Language:
Search
 
National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy
Department of Education, Science and Training
Australia

The Problem

Research is playing an ever more indispensable part in efforts around the world to understand and address challenges and opportunities relating to (for example) climate change, efforts to combat disease, sustainable production and use of energy and the impacts of globalisation. Much of the infrastructure needed to support research is expensive and complex, while the resources available for it are inevitably limited relative to the magnitude of the challenges it is being asked to address.

For Australia this challenge is especially acute. We are geographically isolated, with a small population concentrated in a few widely separated cities. The cost of much of the infrastructure needed to support world-competitive research in Australia lies far beyond the reach of individual institutions (or even collaborating groups of institutions). We need a nationally co-ordinated approach to ensure that, investments in infrastructure are made strategically and that wastage and unproductive duplication of resources are kept to a minimum.

In principle, efforts to deliver such co-ordination are best driven by the research community and its stakeholders. In practice, this is not easy to achieve. Funding for research in Australia is provided by a range of portfolios at both Commonwealth and State/Territory levels, as well as by the private sector, and driven by a range of policy agendas. Researchers and their institutions are more accustomed to competing with each other for funding than collaborating in large-scale collective planning exercises. Disciplines vary greatly in terms of their capacity for collective action. An Australian Government review conducted in 2004 found that there was a need to strengthen our capacity to plan and prioritise investment in research infrastructure.

The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) was established to meet this challenge. NCRIS has successfully enabled the many parties with an interest in research infrastructure investment – in the research community, across government research funding agencies at both the Commonwealth and State/Territory levels, and in the business and wider communities – to collaboratively identify investment priorities, develop detailed investment plans and pool resources to make joint investments focused on meeting national rather than merely sectional needs.

Access to facilities supported by NCRIS funding is open to the whole research community on the basis of the quality of the research being undertaken, rather than being limited to researchers in the organisations in which the infrastructure is located. Similarly, existing infrastructure owned by individual research organisations and firms is being made more accessible to the wider research community.

Solution and Key Benefits

 What is the initiative about? (the solution)
The goals of NCRIS are to:
 direct investment in research infrastructure nationally into the areas in which it will have the greatest strategic impact;
 promote collaboration within the research system, and between the system and the wider community;
 reduce duplication and sub-optimal use of resources arising from lack of co-ordination; and
 build the capacity of the research community to collaborate not only at the level of research projects, but also at the strategic level, in relation to identifying and agreeing on future infrastructure requirements and on future directions more generally.

The evidence indicates that NCRIS is successfully achieving these goals. A review conducted in 2007, bringing together feedback from stakeholders and Facilitators who were engaged to develop investment plans, found:
 wide support for adopting a strategic, national and consultative approach to identifying and investing in research infrastructure, and for NCRIS’s stress on making strategic investments that minimise duplication, on ensuring infrastructure is accessible nationally and on focusing on areas where Australia has the potential to be an international leader;
 that NCRIS is strengthening the focus of the research community and State and Territory Governments on long-term national needs – this was seen as highly constructive and long overdue;
 a widespread willingness on the part of the research community to work collaboratively, rising above inter-institutional rivalries, sharing access to “their” infrastructure for the common good, and making significant cash and in-kind co-investments, together with enthusiastic support from state governments and significant engagement by industry;
 NCRIS has improved communication and collaboration between research institutions, and between institutions and governments, bringing communities together on a scale not previously attempted. It was observed that, through NCRIS, many groups working in particular research areas had met and learned about each other for the first time;
 wide support for NCRIS’ use of collaborative rather than competitive processes to identify priorities and develop investment plans. This enabled all stakeholders to participate in the planning and implementation of the investments;
 an expectation that NCRIS’ investments will promote collaboration between researchers (brought together through utilisation of the infrastructure), advancing Australia’s capacity to produce world-class research.

The beneficiaries of NCRIS are Australian taxpayers, the research community, industry and, through them, the whole Australian community:
 taxpayers can be confident that they are receiving the best value for their investment in research infrastructure, and that research in areas of national priority is being supported;
 the research community has better access to leading edge equipment and facilities and a greatly strengthened capacity to act collectively to address shared priorities. Students and early-career researchers in particular are able to access NCRIS-supported facilities at subsidised rates;
 industry gains access to NCRIS-supported facilities;
 the whole Australian community stands to benefit from the strengthened capacity that NCRIS has provided to our research community to produce world-class research outcomes addressing our most pressing economic, social and environmental opportunities and challenges.

