexive learning processes driving the ongoing development of the cluster ecosystem.

Learning

Is typically framed as a consequence or outcome of successful clusters, but it is also essential in the development of clusters in the first place. Specifically, before firms and organisations can benefit from inter-organizational learning in clusters, they must first learn how to cluster. The latter involves the reflexive learning and strategic actions that contribute to the building of the relationships, resources and practices necessary for successful clusters.

of 37

Dr David Ireland, CSIRO

Designing Globally Successful Industry-Research Partnerships

Key Points:

CSIRO works on building globally successful industry-research partnerships through:

ensuring that CSIRO’s research strengths align with the needs of Australia’s industry ensuring that each relationship has a clear purpose and that the relationship

governance structures are designed to support that purpose developing a range of partnership models to cater to the needs and capabilities of

diverse industry partners

In delivering on our role as the nation’s large scale, multi-disciplinary, mission-directed science and technology organisation we act as a trusted advisor to the nation and ensure scientific preparedness through maintaining deep research capabilities.1 Critically we provide deep connections across the innovation system and help Australia gain access to global knowledge. This presentation will focus on how we manage those connections with industry and how we build globally successful industry-research partnerships.2

To build and manage successful industry relationships we recognise:

The importance of ensuring that CSIRO’s research strengths align with the needs of Australia’s industry.3

The importance of ensuring that each relationship has a clear purpose and that the agreements and relationship governance structures are designed to support that purpose.4

That there are considerable differences between the needs and capabilities of potential industry partners. This is particularly important for SMEs who do not necessarily have the structures or capacity to absorb and use traditional research outputs. Consequently, we have developed a range of partnership models to facilitate a variety of interactions.5

1 ‘CSIRO Strategic Plan 2011–15’- (http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Strategy/CSIRO-Strategy-2011-2015.aspx)2 ‘Working hand in hand with industry’- (http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner/Industry.aspx)3 ‘CSIRO Executive Team Science, Strategy, Investment and Impact (SICOM) Committee Charter’ (http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Who-we-are/Executive/Executive-Team/Executive-Team-SSII-Committee-Charter.aspx)4 ‘Our approach to partnering and co-investment’ - (http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner/Collaborate/Our-approach-to-partnering-and-co-investment.aspx)5 ‘Partner with CSIRO’ - (http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner.aspx)

of 37

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner/Collaborate/Our-approach-to-partnering-and-co-investment.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Who-we-are/Executive/Executive-Team/Executive-Team-SSII-Committee-Charter.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Partner/Industry.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Strategy/CSIRO-Strategy-2011-2015.aspx

Dr Alastair Hick, Monash University

UK initiatives in knowledge transfer: What can we learn for Australia?

Key Points:

UK Government has both supported and championed knowledge transfer activities from higher education for over 15 years:

In the initial phases there multiple government programs were directed mostly at building capacity in universities, subsequently amalgamated into the current HEIF scheme.

This funding rewards institutions for developing and adopting strategies that maximise knowledge exchange activities, in contrast to Australia where the majority of government support has historically been directed towards support for individual projects.

In the majority of UK universities knowledge exchange and knowledge transfer are seen as a key component of university activity.

There is a culture of industry based research that is not matched in Australia. Models of technology & knowledge transfer include: outsourcing activities to publicly

listed entitles, wholly owned subsidiary companies, and internal University Offices. Success depends on consistency of approach and often a few key individuals within the institution.

UK Government

UK Government has both supported and championed knowledge transfer activities from higher education for over 15 years6 resulting in an increasing sophisticated understanding and resultant approach to policy and implementation across the sector7. There has been direct funding for these activities, the development of the impact agenda in Universities and the development of a wide variety of policies, legislation and other initiatives. There has been consistent bipartisan political support that has resulted in a well-developed program of activities.

In the initial phases there was a multitude of government programs directed mostly at building capacity in universities, but over the first 5 years these were amalgamated and simplified to the current HEIF scheme8. This is worth £150M per annum over 2011-2015 with up to £2.85M per institution, with allocations based on a funding formula. This funding is broader than technology commercialisation, with institutions having to submit and adopt a knowledge exchange strategy in order to receive funding. This funding is not directed to picking winners in individual projects, but rather rewards institutions for developing and adopting strategies that maximise knowledge exchange activities. This is in contrast to Australia where the majority of government support has historically been directed towards

6 Higher Education Innovation Fund 1,2,3 and 4 – (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/kes/heif/heif1-4/)7 See report for HEFCE at (http://www.pacec.co.uk/index.php/publications/easytablerecord/5-publications/200) and others at (http://www.pacec.co.uk/index.php/sectors/higher-education)8 Current HEIF scheme – (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/kes/heif/)

of 37

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/kes/heif/

http://www.pacec.co.uk/index.php/sectors/higher-education

http://www.pacec.co.uk/index.php/publications/easytablerecord/5-publications/200

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/kes/heif/heif1-4/

support for individual projects, with funding for capability building being provided solely from the institutions themselves.

The overall effect has been one where in the majority of UK universities knowledge exchange and knowledge transfer are seen as a key component of university activity. To quote a recent report for HEFCE “KE now finally looks to be permanently embedded within many HEIs and has become a strategic activity working to support and enhance research and teaching.”9

Industry

There are significant structural differences between industry in the UK and Australia. The UK has a long history of industry based research, from a very vibrant, although consolidating, pharmaceutical industry, through aerospace and other industrial engineering to consumer goods, often with the main corporate research labs been based in the UK. In addition over the past 3 decades there has been a significant growth of high tech clusters around the UK focussed on ICT and biotech in particular. These have resulted in the next generation of research based companies such as ARM (market cap A$40B in 24 years) and many other innovative research led companies that collaborate with themselves and research providers such as universities. As a result there is a culture of industry based research that is not matched in Australia and this must be taken into consideration when recommending policy and actions in the Australian context.

