‘Big Ideas’ for Transdisciplinary Research

1. Designing the Future ‘Big Ideas’ for Transdisciplinary Research November 13, 2009

2. Subcommittee Members • Ravi Bellamkonda, Co-Chair* • Peter Brecke • David Frost* • Don Giddens* • Donna Hyland (Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta) • Marcia Kinstler • Elizabeth Mynatt • Jeff Skolnick • Lisa Tedesco (Emory) • Johnna Temenoff* • Jerry Thursby, Co-Chair • (*CoE) Related subcommittee meeting concurrently: “Ensure Georgia Tech’s Research Preeminence”

3. Background • Transformation from a regional school to a globally recognized research institute in the last 25 years • Growth in number of faculty and research infrastructure, as well as conversion of its faculty from a primarily teaching role to a primarily research role has contributed to transformation • GT’s size, diversity and numbers offers great flexibility • Strategies for the future can leverage this advantage in developing model for leadership

4. GT 2035 Georgia Tech has a unique, entrepreneurial, problem solving spirit Georgia Tech should take on the challenge of significantly impacting global challenges in the areas of Health, Environment, Energy, Information and Sustainable Economic Growth

5. Design Criteria • Success in making an impact on global challenges will require: • Galvanizing and catalyzing GT to take on these challenges • GT having a global perspective and presence • Forming strategic partnerships • Creating a culture of leadership The four ‘Big Ideas’ currently being discussed mirror these ‘criteria’

6. ‘Big Ideas’ Summary • GT-Research Innovation Fund (GT-RIF) • $1 billion GT-Research Innovation Fund • World challenges: energy, health, environment, sustainable economic growth, etc. • Rationale: Catalyzing innovation in a bottom-up, faculty driven manner will maximize success of new initiatives • Bring the world to GT/Atlanta • Partner with GA economic development office to attract research institutes to locate near GT campus (Advanced Study Quad) • Rationale: Attracting new research institutes to Atlanta/GT campus will promote the GT research enterprise

7. ‘Big Ideas’ Summary • Innovate in business practices for research partnerships • Partnerships of all types: • Within GT, regional, global • With industry, research institutes, governmental labs, hospitals, other universities • Rationale: Reducing barriers to partnerships will encourage large, “big-payoff” projects 4. Nurture culture of leadership and scholarship • Alter resource allocation and organizational structure as needed • Rationale: Means to encourage excellence in thought leadership, entrepreneurship, and policy should also maintain a collaborative environment at GT

8. GT-RIF: Rationale • Capitalize on the entrepreneurial spirit that characterizes GT culture to address global problems: health,environment, energy, information, sustainable economic growth • Particular research directions within these broad fields should be determined in a ‘bottom-up,’ faculty-driven fashion • Large top-down investments without ‘buy-in’ from faculty, chairs and deans are unlikely to succeed • Investments would particularly encourage multi/trans disciplinary approaches • More likely to tolerate ‘failures’ better than a top-down, large institute model • Allows the best ideas to rise to the top organically over an incubation period no larger than 5 years

9. GT-RIF: Implementation • $1 billion GT Research Innovation Fund (GT-RIF) created to drive GT’s research in 5 global challenge areas • Multiple levels of funding • Seed grants, new buildings, institutes, GT-other institution or GT-industry partnerships, etc. • ‘Business plans’ generated in response to ‘call for proposals’ • Include rationale, milestones, measures of success, timeline • Investment decisions be based on the quality of the ‘research business plan’ • Made after rigorous peer review involving leading academic experts (external), business leaders (external) as well as top GT administration • Each ‘project’ has external review • Conducted at appropriate time intervals for the scale of the investment • Conducted by leading experts (external) • If not making milestones, ‘projects’ may be terminated/ramped down

10. GT-RIF: Implementation • Through this process, 5 global challenges would be focused on specific areas where GT has greatest potential for impact • Example: Personalized medicine may be the focus of health/quality of life investments • Fund established by a new campaign involving philanthropy, state and business investment • Separate from the current ongoing capital campaign • Used as resources gathered rather than waiting for full amount to be raised • If certain new efforts require new multi-disciplinary buildings, they may be co-located in a new Advanced Studies Quad within or close to GT main campus