Actors and Stakeholders

 Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The success of NCRIS reflects the commitment of a large number of individuals, institutions and organisations:
 the proposal to develop a national, strategic, collaborative approach to funding research infrastructure was initiated by the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) and included as a recommendation in the Government’s 2003 policy statement on higher education, Backing Australia’s Future;
 Dr Brendan Nelson MP, then Minister for Education, Science and Training secured Government approval for the proposal as part of the $5.3 billion science and innovation package, Backing Australia’s Ability – Building our Future through Science and Innovation announced in 2004;
 much of the fundamental policy thinking informing NCRIS was undertaken by a National Research Infrastructure Taskforce, led by Dr Mike Sargent, which consulted extensively and drew on more than 120 written submissions in preparing its report;
 The NCRIS Advisory Group (2004-05) advised the Minister on the broad NCRIS implementation process following a public call for submissions and further extensive consultation with stakeholders. It was chaired by Professor Rory Hume, former Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales and included eminent scientists and heads of research bodies from across Australia;
 The standing NCRIS Committee (2005 to present) developed the NCRIS Roadmap (with advice from four expert sub-committees)continues to oversee the subsequent investment processes. It is chaired by Dr Mike Sargent and includes the heads of many of Australia’s major public research agencies. Dr Sargent’s leadership, personal commitment and input to the development and implementation of NCRIS have contributed significantly to its success;
 hundreds (if not thousands) of members of the research community have contributed to discussions and debates informing the identification of investment priorities and the detailed formulation of investment plans;
 representatives of State and Territory government agencies covering a range of portfolios engaged in all aspects of the implementation process, as were representatives of other Commonwealth Government agencies where the proposed investments intersected with the responsibilities of their portfolios;
 the success of NCRIS depended heavily on the facilitators who were contracted by DEST work with the research community to collaboratively develop detailed investment plans in each of the identified priority areas;
 the DEST NCRIS Secretariat which supported the Advisory Group and the Committee, undertook much of the consultation and subsequent negotiation of funding agreements, and then oversaw the implementation of the capabilities and now manage their ongoing activities.

(a) Strategies

 Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
 a.      What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
NCRIS’ main objectives are to:

 concentrate research infrastructure investment in areas of greatest strategic impact;
 promote collaboration within the research system, and between it and the wider community;
 reduce duplication and sub-optimal use of resources arising from lack of co-ordination; and
 build the capacity of the research community to collaborate not only at the level of research projects, but also at the strategic level.

Development of an overarching policy framework commenced with the work of the National Research Infrastructure Taskforce and continued (after funding for NCRIS was confirmed) by an NCRIS Advisory Group. Once the framework was in place and endorsed by the Minister, a high-powered, standing NCRIS Committee was established to oversee the implementation process, chaired by Dr Mike Sargent and supported by a secretariat in the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST).

The NCRIS Committee’s first task was to identify those areas in which research infrastructure investment would yield the greatest strategic impact. It did this with the support of expert
sub-committees focusing on the four key themes informing Australia’s National Research Priorities - An Environmentally Sustainable Australia; Promoting and Maintaining Good Health; Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries; and Safeguarding Australia. Sixteen priority areas for investment were documented in the NCRIS Roadmap. An Exposure Draft of the Roadmap drew almost 200 overwhelmingly supportive written responses.

Once priorities were endorsed by the Minister, the NCRIS Committee initiated development of detailed investment plans. Rather than engaging in a conventional tender process, the Committee opted to appoint facilitators to develop investment plans in close consultation with their respective stakeholder communities. The Committee saw this as far more consistent with the core goal of NCRIS - promoting nationwide collaboration within the research community and between it and the business and wider communities – than the more conventional tendering approach, which would have encouraged a focus on sectional rather than national needs and discouraged open debate and sharing of information.

Facilitators were encouraged to frame their investment plans with regard to a vision of the long-term national needs in their respective areas. To achieve this, they were asked in the first instance to provide a Progress Report identifying what they would invest in under:
 (a) a ‘blue sky’ scenario, reflecting a long-term perspective on research infrastructure needs in their respective areas; and
 (b) a constrained scenario, developed within an indicative funding envelope provided to each facilitator by the NCRIS Committee.

After the NCRIS Committee considered facilitators’ Progress Reports, it confirmed the funding envelopes that they were to work within in finalising their investment plans.

The strategies used to implement NCRIS have involved extensive consultation at every stage of the process, supported by a philosophy of openness and transparency. This was seen as fundamental, not only to provide the greatest chance of delivering the right outcomes and promote stakeholder buy-in, but because the process itself was intended to demonstrate the benefits of collaboration.