We have not yet developed this level of innovative industry and in order to do so will take a consistent approach over many years to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, leading to the type of businesses that are research active.

University Knowledge Transfer Activities

As a result of the consistent funding delivered for capability building by government, the UK has a well-established network of technology transfer and other knowledge exchange offices. There is no one size fits all approach, with the structure and operations of the office or external organisation often driven by the objectives of the knowledge exchange strategy of the institution.

Models vary from outsourcing activities to publicly listed entitles (such as IP Group) through wholly owned subsidiary companies (such as Isis Innovation and Cambridge Enterprise), through to internal University Offices. Success is usually dependent on consistency of approach and often a few key individuals within the institution, from both senior management and the commercialisation or TT office. In many ways this is very similar to where we see success in Australia, with high level management support leading to a consistent approach over a number of years, leading to success.

9 See New Report: Knowledge Exchange and HEIF Funding at http://www.pacec.co.uk/index.php/sectors/higher-education

of 37

Dr John D Bell, FTSE, ACIL Allen Consulting

Industry – research cooperation: What can be done to increase it?

Key points:

Collaboration needs to be rewarded, to encourage research organisations to collaborate with business. International models could be considered – e.g., the UK government’s research impact measure used alongside the Research Excellence Framework.

Finding an appropriate collaboration partner may a challenge for business – intermediary organisations can help. Examples include CRCs and Catapult centres in UK, and recently emerging internet-based intermediaries; Technology Transfer Offices can be both facilitator to collaboration and hindrance.

Intellectual Property is often a constraint in business-university collaboration. Whereas a one-size-fits-all approach to university IP may not work, establishing some common principles could be useful.

We know that industry- research cooperation in Australia is low by world standards. We also know that this cooperation is very important when it comes to productivity and economic growth. The literature and some recent research show that in the best performing knowledge-led economies one thing stands out. It is the extent to which universities and businesses work together. The benefits of industry – researcher collaboration are well known:

It helps to prepare work-ready graduates It gets research students interested in working in the private sector It may even encourage some of them to start businesses of their own It facilitates the flow of ideas from universities to business.

We know that there are problems for university researchers to find business partners. And the ERA does not encourage researchers to spend time working with business. These are problems we need to overcome. Both barriers and incentives need to be addressed. In addition, we need to be looking at collaboration from both researcher and business perspectives.

Our existing measures to encourage researchers (CRCs, ARC and NHMRC) are not delivering the results we need. Incentives are needed for researchers to seek to engage with industry. What gets rewarded gets done. And our research organisations also need to be rewarded for their collaboration with business. Again, there are some useful models from other countries which we could adopt.

At present there are few mechanisms to help firms to find research partners. Intermediary organisations are best placed to fill this role - there are some interesting examples from other countries.

When it comes to barriers for researchers engaging in collaboration, there are a number of issues that often get mentioned. In the UK, the government has established an impact measure which sits alongside the REF (their equivalent of our ERA).

of 37

The other barrier is the management of intellectual property. A one-size-fits-all approach to university intellectual property is probably not going to work. But establishing some common principles could be useful. Otherwise we may need to look at the US approach, where government support for research is subject to the Bayh-Dole Act and the Stevenson-Wydler Act.

Session 2: ‘Australian Success Stories’

Scientia Professor Veena Sahajwalla, University of New South Wales

Green Materials - A successful example of industry-research collaboration

Key points:

At UNSW’s Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT@UNSW), the goal is transforming waste to resource, as the chemical composition of plastics and tyres opens an opportunity for steelmakers to use waste streams as low cost raw materials for steel production.

SMaRT@UNSW in collaboration with OneSteel pursued the goal of using polymer waste in the steelmaking process, which in turn gave rise to Polymer Injection Technology (PIT). PIT is now a standard practice at OneSteel’s EAF facilities in Sydney and Melbourne. PIT was also commissioned at UMC Metals in Thailand in May 2011 and has also been licensed by SeAHBesteel in South Korea.

At SMaRT@UNSW, the collaboration involves industry, academics and higher degree research students.

Reducing the ecological footprint of the steel industry

Globally the cost of raw materials for the production of steel has increased significantly, while on the other hand the competitiveness of the global steel market continues to intensify. In light of the world’s ever increasing appetite for steel, and an increasing awareness about earth’s environment, steel producers are under constant pressure to reduce their global footprint. The steel industry accounts for 3-4 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and, on average, 1.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide are emitted for every tonne of steel produced. These are clearly incompatible trends which, if we persist with business as usual, will only increase tensions for the industry. Consequently, there is an important place in steelmaking for alternative resources to reduce the cost of raw materials along with environmentally sustainable ways to produce steel10.

