|
|
|
|
News & Views item - May 2009 |
Government Responds to O'Kane Review of Cooperative Research Centres. (May 28, 2009)
In early August last year the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr, released the report of the review committee chaired by Professor Mary O'Kane regarding Australia's Cooperative Research Centre's (CRC).
Senator Carr has now announced the government's response:
He said the CRCs had been "a pillar of the Australian innovation system for the better part of a generation" and his aim now was to "make it even stronger," and he said the Government has adopted Professor O'Kane's recommendations to:
restore public good as a key objective;
extend eligibility for funding to the humanities, arts and social sciences;
place more emphasis on the needs of end-users;
increase funding and organisational flexibility, and
fund CRCs for up to ten years, subject to rigorous review.
The Australian's Guy Healy reports: "Reacting to the announcement yesterday, Professor O'Kane said the moves were 'excellent', and she expected researchers would welcome the greater funding and bid round certainty they promised. 'Researchers will be so thrilled about it. So many are worried about whether there would be another round. There's a lot of talk of new bids and also a few who applied in this round, and didn't get to interview I think they'll reapply. There will be great excitement all around the shop.'"
Not to acknowledge the government's efforts to reverse the damage perpetrated by the regressive policies of John Howard's coalition would be churlish to say the least. It now remains to be seen how prescriptive they will be in dealing with the renovation of the universities and what will be the most effective way of providing the increase in resources so badly needed by the sector.
________________________________
Click here for a pdf copy of the one-hundred page complete report which concluded:
And below is the full list of the reviews recommendations.
CRC review recommendations
Recommendation 1
1.1: That
i. a re-focused and modified CRC Program continue, and
ii. the next evaluation recommend whether the Program continue in light of
the modifications and the impact of changes arising from the Innovation White
Paper.
1.2: That
i. funding be injected into the Program to allow for annual rounds to take
place over the next five years;
ii. there be a selection round at least once a year so that emerging
market failure/creation and urgent public good issues can be addressed quickly;
and
iii. the Program encourage CRCs of varying lifespan (typically 4-7 years
but up to a maximum of 10 years where appropriate), with funding up to a maximum
of $45M over the life of the Centre.
Recommendation 2
That:
i. the prime objective of the CRC Program be to provide support for
pre-competitive or pre-applicative research ventures between end-users and
researchers which tackle a clearly-articulated, major challenge for the end
users addressing identified risk gaps such as:
• a significant challenge in creation of a new industry area; or
• a significant challenge in an existing industry sector where the
risk involved in solving the challenge is too great for a single firm to tackle
alone; or
• a significant challenge in the provision of public goods and
services; or
• a significant challenge in an area of community or social benefit
(and not restricted to an area represented by government portfolios).
The solution to the challenge should be innovative and of high impact and
capable of being deployed rapidly by the end-users to good effect. Each CRC
should be of high national benefit with significant spillovers.
ii. a secondary aim of the Program be to encourage closer working ties
between Australia’s public-sector research organisations (universities and PFRAs)
and end-user groups and to encourage end-user-focused education, especially at
the PhD level.
Recommendation 3
3.1: That the CRC Program guidelines be modified:
i. to permit much greater flexibility than at present including in
organisational structures, governance models, lifespan (typically 4-7 years but
up to a maximum of 10 years where appropriate), membership arrangements,
intellectual property arrangements and size of Commonwealth grant (up to a
maximum of $45M over the life of the Centre)
but
ii. that there be even higher requirements than at present on applicants
to demonstrate why their proposed structure, membership arrangements, research
plan, end-user absorptive capacity, leadership, key research people, outputs,
likely impacts, performance metrics, governance, management, intellectual
property arrangements, Centre lifespan and funding are appropriate to deliver a
solution to the identified challenge and the fast and effective uptake of
results by end-users.
3.2: That the legal agreement between the Commonwealth and the CRC be as simple as possible, with the recent practice continued of one party (the CRC itself or an agreed agent) signing on behalf of the CRC.
3.3: That the legal agreement include provisions requiring the CRC to be fully compliant with all relevant Commonwealth and State research integrity and ethics codes and guidelines and with all international treaties dealing with these matters. Records of all ethics applications and their current status must be kept up to date and be available at all times for inspection.
Recommendation 4
That a new program be established to assist industry and other end-user groups
to undertake strategic analysis or innovation mapping projects and to establish
collaborative ventures between end-users and researchers, including publicly
funded research institutions. The priority is to support new collaborations in
areas with little history of collaborative activity or a low research and
development base, particularly service industries and those sectors populated by
SMEs.
Recommendation 5
That participation in the CRC Program be encouraged, allowed or required as
follows:
i. SME and service industry involvement in CRCs be specifically
encouraged;
ii. CRCs addressing challenges across several service industries be
encouraged
iii. strong engagement with international research groups working on
similar challenges be encouraged including, where appropriate, joint projects;
and that funding of research undertaken overseas be allowed;
iv. CRC applications in Humanities and Social Sciences fields be allowed
and encouraged;
and
v. CRCs continue to be required to have at least one Australian university
as a partner.
Recommendation 6
That the approach to funding of CRCs be redesigned in accord with the following:
i. the share of public funding of any CRC be aligned to the level of
likely induced social benefits;
ii. CRC end-user applicants normally be expected to provide more than half
the cash contribution towards the CRC;
iii. in-kind contributions not be rated the same as cash during the
selection and reporting processes, but treated as an important secondary factor.
