Background to Cooperative Research Centre model

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