The accumulation of waste piles ranging from plastics to biomass are growing at a rapid rate, reflecting the pace of economic flow, shorter replacement cycles for goods and increasing intensity of global trade. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has reported that in 2011 over 32 million tons of waste plastics were generated in the United States alone, out of which only 8 per cent was recycled11. In Australia, the recycling

10 AIST Howe Memorial Lecture, 2013, Iron & Steel Technology, AIST USA , August, Vol 10, No.8 pp 68-83; by Sahajwalla V., Zaharia M., Mansuri I., Rajarao R., Dhunna R., NurYunos F., Khanna R., Saha-Chaudhury N., O’Kane P., Fontana A., Jin Z., Skidmore C., Vielhauer P., O’Connell D., Knights D. 11 Wastes – Resource Conservation – (http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/plastics.htm)

of 37

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/plastics.htm

rate of waste was just over 20 per cent in year 2010-11, with around 80 % of wastes going to landfill12. Used automotive non-biodegradable tyres represent a significant and rapidly growing waste burden, with the underlying threat of leaching toxic chemicals into environment. Nearly 20 million passenger tyres are disposed of every year in Australia, 64 per cent go to landfill, only 23 per cent are recycled, and the remainder are dumped illegally13. Worldwide, more than one billion used tyres are discarded annually and an estimated four billion waste tyres are currently in landfills, posing a potential risk to human health and the environment.

However, the majority of waste materials like tyres and plastics consist mainly of carbon and hydrogen elements which are vital resources in metallurgical industries due to their role as reductants and carburizers. Furthermore, plastics and tyres are long chain hydrocarbons with high volatile matter and low ash content. These advantages open an opportunity for steelmakers to use waste streams as low cost raw materials for steel production.

Transforming waste to resource

At UNSW’s Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT@UNSW), our research focuses on various high temperature reactions with the goal of transforming waste to resource. In a practical sense that means utilising waste streams as an alternative source of carbon during the steel making process. SMaRT@UNSW in collaboration with OneSteel pursued the goal of using polymer waste in the steelmaking process, which in turn gave rise to Polymer Injection Technology (PIT). PIT technology leverages steelmaking temperatures of 1550-1650°C to enable steelmakers to utilise carbon bearing waste streams, such as waste tyres and waste plastics, as a substitute for a significant proportion of the non-renewable coke traditionally used as a carbon injectant in electric arc furnaces. The result is a novel recycling solution that requires minimal modifications to the manufacturing process and retains the quality and performance of the end product14. PIT introduces a mix of crumbed waste into the furnace to optimise outcomes. Industrial implementation of PIT is now a standard practice at OneSteel’s EAF facilities in Sydney and Melbourne. PIT was also commissioned at UMC Metals in Thailand in May 2011 and has also been licensed by SeAHBesteel in South Korea.

The concept behind this proven technology, however, has significant potential beyond this particular study which means steelmakers can transform “waste to value”. High temperature reactions offer an important addition to the environmental 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). We are now proposing a fourth “R”, that is; RE-FORM. This is a new way to think about waste materials because they can now be considered as potential raw materials that can be effectively reformed through chemical reactions into resources for industry. This is a novel, industrial scale recycling revolution that the steel industry has the potential to lead and can act as effective waste management system along with cost effective strategy for future.

12 Plastics Recycling in Australia remains strong – (http://www.pacia.org.au/mediacentre/media19012012)13 Qipeng Guo Personal Chair (Chair Professor), Institute for Frontier Materials at Deakin University, in (http://theconversation.com/recycling-helps-tyred-out-rubber-hit-the-road-again-3982)14 Steel Times International, September 2012, pp 17-20, by Fontanna A., O’Kane P., O’Connell D., Sahajwalla V., Zaharia M.

of 37

http://www.pacia.org.au/mediacentre/media19012012

Dr Howard Leemon, UniQuest

Collaboration in the Sewers: The SCORe Project

Key points:

The SCORe project focusing on sewer corrosion and odour was jointly funded by the Australian government ($4.7M) and many major water utilities in Australia, and collaboratively delivered by its five research and eleven industry partners.

The key outcomes included economic benefits, an enormous amount of new knowledge (journal papers and industry reports), new technologies and new powerful modelling tools.

The active knowledge dissemination and capacity building program, a built-in component of the project, ensured that the outcomes would be actively adopted by the industry.

The SCORe (putting science in sewers) project was a five-year (12/2008 – 11/2013), $21M research project jointly funded by the Australian government ($4.7M) and many major water utilities in Australia. This was likely the largest ever research project worldwide focussing on sewer corrosion and odour.

The project was collaboratively and successfully delivered by its five research and eleven industry partners. Within the lifetime of the project, its clients have already documented economic benefits reaching several hundred million dollars. The uptake of the project outcomes is still in its early stage. With the anticipated much wider uptake in the coming years by not only the direct clients but also the water industry as a whole, it is certain that enormous benefits will accrue from the project.

The key outcomes included an enormous amount of new knowledge (documented in over 130 publications including >60 journal papers, and numerous industry reports), highly innovative new technologies and new powerful modelling tools.

Through an active knowledge dissemination and capacity building program as a built-in component of the project, the team ensured that the project outcomes would be actively adopted by the industry. This uptake is also supported by an online knowledge management system delivered by the project, now managed by Water Services Association of Australia.

The project is fundamentally changing sewer corrosion and odour management in Australia. It will also have an enduring impact on the water industry in the world.

of 37

Dr Phil Robertson, NICTA

NICTA’s model for industry-research engagement

Key points:

The NICTA model addresses a market failure in Australia’s innovation system by connecting research excellence in ICT to major wealth creation outcomes for Australia:

Research groups partnered with 22 universities Business teams engaged with major industry sectors Engineering and technology development group playing a key role in commercial

contracts undertaken Highly efficient start-up pipeline Case studies on the impact of NICTA’s research, and Engagement with the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

The NICTA model occupies a unique place in Australia’s innovation system. It connects world-class research excellence in ICT to the major wealth creation challenges faced by industry, government, and society. It has the scale to tackle the biggest challenges and the reputational reach to engage the best ICT researchers and entrepreneurs both in Australia and internationally. The NICTA model successfully addresses a critical market failure in Australia’s innovation system by connecting deep research excellence in ICT to major wealth creation outcomes for Australia.