In turn, tied in-kind contributions (which should be declared at the time of
application and in annual reporting) should not be rated as highly as untied
in-kind contributions;
iv. there be scope to modify the application of recommendations ii and iii
to the advantage of end-user applicants where they are predominantly SMEs or
from the community sector;
v. universities and PFRAs be encouraged but not explicitly required to
make cash or in-kind commitments to a CRC bid – but that, where they do make
contributions, they be described in the same way as for other
university/end-user collaborations (e.g. ARC Linkage Grants) and that they
include details of program leaders and key researchers and their time
commitments;
vi. predominantly public good applications be scrutinised to see that they
do indeed have the funding support of the ‘home’ Commonwealth and State
portfolios or authorities; or, where this is not the case, that the reasons why
are addressed as part of the application;
and
vii. there be no upper limit on postgraduate stipends offered within CRCs.
Recommendation 7
7.1 That
i. the CRC Program be administered at senior levels by secondees from
across the NIS who have experience with similar programs as successful research
end-users, researchers and research administrators.
ii. CRC Committee members be chosen to ensure the committee has expertise
in program design, delivery and review, and significant experience in successful
joint ventures deploying research results.
7.2 That the selection process involve layered peer review
against detailed selection criteria which include the following:
• the risk being addressed (how significant is the problem? What is the
current state-of the- art worldwide in addressing this problem?)
• the quality of the research approach and plan and how it will address
the identified risk
• the capabilities of the participants (how well do the proposed
end-users connect with the identified problem, and how highly regarded in their
field are the proposed researchers?)
• the quality of the leadership and the research and management teams
• the quality of the education program
• the proposed success/progress metrics
• how the end-user partners will deploy the research findings and gain
advantage from the Commonwealth investment
• the expected wider spillover benefits and how these will be taken up by
parties outside the collaboration
• the genuineness of the joint venture and alignment of interests (i.e.
checking that it is not ‘hollow collaboration’), and
• the suitability of the proposed accountability and governance
arrangements including the management of the joint venture.
7.3 That
i. CRC applications be submitted using a two-stage process. Applicants
would initially make the case in a written application(s) and, if shortlisted,
following peer review, would be given the chance to augment this at interview;
ii. the CRC Committee establish disciplinary-based standing committees
drawing on expertise in the ARC and NHMRC to manage the peer-review processes
associated with the first-stage culling, and second-stage ranking. These
committees should use a common formal process which should include giving the
applicant CRC the chance to comment on assessors’ comments in writing;
iii. the CRC Committee consult with the ARC and NHMRC to develop a joint
database of assessors to do the rigorous assessing of CRC applications for
consideration by the standing committees;
iv. the standing committees rank proposals assigned to them on all
criteria after obtaining sufficient peer assessments, and then overall, and make
recommendations to the CRC Committee; and
v. the CRC Committee consider all the input and recommend a final list to
the Minister.
7.4: That a common core of evaluation metrics be developed that would apply across all CRCs and would allow for cross-comparison between them. These should include, at minimum, metrics on research quality, end-user uptake, international connections for national benefit, and researcher education. As well as reporting on the core evaluation metrics, it is recommended that CRCs, in their annual report, report on measures specific to their CRC and agreed at the time the CRC is awarded.
7.5: That annual reports be examined closely for early warning signs of difficulty.
7.6: That a major hard-nosed review of each CRC using a common evaluation framework take place at the end of each 3 years – or more frequently if there are early warning signs of failure – of the life of a CRC, with a final review as it is finishing; and that it be an explicit condition of funding that termination be an option if the review’s findings are adverse.
7.7: That the CRC Committee establish a Review
Sub-committee to
i. oversee the review process;
ii. propose the composition of the initial and subsequent review panels to
the CRC Committee for approval. The same review panel should be used for all
CRCs in a field of application in order to ensure cross comparison. Each review
panel to be chaired by a Sub-committee member;
iii. consider feedback from the review panels;
iv. prepare a report for the CRC Committee on each review round including
a list of CRCs reviewed, ranked by success to date; and
v. propose which CRCs continue to receive Commonwealth funding under the
Program and which should no longer be funded.
Recommendation 8
8.1: That the CRC Program build close policy and operational links with other
collaborative research programs in the National Innovation System and that it
articulate well with the CSIRO National Research Flagships Program, ARC Linkage
Program and the NHMRC Partnerships for Better Health Program. While the CRC
Program should focus more on funding large end-user driven collaborative
pre-competitive research, the Linkage Program should continue to fund simpler
end-user/university partnerships. In line with the move to larger Linkage
grants, these programs should complement the CRC Program by supporting long
term-basic/strategic research with smaller, shorter and more flexible
arrangements between groups of firms either independently or in conjunction with
universities and public sector research agencies. The administrators of these
programs (and related State programs) should meet regularly to discuss
applications that might be eligible to either scheme.
8.2: That
i. a common core of broad evaluation measures be developed that would
apply across all Government innovation funding programs (especially programs
involving collaboration) and their projects;
ii. common application and review forms/processes be used as far as
possible across all innovation funding schemes, especially schemes involving
collaboration (including Federal & State schemes); and
iii. a much improved capacity to review innovation funding programs
(especially schemes involving collaboration) be developed along with a robust
capacity to cease funding weaker projects. Sometimes international review
mechanisms are needed.
8.3: That the ARC Centre of Excellence Program be enlarged and become annual and that it encourage applications from innovative research concentrations that have proved themselves producers of high quality and high impact research through programs such as the CRC Program (but also through multi-partner, collaborative ARC Discovery and Linkage grants).