1 / 27

Background to Cooperative Research Centre model

Background to Cooperative Research Centre model. Ralph Ogden Executive Manager, Product Development. The problem – FBA/NERC backgrounder. Research perspective Declining: staff #’s funding science outputs assets Freshwater management perspective Policy challenged

hubert
Download Presentation

Background to Cooperative Research Centre model

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. Background to Cooperative Research Centre model Ralph Ogden Executive Manager, Product Development

  2. The problem – FBA/NERC backgrounder Research perspective • Declining: • staff #’s • funding • science outputs • assets Freshwater management perspective • Policy challenged • Few reliable management ‘levers’ for required work

  3. Aus. Gov’t expenditure on CRCS & other R&D

  4. Aus. Government expenditure on CRCs • Conservative & Labour governments!

  5. CRC program – Australia • ~200$M Federal Gov’t funding/year • Source of cash & in-kind: • 23% Federal Government • 25% Universities • 19% Industry: management agencies, water authorities, water authorities etc. • 10% CSIRO • 13% Other • 72 CRCs • eWater: $150M over 7 years

  6. Collaborative approaches • Lots of models • ‘CRC’ model really a family of models

  7. Successful CRCs Rely on: • Trust • Strong leadership • Top-down strategy and management • Narrow, targeted scope • Tight, active communications • Progressive implementation

  8. CRC value proposition manager’s £’s  researchers managers  application of science

  9. Biggest challenges for CRCs From: • research strategy • application of science to management problems NOT • research planning & methods

  10. CRC value proposition manager’s £’s  researchers managers  application of science

  11. scientific findings (papers) integration, user focus Decision tool synthesis, translation Knowledge value-chain • Knowledge as a commodity • Raw form (papers) is of no use to most (Aust.) managers • Example:

  12. R&D planning process Requirements document Plan for solution Project plans Ex. – a research funding model Knowledge value chain manager’s needs • Strategy: • Manager’s needs will define the research • A mix of applied & ‘blue sky’ research is required • More applied than ‘blue sky’ applied science ‘solution’ R&D

  13. Room for ‘blue sky’ research in a CRC? • 70-80% of eWater research applied • ‘Blue sky’ topics in eWater: • Theories of landscape ecology & hydrology • Spatial optimisation of rehabilitation in catchments • Multiple drivers of river ecosystems • Modelling hydroclimatic variability & impacts • Impacts of constituents on in-stream processes & food webs • River & floodplain interactions – flow, water quality, biological

  14. Worth it? Verdict from researchers Pros • Funding – relatively easy £ • Opportunity for collaborative research, collaborations with managers • Impact in management sphere – while maintaining academic status Cons: • ‘Transaction costs’ • Lack of recognition in Government’s science performance indicators

  15. Impact on Australian FW science • Lost some researchers along the way • But usually a positive vibe! • ‘Proof of concept’ for collaborative approach

  16. Next generation of scientists, managers • Record: 5th year reviews, round 2 CRCFE, CRCCH: • 59 completed PhD theses • 74 current PhD theses • 60 PhD scholars planned for 7y eWater CRC • Partial funding • Training • Foster links to researchers, agencies • Mentoring by managers • A smaller number of post-docs

  17. CRC value proposition manager’s £’s  researchers managers  application of science

  18. Two approaches to applying science • Knowledge exchange – policy oriented • fast • reflects scientific concensus • Tool development – task oriented, e.g. prediction, scenario testing • transparent, repeatable  defensible • more flexible in long term • forces a process

  19. Knowledge exchange • Contracts best • clear statement of needs • keep the application focused • ‘Organic’, non-contract KE requires very strong direction, process • Requires dedicated staff and whole-of-CRC effort • Advice not advocacy

  20. An example of successful KE Living Murray • $650M & 500 Gl flow returned to Murray River • Additional $200M this year • Reasons for success • Active partner (business-critical contract) • Leadership kept everyone working together • MFAT model forced process • Advice not advocacy

  21. Tool development Requires: • Definition of problem based on manager’s needs • Understanding of management context, e.g. WFD • Leader & team: • Champion • Key influencers from management • Engine room • Clear development process • Development principles • Continuous ‘conversation’: scientists & managers • Value at different stages captured – e.g. specifications

  22. Successful tools – examples • Murray Flow Assessment Tool • AUSRIVAS • Taxonomic guides • Water quality guidelines (standards) • MUSIC, E2, TIME, the CM Toolkit – urban & rural catchment management • Healthy Working River Framework

  23. Adoption, support, commercialisation • Final steps in ‘value chain’ • Managers require more than technology • Success depends on strategy, process, user focus etc., as for applied science • Adoption requirements have a major influence on both KE and tool development • Commercial profits put back into R&D • Commercial requirements too

  24. Worth it? Management persective Why are managers in the CRC? • Track record of CRC; goodwill from historical relationships • Funding for work aligned with their business • New technology, responsiveness of CRC • Professional development of agency staff • Lend external credibility to their approach • Gives agency sections greater ‘critical mass’

  25. Worth it? Verdict of managers • However, some clear failures • Continued funding suggests success outweighs failure

  26. Some problems & pitfalls for CRCs • Transaction costs • Science culture vs management culture • Concept of time, value; staff turnover • Endless possibilities • New culture spooks scientists • e.g. commercial aspects

  27. CRC value proposition manager’s £’s  researchers managers  application of science

More Related