The NICTA Model: Connecting and Amplifying Research Excellence to Wealth Creation Outcomes for Australia

of 37

The presentation outlines how the NICTA model works in practice, covering:

The research groups, and their relationships with 22 partner universities; The business teams, and their engagement with major industry sectors; Commercial contracts undertaken, and the role of the engineering and technology

development group in underpinning these; NICTA’s start-up pipeline, currently spinning out at around 20 times the national

average from public funded research; Case studies on the impact of NICTA’s research; and NICTA’s engagement with the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Actual examples are used to illustrate how NICTA builds relationships between researchers and industry.

Hamish Hawthorn, ATP Innovations

Business incubation as a cornerstone of the commercialisation ecosystem: Lessons from ATP Innovations

Key points:

ATP Innovations, a startup company incubator based at the Australia Technology Park, Sydney, is jointly owned by the University of Sydney, UNWS, ANU, and UTS, with a portfolio of over 60 startup companies in the life science, hardware and software sectors.

The key areas of assistance to facilitate industry/researcher collaboration are:

Helping educate the founders of startup companies of the process of engaging with universities, re expectations of both parties, to pre-empt friction

Education of researchers around the engagement process: insights into the needs and expectations of startup companies, and

Bringing the problems faced by industry to the research sector.

ATP Innovations is a startup company incubator based at the Australia Technology Park in Sydney. The company is jointly owned by the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales, the Australian National University, and the University of Technology, Sydney. We provided serviced facilities (office, labs, manufacturing), advice, and guidance to the founders of our portfolio companies, as well as membership of a connected community of entrepreneurs. The portfolio consists of over 60 startup companies in the life science, hardware and software sectors.

The key areas of assistance we provide to the ecosystem to facilitate industry/researcher collaboration are:

Helping educate the founders of startup companies

1. Helping educate the founders of startup companies of the process of engaging with universities. The challenges of engaging with a university are significant for a startup company - particularly from the perspective of the expectations of both parties. The first time a startup attempts to work with a university, the challenges of IP ownership, timelines and resources allocation, the fact that universities are not a single entity, are often hard to overcome. Likewise, the challenges of universities

of 37

negotiating with startups are significant - large and complex legal relationships, expectations of commercial terms, timeliness of responses have been developed primarily to serve relationships with large corporate partners, and these can be challenging for startups. ATP Innovations has deep experience in this engagement process across our four shareholder universities (and more broadly in the research sector) and this is an area we invest significantly in for our companies to ensure that when they start the engagement process, that are aware of the key issues they will need to address and respond to throughout the process. Often the key is walking through both sides of the relationship early in the engagement to pre-empt points of friction.

Education of researchers

2. Education of researchers around the engagement process. Having insights into the needs and expectations of startup companies, we are able to assist with the education process of researchers who are seeking collaboration opportunity with industry - while the message is entirely consistent with internal university messaging, the fact that it is delivered (reinforced) by us - where we are seen as a neutral party - helps this process significantly.

Broader startup ecosystem

3. We are a conduit to the broader startup ecosystem . By assisting with bringing the problems faced by industry to the research sector (through both our current portfolio and graduates of our incubator - and the boarder startup sector) we are able to facilitate the engagement process. Much of the challenges of industry/research collaboration arise from the lack of knowledge as to the problems faced by industry that can be solved by researchers, and conversely the lack of awareness by industry of the capabilities on offer by the research sector. We are continuously seeking to close this gap.

From our experience, a starting point for the collaboration process is bringing researchers and industry together in an environment where relationships can form and a level of trust be established. This process takes time and a level of investment by both parties, yet with some guidance and facilitation, can rapidly lead to positive outcomes.

of 37

Dr Sarah Pearson, ANU Enterprise

Collaborative, Innovative, Proactive: Operating at the interface of research, policy and practice

Key points:

ANU Enterprise (ANUE), with its initial mandate to transfer and apply knowledge and technology from the university to the world outside academia through a commercial model, currently comprises a consulting division, ANUedge, and a manufacturing company, Australian Scientific Instruments Pty Ltd (ASI).

ASI, which manufactures and sells high value add instrumentation globally, is forming strong collaboration links with publicly funded research agencies.

The ANUE consulting business has had a strong focus on international development. ANUEdge aims to improve the connection between the industrial and research sectors

through an insightful connector program, with its capability to apply strategic planning services as a means to help clients gain insight into, and develop plans for, their expertise needs. It also has a vision to manage contract research with industry on behalf of ANU.

ANUE can become a vital commercial link between ANU’s intellectual expertise and outputs with the world.

ANU Enterprise (ANUE)

ANU Enterprise Pty Ltd (ANUE) was established in 1979 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian National University (ANU). Its initial mandate was to transfer and apply knowledge and technology from the university to the world outside academia through a commercial model. Since then the company has undertaken a number of changes to its structure and purpose, the most recent of which being the sale of its College for International students, ANU College, to Study Group Australia. The remaining business comprises a consulting division, ANUedge, and a manufacturing company, Australian Scientific Instruments Pty Ltd (ASI).

