Roderick Laird

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Roderick Laird

Responses

Q1. How could the purpose in the ARC Act be revised to reflect the current and future role of the ARC?

For example, should the ARC Act be amended to specify in legislation:
(a) the scope of research funding supported by the ARC
(b) the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs
(c) the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia
(d) any other functions?

If so, what scope, functions and role?

If not, please suggest alternative ways to clarify and define these functions.

Specifically with reference to Q1c:

THE SCOPE AND REMIT OF THE ARC SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO ENCOMPASS ACTIVE CATALYSIS OF RESEARCH IMPACT IMPROVEMENT TO MAXIMISE ITS BENEFITS FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE ARC’S DISCOVERY AND LINKAGE GRANT PROGRAMMES

There is currently no agent of Government with either the objective or mandate to actively maximise the impact realised for all the stakeholders of its substantial investment in tertiary sector research. Current evaluation mechanisms are all abstracted in time from active research effort, and provide little or no relevant feedback to key stakeholders: research teams, industry and institutions.

The role definition should explicitly include the stakeholders and objective of the “active shaping”

ACTIVE IMPROVEMENT OF RESEARCH QUALITY AND IMPACT REQUIRES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS THAT DELIVER RELEVANT, TIMELY GUIDANCE AND INCENTIVES FOR ACTIVE RESEARCH TEAMS AND FOR INSTITUTIONS

Active improvement of research quality and impact requires the implementation of mechanisms that provide research teams and institutions timely, relevant feedback during the course of research.

By way of example, excellent feedback mechanisms are available and proven for both investigator-led and industry-led research. Scientific advisory boards are a standard feature of larger scale research programmes; some modest innovation may be needed to extend the mechanism to provide independent input to smaller teams, and bring relevant and objective industry expertise to industry research.

For industry research specifically, outstanding outcomes are driven by intimate industry-academic collaboration, typically leveraging the multi-disciplinary insight necessary to address complex real-world challenges. Regular stakeholder satisfaction surveys during the course of problem solving is a standard feature of high performing teams outside the tertiary sector. These simple surveys provide immediate, actionable feedback from stakeholders on their ongoing experience, their comfort with the focus of activity and with the impact objectives of continuing research. This feedback enables researcher collaborators to rapidly optimise their efforts, ensuring the best possible outcomes from every project and programme.

The most effective feedback provides both insight and incentive to effectively improve performance. For its education services, the tertiary sector has conducted and published the QILT survey. This is typically complemented within institutions with in-course feedback mechanisms. The publication of graduate satisfaction surveys has played an important role in driving a real focus – particularly in the Go8 – on delivering competitive student services. Nothing comparable exists for research, and there is currently no agency with the mandate to develop and implement something equivalent.

Specifically for industry research, incorporating stakeholder feedback in active problem-solving is demonstrably effective in optimising outcomes. The publication of summary stakeholder satisfaction – in particular, industry participant satisfaction – will create a very significant incentives for institutions to support their industry teams in developing competitive capabilities. Publication of this information would in effect create a competitive market for industry research services, allowing students and prospective industry organisations to identify potential research partners. This is both analogous to the QILT survey and arguably long overdue.

THE ARC's ROLE SHOULD REQUIRE IT TO ESTABLISH THE PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK MECHANISMS NEEDED TO CATALYSE PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT IN ACTIVE RESEARCH TEAMS AND IN AND ACROSS INSTITUTIONS

The ARC neither can nor should specify how research is conducted. It can however establish frameworks and support mechanisms that will help institutions and research teams to access the feedback they need to maximise the effectiveness of research. This will require a rebalancing of the roles of the ARC and the institutions with which it works, with the evolution of a much higher level of active collaboration around the nature and effectiveness of research processes. The ARC must be able to mandate certain levels of research governance for all research that it funds.