11. Bring the World to Atlanta: Rationale • GT is a fast developing leader in research but its research presence needs to be further strengthened • GT will be the vehicle to make Atlanta the ‘cross-roads’ for global research by providing a pathway for global institutes/universities to have a high quality physical presence in USA • GT, Atlanta and Georgia gain just as they would when they ‘incentivize’ a car company to relocated here • Result in concentration of globally-integrated, PhD-centric Institutes and attendant workforce in Atlanta

12. Bring the World to Atlanta: Implementation • Build large building(s) on GT campus (possibly part of Advanced Studies Quad) • Incentivize with inexpensive space and terms • GT partner with Georgia Research Alliance and the GA Department of Economic Development to actively recruit new research institutes to Atlanta • Academic research institutes (e.g. Max Plank Institutes) • Institutes funded by international companies

13. Business Partnership Procedures: Rationale • Crucial difference between success and failure in realizing GT’s potential will be in execution of ideas, not just in their generation • Innovation in processes to reduce barriers to partnerships and collaborations will be critically important

14. Business Partnership Procedures: Implementation • Form a non-profit institution called, the “Georgia Research Consortium” (between GT, Emory, CHOA, etc) which allows the following activities to occur easily • Money moves freely • Submit cross-institutional training and research grants • Equity stake in start up companies formed by university faculty • Run clinical trials to manage participant university conflicts of interest • Innovate in partnership agreements • Intellectual property • Student and personnel exchange • Apply databases of expertise and scholarly production to facilitate intra-GT collaboration

15. Business Partnership Procedures: Implementation • Create a one-stop window or HOV lane for ‘Big Ideas/Innovation’ • Office will support faculty group formation, development and large proposal submission for ‘big ideas’ • Office be headed by an ‘innovation czar’ - mission is to incentivize and advocate for innovative ideas and approaches in research and education • Develop creative resourcing models for large research efforts involving coordinated state, philanthropic, defense, federal, and corporate fund-raising • Place GT in a position to receive several $100 Million ‘gifts’ over the next 10-15 years. • Empower development office to adopt a long-term strategy for large gifts • Create a GT Alumni Network for Innovation • Continually provide opportunities for alums to network/provide feedback based on business sectors

16. Leadership Culture: Rationale • GT has maintained its collegial, collaborative environment while becoming acclaimed in many areas of research • Disadvantage is that environment also creates the potential to ‘moderate’ scale of research impact • Reduces the intense ‘pressure cooker’ type drivers that typify some of our peer research institutions • Number of research disciplines where GT leadership/dominance is undisputed is relatively low for its size, resources and potential

17. Leadership Culture: Implementation • Recognize, reward and celebrate scholarship/academic achievement of faculty • Recognize our own through endowed chairs, professorships, GA Research Alliance chairs etc • Strengthen the tenure system by making it family-friendly and select for faculty with the potential of sustained, long-term productivity • Create a culture of leadership and research preeminence in areas of interest to GT • Aggressively market faculty for awards and honors • Institute-based awards for faculty at different career stages

18. Leadership Culture: Implementation • Practice a ‘Darwinist Meritocracy’ at all levels of GT • Use internal database/other metrics to measure scholarly productivity of faculty, departments, centers and institutes • Establish a transparent link between resources and performance with an appropriately generous evaluation cycle • Resource allocation at all levels have a significant component tied to ‘performance’ from faculty salary to college budgets • Adopt a flexible organizational structure that encourages bottom-up innovation • Institute management methods to encourage problem-solving at the lowest administrative levels possible • Institute best practices for high-quality staff hiring at the appropriate pay-scale

19. Further Issues for Discussion • If GT-RIF is created, can investment be done without internal pressures that compromise quality or direction of investment? • How do we transform the GT financial model such that each budget/salary within GT has a significant portion based on performance? • By creating a large research infrastructure, are we sacrificing our mission to educate undergraduates? • If we had 1 billion $$, is this the way we would want to spend it? Are these ideas truly transformative?

20. Contacts • Ravi Bellamkonda, BME (ravi@gatech.edu) • Jerry Thursby, Management (Jerry.Thursby@mgt.gatech.edu) • Johnna Temenoff, BME (johnna.temenoff@bme.gatech.edu)