ASI

ASI, a wholly owned subsidiary of ANUE, manufactures and sells high value add instrumentation globally. Whilst it has been relatively successful, ASI has essentially remained in start-up mode for 20 years. It has suffered from the constraints of university ownership but is now working towards greater independence and is undergoing significant renewal. The range of activity we’ve undergone to achieve this includes broadening our product line portfolio and forming strong collaboration links with publicly funded research agencies (PFRAs).

The ANUE consulting business

Our consulting business has had a strong focus on international development, which given the strength of ANU’s Asia Pacific research base is understandable. Examples of successful projects that we have undertaken include:

of 37

Building livelihoods and empowering women through Agribusiness in PNG, helping academics to create impact through agribusiness initiatives that lead to improving the status and freedom for women in PNG

Solomon Islands People Survey, helping social research experts design and deliver surveys and training for Solomon Islanders to gain an understanding of public perceptions of public safety and security

Strategic Technology Roadmap for the Australian rail supply sector, utilising techniques to bring about consensus across the rail supply chain, and highlighting opportunities for Australian rail suppliers to deliver commercial solutions to the global rail industry in many cases through collaborative R&D

In each of these projects we have provided administrative support such as contract negotiation and financial management. However, we have also helped our academics grow scale, through providing project management personnel and other personnel to help deliver large-scale projects. Many of the projects that we undertake come from ANU academics who have been contacted to conduct consulting projects. However, we have also taken a proactive approach, seeking and building large scale consulting opportunities using the networks and experience of our own staff.

Alongside this we are attempting to improve the connection between the industrial and research sectors through an insightful connector program. Experience shows that many companies need support developing innovation strategy in order to know what expertise to connect to; they need help connecting; their absorptive capacity and innovation capability is low; and they don't collaborate with universities as they are not sure that the projects will actually deliver outcomes of interest.

Part of our value lies in our capability to apply strategic planning services as a means to help clients gain insight into, and develop plans for, their expertise needs. A current example of this insightful commercial connectivity is the delivery of technology road mapping services for an Australian subsidiary of a large multinational, involving ANU academics in the planning process. This project will lead to consulting and contract research programs for ANU researchers, potential for further collaboration activity, and strategic knowledge for the client to help shape their product pipeline.

ANUEdge

ANUEdge also has a vision to manage contract research with industry as if ANU was an extension of a commercial long term R&D facility. This is merely a dream at present, but we believe it could have a significant impact on the willingness of industry to work with the academic sector.

ANUE has the opportunity to be a vital commercial link between ANU’s intellectual expertise and outputs with the world, delivering impact for its clients and opportunity into the university.

of 37

Session 3: ‘Where do we need to be and how do we get there?’

Professor Nicky Solomon, University of Technology Sydney

Work Integrated Learning: The UTS node of the ATN Industry Doctoral Training Centre in Mathematics and Statistics

Key points:

The ATN Industry Doctoral Training Centre in Mathematics and Statistics is the first industry doctoral training centre (IDTC) in Australia. The ATN is a group of 5 universities - UTS, QUT, RMIT, University of SA and Curtin University.

The development of the student as a researcher for industry is important. Thus, in addition to technical knowledge, the coursework includes professional skills, such as group dynamics, communication skills and project management.

The program has been successful, as it has allowed students to apply their mathematical skills to an industry problem using real-world data.

The challenges of this partnership model: (1) industry does not necessarily understand the value of an IDTC program or a doctoral student, and so more opportunities are needed to show industry what university research degree programs can offer, and (2) academics also need incentives to participate in an industry doctoral training centre, given the ongoing pressure to produce more publications.

The ATN Industry Doctoral Training Centre

The ATN Industry Doctoral Training centre in Mathematics and Statistics is the first industry doctoral training centre (IDTC) in Australia. The program draws on the experiences of IDTCs in the UK. While there are significant differences between the UK model and the ATN version, importantly, the principles underpinning the program are shared: building partnerships; finding solutions and developing people.

The ATN is a group of 5 universities (UTS, QUT, RMIT, University of SA and Curtin University) with a similar orientation to the world of work and thus well suited to the establishment of an industry doctoral training program as a collaborative effort. (See http://www.atn.edu.au/Partners/idtc/ for details of the program.) In the presentation I will briefly draw attention to some of the key points and lessons learnt from the UTS experience.

Development of the student as a researcher

First why did the ATN begin with a doctoral ‘maths and stats’ program? As both academic and industry mathematicians tell us, mathematics is crucial to industrial and service processes across business, industry and government sectors. What this means in practice can be seen in some of the projects by the UTS IDTC students. For example the research project of one student, in collaboration with the industry partner (CSIRO), is on mathematical methods of capacity planning for supply chains for mineral resources. As the student tells us in a typical mining supply chain, minerals are transported from more than 30 mines via a track network of several hundred kilometres using more than 50 trains. The complexity and size of this supply chain generates many problems and the research aims to produce insights into this and similar infrastructure decision-making problems. Another

of 37

student, together with Ausgrid as the industry partner, is developing software for optimal planning for the training of Ausgrid’s 8000 employees. The logistics around this is complex to say the least.

While finding solutions are a central aim for these PhDs, the development of the student as a researcher for industry is also important. Accordingly, the coursework goes beyond technical knowledge to include professional skills, such as group dynamics, communication skills and project management. But also students spend time in the partner organisation, and this experience, together with the fact that an industry manager is part of the doctoral supervision, means that the workplace is central to the learning experience within this kind of PhD.