WITH RESPECT TO INDUSTRY RESEARCH, THE ROLE OF THE ARC SHOULD SPECIFICALLY ENCOMPASS THE ESTABLISHMENT AND PUBLICATION OF A STAKEHOLDER-SATISFACTION SURVEY

The rationale for implementing in-project stakeholder feedback mechanisms for industry research is compelling. For the same reasons that the Government, through the QUILT mechanism, publishes graduate satisfaction survey data for every institution, the analogous industry research stakeholder survey data should also be published. The ARC is the logical agent of government in establishing these mechanisms and its role should be expanded to specifically encompass it for industry research.

A canonically simple 3 question survey modelled on contemporary commercial practice and tailored to the specific nature of industry research is detailed at http://inspiringimpact.works/ and attachment 1 to the submission. The questions elicit stakeholder satisfaction with the experience, alignment of activity with industry objectives and expected impact of research activities. Satisfaction is a uniquely powerful and effectively zero cost measure that reveals the gap between expectations and perceptions on each of these three issues. The conversations that probe and understand these gaps will reveal exactly where there are opportunities to improve performance, build better stakeholder understanding of what’s going on and why, and better manage expectations – during active research where it matters most. Acting on these insights delivers immediate improvement both in satisfaction – and because of the precise relevance of the questions – critical underlying performance drivers and ultimately the outcomes they target.

Specifically with reference to Q1d:

LEGISLATION SHOULD SPECIFICALLY RECOGNISE THE NEED FOR THE ARC TO PROVIDE THE MANAGEMENT OF FUNDING, COORDINATION AND CROSS-SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SECTOR’S RESEARCH PERFORMANCE – PARTICULARLY IN THE DOMAIN OF INDUSTRY RESEARCH

The sector today effectively has one research model and culture; the one that underpins investigator-led research. It has been and continues to be aggressively honed by individual institutions, driven by the sector’s competitive dynamics.

A related but substantially different research model – both in terms of its capabilities and culture – is required for the sector to unlock its full potential in delivering impact from industry research. The response to Q1c of the lays out the imperative for the ARC to establish effective performance feedback mechanisms. It notes the critical importance of industry stakeholder feedback both during and after research activity. This feedback will highlight the need for truly effective industry/academy collaborative problem-solving skills and a “micro-culture” that most highly values collaboration and a rigorous real-world-impact focus. “Delightful impact” is a very short essay that outlines why and how the research model needs to change for it to be effective. It is available for download as a PDF at https://tinyurl.com/HighImpactResearchModel and as attachment 2 to the submission. The “meta” messages are; more of the same will not deliver better outcomes, and both subtle and significant capability and culture changes will be needed to deliver what is both possible from and expected of the sector’s industry research.

The sector is full of very smart people; with feedback loops established (and with the incentive of performance publication), teams and institutions will eventually “figure out” how to deliver impact that delights the stakeholders of industry research. This however might take a long time… The pace of sector-wide performance improvement will depend on a combination of; willingness to learn from analogous best practices both in academia and the commercial world, effective investment in and management of pilots and prototypes that embody those best practices – and whole-sector “institutionalised learning”, where best-practices are systematically harvested and deployed.

There is no agent for this whole-sector support and leadership activity today. Nor funding mechanisms for it. Arguably, few institutions have the skills to undertake this task for themselves. Despite awareness of the challenge amongst some of those that do – none have demonstrated the will to fund any learning or prototyping processes… It is therefore no surprise that the sector’s industry research impact trajectory is stagnant.

Both the Minister’s letter of expectations to the ARC and the first item of the terms of reference for this review highlight the importance of an active role for the ARC that delivers impact with industry… For the ARC is to credibly and constructively contribute to “actively shaping the research landscape”, it must both deliver the leadership and funding required to do so. There is much to be done and it will only happen with the leadership, management and funding support of a cross sector organisation that a trusted partner of its institutions. The dominance of the investigator-led research culture means that both the massive opportunities for and value of transforming the impact of industry research are scarcely recognised. It is therefore no surprise that the nature and scale of that transformation challenge are also dimly, if at all seen. This review is the opportunity to set the ARC up for a new era where the research impact trajectory is demonstrably significantly accelerated. For this to be the case, its function as an active agent of research industry transformation – particularly for industry research – must be explicitly recognised, along with the need to fund this appropriately.