Following approval of the investment plans, funding agreements were negotiated.

(b) Implementation

 b.      What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The key development and implementation steps and the chronology are as follows:
 March 2004 - report of the National Research Infrastructure Taskforce (NRIT) is published.
 May 2004 – funding for NCRIS is announced.
 July 2005 –the NCRIS Advisory Group releases its Implementation Advice laying out the strategic framework and principles that are to guide NCRIS.
 November 2005 – the NCRIS Committee releases an Exposure Draft of the NCRIS Roadmap. The Exposure Draft draws almost 200 overwhelmingly supportive written responses.
 February 2006 – the final NCRIS Roadmap is released. The Roadmap identifies sixteen priority areas for NCRIS investment. Of these, it recommends that
 Investment plans relating to nine priority areas commence immediately;
 Further scoping and analysis be undertaken in relation to two capabilities; and
 Four capabilities be reviewed for possible implementation in 2007.
 November 2006 – On the advice of the NCRIS Committee, the Minister agrees fund the first nine priority areas, subject to negotiation of funding agreements. The nine priority areas are:
Evolving bio-molecular platforms and informatics - supporting research directed toward understanding the molecular basis of biological systems;
Integrated biological systems- supporting research directed toward understanding how biological systems and sub-systems interact with each other and the wider environment;
Characterisation- supporting research in a wide range of disciplines where there is a need to understand the detailed attributes of matter, using x-ray techniques, neutron scattering, imaging and advanced microscopy and microanalysis;
Fabrication – delivering a capacity to produce industrial trial quantities of materials, fabricate product components and rapidly produce prototypes to help provide paths to market for world-class research;
Biotechnology products – delivering a capacity to produce industrial trial quantities of
bio-products including (for example) proteins, antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and biofuels;
Networked biosecurity framework – supporting research aimed at enhancing Australia’s capacity to anticipate, rapidly diagnose, respond to and contain emerging infectious diseases, including those potentially usable by terrorists.
Optical and radio astronomy- supporting research aimed at maintaining Australia’s world-class capabilities in astronomy;
Integrated marine observing system – supporting an improved understanding of Australia’s extensive ocean environment; and
Structure and evolution of the Australian continent - supporting research into the fundamental geophysics of the Australian continent.

 by September 2007, funding agreements for eight of the nine capabilities have been signed. (The NCRIS Committee decides that further work is required on the Networked biosecurity framework capability);

 As at November 2007, work is under way to develop investment plans for:
Platforms for collaboration – supporting the development of the information technology infrastructure required to enable researchers in all disciplines to rapidly ability to collect, share, analyse, store and retrieve information;
Population Health and Clinical Data Linkages –better integrating existing health-related data so as to better exploit its potential as a resource for research;
Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network – providing an integrated platform for the collection and modelling of data relating to Australia’s terrestrial ecosystems.
Networked biosecurity framework – (further work is under way).

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

 c.      What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
creation of national infrastructure networks and the building of a collaborative culture among the research community mean that researchers in plant, animal and human diseases, for example, will be able to link their own datasets and then use state of the art information and communication technology to overlay that information with data on insect, plant and animal species, land use and ecology, marine and climate developments and population health records. Initiatives such as this will provide researchers with a power of which they had only dreamed - the analytical and predictive power to solve problems and manage issues that affect the nation and the world.

The main obstacle encountered was the requirement for culture change – in both the research community and the bureaucracy. NCRIS is based on a new and very different process. As outlined above, it is based on collaboration rather than competition, and requires a national view of priorities rather than an institution or state/territory-based view.

The NCRIS process was criticised by some academics as lacking the rigour applied by peer review. Some bureaucrats questioned whether directing funding to collaborative proposals would be as economically efficient as using competitive allocation.

There was a level of distrust among stakeholders of the Federal government. Some, accustomed to competitive funding processes and adversarial relationships, were sceptical that more than AUD$500 million could really be allocated through an open, collaborative process demanding high levels of communication and mutual trust. NCRIS’ requirement that research infrastructure funded by it must be accessible on reasonable, merit-based terms to all Australian researchers posed a challenge to those who were more comfortable advocating on behalf of disciplinary, institutional or jurisdictional loyalties, rather than the national interest.