The IDTC PhD student experience has been a very rewarding one, as exemplified in the quote, “The IDTC has provided me the exciting opportunity not only to work with CSIRO, a world leader in industry related research, but also to apply my mathematical skills to an industry problem using real-world data” (Chuy Yin (Joey) Fung 2014).

Challenges of this partnership model

Nevertheless the program is in its early stages, and while it has been successful, the partnership model presents a number of challenges. For example, industry does not necessarily understand the value of an IDTC program or a doctoral student. A key challenge as expressed by the node leader of the UTS program is that more opportunities are needed to show industry what university research degree programs can offer. Prof Yakov Zinder, the node leader, suggests that the value of such programs is often invisible. Universities need to be able to better explain the value of this kind of PhD program in general and also the value of maths and stats PhD program. But academics also need encouragement to join the program. Many are asking for incentives to participate in an industry doctoral training centre. Collaborations between industry the University and the students take more time and many question this, given the ongoing pressure to produce more publications.

of 37

Dr Kevin Cullen, NewSouth Innovations

Key points:

Engagement Metrics aim to create a set of measures across the research spectrum to enable universities to better understand and influence the level of engagement with research users, which in turn leads to impact in the economy and society.

Engagement Metrics focus on university activities such as teaching, networking, consultancy, professional development, collaborative research, contract research, licencing, and company creation, with the revenues received used as a proxy for engagement.

The system is complex, chaotic and difficult to manage; it is important to make the knowledge transfer channels work really well.

The reasons for universities to engage in knowledge transfer activities range from ‘public good’ through to making money, which tend to be mutually exclusive. Public good costs money, but money making activities cannot focus on public good.

Policy-makers want universities to do public good, but seem to put in place policy instruments focused on commercialisation and making money.

The vast majority of university income from engagement with industry comes from collaboration and consultancy.

Encouraging and Measuring University-Industry Engagement and Knowledge Exchange

Engagement Metrics

The principal objective of Engagement Metrics is to create an appropriate set of measures across the research spectrum to enable universities to better understand and influence the level of engagement with research users, which in turn leads to impact in the economy and society. Underpinning Engagement Metrics is the Knowledge Exchange Model (KEM). The model illustrates some of the relationships that are relevant to the transfer of university research into the economy and society, which lead to impact and outcomes.

of 37

Diagram 1: Knowledge Exchange Model

Engagement Metrics concentrate on the university activities that connect the research base with the user base such as teaching, networking, consultancy, professional development, collaborative research, contract research, licencing, and company creation. Examples are included in the green highlighted rectangle in Diagram 1; in particular, the approach uses the revenues received, associated with those engagement activities as a proxy for engagement.

Diagram 1 shows the various different pathways by which research can be translated into impact. In all cases the research outputs flow through channels such as consultancy, research and licensing, into the hands of the research-users who use it to create the impacts that everyone wants to see. It shows though that the system is complex and chaotic and almost impossible to manage. The most important thing to do to help get the research put to use is to make the knowledge transfer channels work really well, and that always requires a positive relationship between the university and the research user.

There is a range of knowledge transfer activities, which are the channels through which the knowledge flows to the research users. The university has a range of reasons for undertaking all of these activities, sometimes for public good (supporting SMEs, helping students, economic development) and sometimes to make money (licensing, spin-out companies). Importantly these are virtually always mutually exclusive.

The categories, used to stratify the nature of engagement for the purposes of the

Engagement Metrics exercise and represent the research spectrum from societal outcomes to commercial returns, include: student enterprise, SMEs networks, consultancy, collaborative research, licences, and spin-outs.

of 37

Diagram 2: Typical shape of revenues across the activity / outcome spectrum

As to the total revenues (rather than returns) that universities generate across the same range of activities, while a great deal of focus seems to be on the extreme ends of the spectrum (public good and making money) the vast majority of university income from and engagement with industry is in the middle of the spectrum, in the form of collaboration and consultancy. This is why universities focus here, explaining why policy-makers are constantly puzzled by universities lack of excitement around initiatives at the extreme ends.

Workshops

An important aspect is consultation with the sector completed through a series of workshops. These sessions presented the Engagement Metrics methodology and discussed practical aspects involved in the collection of associated information. In total, six (6) sessions which had a focus on Engagement Metrics were held and attended by 14 Australian universities and 1 overseas university (from Malaysia). Further details of these workshops can be provided.

Approach

To enable a university to collect the Engagement Metrics, an explanatory guide and a spreadsheet based form were created. The explanatory guide was designed to provide information to the individuals who prepare the Engagement Metrics ‘return’ as to which revenues to include and which to exclude and the suggested approach utilising information commonly available. A spreadsheet was also created to capture the Engagement Metrics information from the revenue notes detailed in annual reports and enable verification back to audited information.

of 37

Ash Salardini, NSW Business Chamber

Stakeholder insights: Practical approaches to effective industry-university collaboration

Key points:

Consultations with over 100 stakeholders from industry, research and government sectors identified barriers to effective research collaboration, and in determined practical solutions to overcome them.

The barriers include lack of compatibility of potential partners, including mutual understanding of each other’s organisational culture, and differing expectations, timeline and governance, and also lack of motivation / incentives problems to collaborate.

The solutions / recommendations include: (1) The creation and facilitation of a ‘marketplace’ for research expertise; (2) Getting researchers ‘business ready’ and businesses ‘research ready’, (3) Simplified approach to intellectual property (IP) transfer for short-term collaborations, (4) ‘Good practice forums’ for university corporate engagement and collaboration, (5) Increasing meaningful engagement between industry and universities, and (6) systemic solutions, such as changing the incentive and funding structures for research, which would be for the Federal Government to lead.

