Interoperability in the Light of Australia’s History of International Connectedness

1. Interoperability in the Light of Australia’s History of International Connectedness Professor Ron Johnston Australian Centre for Innovation University of Sydney FEAST/University of Queensland Symposium 2011 Enhancing Interoperability in the Emerging Global Research Order Brisbane, 24-25 March 2011

2. Interoperability

3. Non-interoperability We desperately need an acronym –IOP?

4. Global Increase in Collaborative Research

5. Why? • Emerging STI nations – China, India, … (more opportunities, more threats) • Global challenges - food, energy, water, climate change • Globalisation of R&D • Demographics of the STI labour force • Need for critical mass

6. Strategies for International Research Collaboration‘Drivers of International Collaboration in Research’ , Technopolis Report to EU, 2009 • Narrow STI Cooperation Paradigm • Collaboration as an end • Drivers are mainly to improve the quality, scope and critical mass of national research • Drivers are determined by the research community • Policy instruments designed to respond • Broad STI Cooperation Paradigm • Collaboration as a means • Non-research policy objectives, such as national competitiveness, tackling global challenges • Also a tool of diplomacy

7. So Where Does Australia Fit? • Small player, dependent on knowledge and STI capability located elsewhere • Explicit commitment to internationalisation of research funding and practice since 2008 • Relatively strong record of international engagement

8. Australian Research Council • Most funding schemes accessible to non-Australian applicants • 700 to 800 projects per year propose international collaboration • Proportion of successful projects involving international collaboration over 50% • Preferred collaborators – USA, UK, Germany, France, Canada, China, Japan

9. CSIRO International Activities • Over 1000 projects in 70 countries in 2009 • Five priority targets – China, India, USA, Europe, developing countries • Member of Global Research Alliance – linked with 8 other leading research organisations to address Millennium goals of water, energy, health, transport and digital divide

10. Australian Involvement in EU Framework Programs • FP4 participants – 60 • FP5 participants – 90 • FP6 participants - 173 • FP7 participants - >100 (of 300 proposers, highest success rate among Third countries) • Total Australian contribution to FP7 projects - €16M of total project value of €500M – leverage of x30

11. Prominent Australian Involvement in Mega-Science • UN IPCC • Global Diversity Information Facility (GBIF) • International Gemini Observatory • International Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) • The Square Kilometre Array initiative • Anglo Australian Telescope/Anglo-Australian Observatory (AAT) • Isaac Newton Group Telescopes • Joint Institute for Very Long Baseline Interferometry in Europe (JIVE) • European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERN) • European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) • European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) • Joint European Torus (JET) • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)

12. A Statement of the Bleedin’ Obvious “ International S&T collaboration could be made more effective and efficient through greater program coordination between countries” (Technopolis) The difficult questions are: • How? • In the face of what challenges and opportunities?

13. The New Global Research Order • New geopolitics of research – eg traditional US versus EU, and the rest - no longer so appropriate • Virtual/simulation research • Internet-based research collaboration • The drive to increase the productivity and RoI of research • Increasing issues of scale and time-to-delivery • Role of the national STI system as a link, evaluator, interpreter and adaptor of knowledge located elsewhere

14. A Modern STI policy paradox We need to support the development of a national research capability of international standing, but less for the research that will (and must) be produced, than the capability it will provide to interface with (achieve interoperability with) the global knowledge pool AND to adapt it to address local issues

15. Limitations of Traditional Closed Innovation in the Global Knowledge Economy • Inability to generate the best knowledge with limited resources (there is always more and better everywhere else) • Inability to predict sufficiently quickly or accurately what markets and customers will want

16. The Open Innovation Response • Source knowledge from wherever in the world it can be best produced (as a result of need, talent, infrastructure) • New driver of innovation is the informed and empowered customer, with technology as just an enabler

17. Challenges for STI Policy • While STI skills remain central, they need to be complemented by skills in knowledge location, evaluation and integration, and in opportunity-responsive design • Under open innovation, the components of the STI system necessarily become more decentralised, more fragmented, and more specialised, and as a consequence, [less amenable to central steering

18. Some Possible Initiatives to Promote Interoperability • Adopt an explicitly experimental and learning-driven approach and start at the national level • Target the international research funding organisations to lead in developing and demanding IOP • Translate the business model of entrepreneurial alliances into the STI collaboration sphere • Invest in the development of an IOP Protocol for megascience projects