In practice, stakeholders have shown themselves far more willing to rise above their sectional interests than many would have thought possible. For many, the NCRIS approach responded to a long-felt need to work together more effectively for the common good. This bears testimony to the extent to which NCRIS “walked the talk” of consultation, communication and transparency throughout the implementation process. This was essential in building and maintaining trust – hard-won but easily lost - in the integrity of the process.

The high standing of the members of the NCRIS Advisory Group and the NCRIS Committee was important. Their guidance of the development of the NCRIS principles and the Strategic Roadmap lent credibility to the process. The exhaustive consultative processes, which in effect were a form of community-wide, transparent peer review, also played a critical role. The strong efforts to bring states and territories into the consultative process was important in overcoming jurisdictional divisions. .

(d) Use of Resources

 d.      What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The Australian Government committed $AUD542 million for the implementation of NCRIS. The costs over 2005-2007 of implementing NCRIS can be broken broadly into:

 Staffing in the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST)to support the implementation –$$2.9 million;
 Costs of supporting the NCRIS Committee – $0.36 million;
 Costs of engaging facilitators to develop detailed investment plans, and expert consultants to assist in the assessment of those plans – $2.8 million.

In addition to these costs, the research community incurred further, not readily quantifiable costs in the form of time spent in consultations and development of investment plans. These need to be set against the costs that were avoided by choosing not to adopt a conventional tendering process. Had such processes been adopted, an enormous amount of effort would have been expended in the research community in preparing investment proposals, most of which would have been wasted.

Sustainability and Transferability

  Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
While NCRIS was initially funded as a four-year, terminating programme, it has been designed and run on the premise that Australian governments will continue to provide funding for research infrastructure.

It can also be expected that NCRIS investments will continue to be sustained by co-investments from other jurisdictions, funding agencies, research providers and the private sector. NCRIS has attracted $496 million in co-investments thus far ($236 million in cash and $260 million in-kind), complementing its own direct investments. NCRIS projects are attractive as they enable pooling of resources, giving co-investors access to far more, and far more sophisticated, infrastructure than they could access if they were acting alone.

Considerable attention has been given to institutional sustainability in developing NCRIS investment plans. Governance arrangements established to manage NCRIS investments will provide a vehicle for stronger strategic planning of research infrastructure over the long term, and strengthen the “collective voice” of researchers more generally. The NCRIS funding agreements provide scope for annual amendment of business plans, encouraging the research community to adopt an agreed, ongoing, constantly evolving and strategically informed understanding of their infrastructure needs.

The NCRIS Roadmap will be reviewed and updated from time to time. This will inform government of changing priorities for investment in research infrastructure.

The NCRIS model is replicable:

 it is currently being considered as a model for allocating funds made available through the Higher Education Endowment Fund (HEEF). It is also being looked at by other jurisdictions in Australia (Victoria, Queensland). Enquiries about the NCRIS approach have been received from Canada, New Zealand and the OECD.

 In principle, it should be transferable to other types of major government funding activities that would benefit from a strategically focused collaborative approach, where the goal is to provide benefits for all stakeholders, rather than the “lucky few” who tend to be the beneficiaries of competitive processes.

Lessons Learned

 What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The key elements that made NCRIS a success were:

 A strong strategic vision, developed and tested thoroughly with stakeholders. The results that have been achieved more than justify the time taken to carefully articulate and validate the vision and plan the implementation.

 A strong commitment to consultation and communication with stakeholders, backed by a high level of transparency which was instrumental in building trust in the implementation process.

 A high-powered and high-performing NCRIS Committee, led very effectively by its Chair, Dr Mike Sargent. Dr Sargent’s commitment and visibility were critical in engendering stakeholder support for the implementation process. The high respect in which Dr Sargent was held in the research community was also critical in resolving issues and tensions as these arose.

 Constructive engagement with the process by the research community and State/Territory government representatives. This, of course, was due in part to the success of the NCRIS Committee in winning their support for the innovative approach that it adopted.

 Highly professional secretariat support for the NCRIS Committee. With its heavy reliance on communication and consultation, the NCRIS process is more demanding of bureaucratic skills than are more conventional tender processes.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   Department of Education, Science and Training
Institution Type:   Government Department  
Contact Person:   Anne-Marie Lansdown
Title:   Manager Innovation and Research Systems  
Telephone/ Fax:   +61 2 6229 4162
Institution's / Project's Website:  
E-mail:   anne-marie.lansdown@dest.gov.au  
Address:   GPO Box 9880
Postal Code:   2601
City:   Canberra
State/Province:   ACT
Country:   Australia

          Go Back
Print friendly Page