The Sydney and NSW Business Chambers (collectively the ‘Chambers’), with the support of the NSW Department of Trade and Investment, has undertaken extensive stakeholder consultations (over 100 stakeholders from industry, research and government sectors) in identifying barriers to effective research collaboration, and in determining practical solutions to overcome these barriers.

The project undertook two rounds of consultations. The first round of consultations identified potential barriers and solutions for collaboration, while the second round determined the level of support and commitment of stakeholders in implementing identified solutions.

Identified solutions with strong stakeholder acceptance and commitment include activities to create and facilitate a ‘marketplace’ for research expertise, ‘good practice forums’ for university corporate engagement, increasing meaningful engagement between industry and the research sector, and regular government facilitated industry-research forums focussing on industry feedback on disciplinary curriculums.

There was moderate support for activities to improve researcher and business capabilities in undertaking collaborative research, and providing standardised approach/guidelines for intellectual property transfer for short-term engagements.

Identified barriers

Stakeholders from industry and the research sector acknowledged that the effectiveness and quantity of collaborative research is sub-optimal. The consultations identified such barriers as lack of compatibility of potential partners, including mutual understanding of each other’s organisational culture, and differing expectations, timeline and governance, and also lack of motivation / incentives problems to collaborate.

of 37

Preliminary recommendations

Recommendations identified by stakeholders include:

1. The creation and facilitation of a ‘marketplace’ for research expertise: Activities include the provision of relationship brokering services to match industry need with research expertise, translating industry needs in a form conducive to academic research, and mapping out the various entry points for business into research organisations.

2. Getting researchers ‘business ready’ and businesses ‘research ready’: Activities include national/state engagement forums for early industry engagement in academic course curriculums, providing career development objectives for researchers for industry/community engagement, and workshops for SMEs to understand the role of research expertise and potential opportunities.

3. Simplified approach to intellectual property (IP) transfer for short-term collaborations: Stakeholders suggested complicated IP negotiations for smaller, short-term collaborations were inappropriate and a barrier to such collaborations. Guidelines and templates for IP transfer for such engagements would reduce delays around negotiations and create certainty for contracting parties in relation to IP treatment.

4. ‘Good practice forums’ for university corporate engagement and collaboration: University stakeholders suggested that there are significant opportunities for improvements in collaborative processes through sharing good practice between universities’ corporate engagement and commercialisation functions.

5. Increasing meaningful engagement between industry and universities: Activities include collaboration awards, industry open innovation competitions within and between university students etc.

6. Other systemic solutions: While there was support for systemic solutions, such as changing the incentive and funding structures for research, stakeholders felt that it was the Federal Government’s role to lead such reforms.

Next steps

The finalised Industry-Research Collaboration discussion paper, scheduled for release in July 2014 in Western Sydney, is now available on the NSW Business Chamber website at:

(http://www.nswbusinesschamber.com.au/NSWBC/media/Forms/Final-Report_-Thinking-Business-Industry-Research-Collaboration.pdf)

of 37

http://www.nswbusinesschamber.com.au/NSWBC/media/Forms/Final-Report_-Thinking-Business-Industry-Research-Collaboration.pdf

Group and Round Table Discussions: Recommendations for Policy

The group and round table discussions in the afternoon centred round recommendations for policy-makers. It was acknowledged that, although the focus of the workshop was on collaboration between researchers and industry, creating commercialisation-ready ideas is but a modest part of the whole range of roles which universities play, with generating new knowledge and teaching being the major ones.

Focusing on industry-research collaboration, it was emphasised that continuity of innovation policy is important to secure serious consideration by business of investing in R&D.

University-industry pathways

There is currently a pathway from university into industry, but not the other way around. We need to provide mechanisms to facilitate the cultural and professional change, to enable a ‘revolving’ door between universities and industry. It is a matter of making academics interested in having experience. We need to make commercial context an academic pursuit.

It is important to create better pathways for junior academics to spend time in business and government – for example, via secondments. Secondments need to be long-term – at least one to two years, with six months, as is current practice, not being long enough; creating dual appointments is also an effective option.

It is important to concentrate on lead researchers, providing then with sufficient flexibility, including provision of funding not linked to academic publications. Research work should be recognised all throughout the process, from research through to commercialisation (even if it’s not immediately publishable).

Learning from international experience

International experiences, such as those of the USA, Japan and a number of EU countries, offer alternative systems for us to examine. For example, there is a tradition of research-industry interaction in Sweden and Finland where most researchers are based in large firms. In Australia, by contrast, most researchers are located in universities. Whereas in European countries, such as UK, research in business has evolved from the traditional basic research conducted in universities, in Australia research in business is distanced from university research. Additionally, physical proximity to businesses is a feature of European universities, which is not the case in Australia.

Linking research and industry

The participants acknowledged the value of the CRCs in promoting industry-research collaboration.

In order to link industry and research, researchers could be encouraged to solve the problems faced by businesses as, for example, in the STAR initiative used in the US. Australia could develop a similar on-line portal where businesses could post challenges, for universities to work on. It was suggested that, as a trial, the department could call for businesses to submit problems, and facilitate finding researchers keen to work on solving those. This kind of research work could be considered for inclusion into the ERA.

of 37

To facilitate engagement between universities and industry, it was suggested that it was important to move away from the dichotomy of university subjects versus industry problems. To accommodate SMEs who find engagement with research too hard due to the limited resources, smaller projects could be made available to them. Crowdsourcing research resources and also utilising the resources of the Go8 could be used to resource this initiative.

