1 / 11

Removal of the Current PBRF Disincentive to the Commercialisation of Research

Removal of the Current PBRF Disincentive to the Commercialisation of Research. GIPI Project. Background. Major lever to contribute to economic transformation is commercialisation of research activity in our 8 universities

elvis
Download Presentation

Removal of the Current PBRF Disincentive to the Commercialisation of Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Removal of the Current PBRF Disincentive to the Commercialisation of Research GIPI Project

  2. Background • Major lever to contribute to economic transformation is commercialisation of research activity in our 8 universities • Existing PBRF system ads as a major disincentive to commercialisation of Uni based research • Need entrepreneurial performance indicators which recognise complexity and time from lab bench 2 wealth generation • PBRF does recognise external research income to institution but need recognition for the individual also • TEC funded Growth and Innovation Pilot Initiative (GIPI) demonstrated a change in research culture is in academia and satisfying intellectually

  3. Background (cont’d) • GIPI has given workload relief, mentoring, understanding, encouragement • At GIPI commencement an independent attitude survey was conducted • 85% of academics surveyed were indifferent or hostile to commercialisation/although majority wish to contribute to NZ wellbeing • GIPI has shown sustainability of entrepreneurial culture can not be reliant on individual goodwill/leadership – a strong funding signal is also necessary

  4. Background (cont’d) • GIPI notified the Minister • Minister concurred with some of the views expressed to him regarding the current disincentives in the PBRF system towards innovative and entrepreneurial application of research in our tertiary institutions • Minister agreed this aspect of research should be encouraged in order to achieve a greater contribution from research to “economic transformation” and other social and environmental outcomes desired by government

  5. Background (cont’d) • Minister invited GIPI Board to suggest how the current system might be best modified to accommodate and incentivize such activity • The following proposal is the consensus outcome of a brainstorming session called by GIPI Board. The meeting included senior University and Polytechnic representatives, plus academics experienced in research commercialisation

  6. Principles • Current PBRF system is not broken it provides for a robust assessment of traditional academic research excellence • The definition of research could be broadened to include the application of new knowledge as well as its discovery. • Any PBRF modification must retain the current focus on the individual researcher. This is important to their career mobility and to departmental rankings used to attract students. • A modified system should be permissive and encouraging of applied research and commercialisation, but not compulsory. Only a proportion of academics will be inclined and sufficiently skilled to explore this option. A voluntary participation option is recommended.

  7. Principles (cont’d) • Excellence measures for the entrepreneurial application of research are quite different to those used to assess the quality of discovery research. They represent a different dimension of excellence, not an inferior one. • GIPI Board is convinced that adding an extra “entrepreneurial” qualified panelist to the existing discipline based panels, or amending their excellence criteria to recognise application of research will not work. • Need a new and different panel(with the same ranking as the existing academic panels) comprising individuals experienced and qualified in this dimension to carry out the quality assessment with equivalent rigour to the discipline panels.

  8. Proposed Solution • PBRF system operates as at present, with the following enhancement • In preparing their evidence portfolios academics may now opt either to submit as at present to the appropriate discipline based panels, or they may opt to apportion part of their activity to entrepreneurial application of research. • If they choose the second option they must: • Submit an apportionment of their time/activity to one of the discipline panels (say a minimum of 40%). The discipline panel would assess the quality of this portion of the work as at present but taking into account the time apportionment in terms of output volume

  9. Proposed Solution (cont’d) • Prepare a second evidence portfolio in the context of the performance measures for the application of research. This second evidence portfolio would be assessed by the new panel specifically set up for this purpose in relation to the time apportionment to application of research • A suitable suite of outputs and outcomes which could be used as assessment measures needs to be developed • The final PBRF score for each individual researcher would be the simple weighted average of the two scores

  10. Submission of Evidence Portfolio

  11. END GIPI Project

More Related