Collaboration in Australia needs to be driven by industry; there needs to be a better value proposition for industry to collaborate with university researchers.

Industry-research brokers

The role of brokers between research and industry was highlighted. Currently, this role is performed by university academics. The disadvantage of this is that loss of an academic could lead to the university’s loss of connections with industry partners. It was suggested that perhaps CSIRO could take on the broker role. Brokers are particularly important for linking universities with SMEs. It was acknowledged that it is important that brokers have deep knowledge of the subject matter.

Work integrated learning (WIL)

Work integrated learning (WIL) was considered with interest, as one of the ways to facilitate productive industry-research collaboration. Establishing Doctoral Training Centres was supported, with a suggestion that their number needs to be increased. In addition to the industry focus, there should also be an inter-disciplinary one.

There was interest in and appreciation of the new WIL models which are currently being trialled across ATN universities. But it was too early to comment on their effectiveness.

ARC grants promote opportunities for successful collaboration where experienced researchers work together with higher research degree students to address genuine industry needs, and so the program could be further developed to more specifically target such version of collaboration.

As there is still a challenge of finding scholarships, it is important to better work out the value for industry, to incentivise it to provide the necessary funding. It was recommended that industry could give universities projects to work on, with universities being able to negotiate around them in order to shape them.

Way Forward

The workshop was well received, and there was a strong sense that such events should continue into the future, with the participants happy with the existing format or making constructive suggestions as to its enhancement. It was suggested that such forums should be held more often than once a year, particularly in today’s fast changing, and economically and politically challenging environment. As to the workshop format, there could be fewer presentations on the program, with more time dedicated to discussion.

The participants were interested to hear more from the ‘policy insiders’ on the nature of government’s perceptions of the performance of Australia’s innovation systems and political pressures for policy intervention, in order to ensure academic research is relevant to

of 37

emerging issues. There was also interest to hear more from industry, and so future workshops could have a higher representation from industry.

It was acknowledged that whereas it was important to focus on industry-research collaborations with large firms, which involve patenting and large funding, most innovations within an economy are incremental and do not involve patents. Most start-ups the use university knowledge as a core element of their business idea do not get huge amounts of venture capital, is most cases they do not raise any venture capital. And so it would also be important to discuss on how we can improve industry-research collaborations with respect to small-scale projects, e.g. improving the production process in an SME with 20 employees.

The WIL initiatives currently under way could be made a focus of future workshops. Given that the trial of several new models of WIL has only recently begun, future forums could explore and compare the effectiveness of those.

Learning from failure in relationship establishment and collaboration between research and industry is as important as learning from success stories. And so future workshops could also include examples and analyses of what hasn’t worked in industry-research collaboration.

There is a feeling that the workshops could facilitate the collaboration network, which might be able to contribute to an improved set of policies and resources to support industry-university research partnerships.

of 37

Appendix: List of the Workshop Participants

Name Affiliation

Professor Peter Hall ADFA

Dr Sarah Pearson ANU Enterprise

Mr Frank Jensen ANUEdge

Mr Hamish Hawthorn ATP Innovations

Professor Dale Holland Australian National University

Dr Ian Elsum Australian National University

Professor Priscilla Kan John Australian National University

Professor Shirley Gregor Australian National University

Dr David Ireland CSIRO

Dr Duncan Byrne CSIRO

Dr Peter King CSIRO

Mr Philip Morgan Department of Education

Ms Alana Smith Department of Industry

Dr Alex Cooke Department of Industry

Ms Carol Bellettini Department of Industry

Ms Leanne Thomson Department of Industry

Ms Lisa Schofield Department of Industry

Dr Luke Hendrickson Department of Industry

Dr Marina Houston Department of Industry

Ms Maryann Quagliata Department of Industry

Mr Nick Andrews Department of Industry

Dr Richard Snabel Department of Industry

Dr Rob Porteous Department of Industry

Mr Rob Thomas Department of Industry

Ms Sarah Brown Department of Industry

of 37

Name Affiliation

Dr Tulene McCabe Department of Industry

Dr John Bell FTSE

Dr Craig Davis Griffin Accelerator; Capital Angels

Ms Christine McDaniel IP Australia

Dr Alastair Hick Monash University

Professor Ann Monotti Monash University

Dr Kevin Cullen NewSouth Innovations

Dr Phil Robertson NICTA

Mr Ash Salardini NSW Business Chamber

Dr Judy Matthews Queensland University of Technology

Professor Rachel Parker Queensland University of Technology

Professor Kerry London RMIT University

Professor Ian Wilkinson The University of Sydney

Dr Howard Leemon UniQuest

Ms Anne-Marie Lansdown Universities Australia

Dr Martin Bliemel University of New South Wales Australia

Dr Leela Cejnar University of New South Wales Australia

Professor Veena Sahajwalla University of New South Wales Australia

Dr Raymond Young University of Canberra

Dr Philip Thomas University of New England

Dr Anna Stephens University of Queensland

Dr Jonathan Staggs University of Queensland

Dr Helmut Fryges University of Tasmania

Professor Nicky Solomon University of Technology Sydney

Professor Louise Young University of Western Sydney

Professor Terry Sloan University of Western Sydney

of 37

Name Affiliation

Dr Warren Day University of Western Sydney

of 37

collaboration workshop draft report - department of · web viewthe karpin review of...

Documents