Q2. Do you consider the current ARC governance model is adequate for the ARC to perform its functions?

If not, how could governance of the ARC be improved? For example, should the ARC Act be amended to incorporate a new governance model that establishes a Board on the model outlined in the consultation paper, or another model.

Please expand on your reasoning and/or provide alternative suggestions to enhance the governance, if you consider this to be important.

THE BOARD MODEL OUTLINED IN THE CONSULTATION PAPER IS AN EXCELLENT FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE.

The inclusion of Board members with a spectrum of skills and experience is welcomed.

In particular, the inclusion of "industry members with experience in collaborating with universities" is particularly important.

THE BALANCE OF SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE OF BOARD AND ITS SUPPORTING GOVERNANCE BODIES SHOULD BROADLY ALIGN WITH THE PROPORTION OF FUNDS INVESTED IN DISCOVERY AND LINKAGE GRANTS

Today, the ARC is run almost exclusively by representatives from the academic community – and in particular those engaged in investigator-led research. This shapes a conceptual framework for research funding where the sector is the prime agent of research and should therefore govern the distribution and application of the funds it manages on behalf of government.

For industry research, this largely ignores the perspectives of its key stakeholders;
1) the industry partners who are co-funding, collaborating in and benefiting from that research.
2) academics participating in and committed to delivering great outcomes from industry research for both industry partners and peers

Based on evidence from successful industry research, the effectiveness and impact delivered from research is directly proportionate to the level and quality of industry/academic collaboration. However, high levels of collaboration are today the exception rather than the rule, for the prevailing academic research model is very much driven by and focused on individuals. It is clear there is a very significant scope for improvement in the impact that can be realised through industry research – for all its stakeholders. Unlocking this potential will however only be possible with a systematic, fundamental transformation of the capabilities and culture of the sector’s industry research model.

Creating and maintaining the leadership and operational focus needed to actively transform the impact of industry research will demand the inclusion and integration of relevant experience and insight in the ARC’s governance models.

The ARC must serve a range of stakeholders. Industry research is around one third of the activity supported by the ARC. The challenges of successful industry research are at every level very different from investigator-led research; from the collaborative research teams on the ground, through their industry/institutional governance and institutional research administration and support. Over time, for the potential impact of the sector to be realised in the industry research domain, it is expected that best practices must emerge that are distinctly different from the prevailing investigator-led research model. This experience and learning journey must be represented proportionally in ARC governance .

Specifically:

Where Discovery% = Discovery funding / (Discovery funding + Linkage funding)

# Board member numbers representing industry research stakeholders
~= Discovery% * (Total Board size - 3 [Chair, ARC CEO, DepSec])

A GOVERNANCE MECHANISM FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF GRANTS AND DRIVING PERFORMANCE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS IS REQUIRED

The Board proposal refers to the "appoint[ment of] suitably qualified and experienced researchers across the ARC disciplines to the College of Experts". Today this is dominated (if not exclusively populated) by traditional investigator-led researchers.

There is currently no analogous governance mechanism for actively assessing the quality of grants and driving performance improvements from the perspective of the industry stakeholders of Linkage funded research. Given this is today ~30% of the ARC budget - and a high priority for Government and non-academic stakeholders – this is a serious deficit that needs to be addressed.

CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO AUGMENTING THE ROLE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE COLLEGE OF EXPERTS TO BRING A BALANCED INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

Rather than create a separate entity or body, the augmentation of the role and membership of the College of Experts to represent the skills, experience and insight of industry research stakeholders is certain to be hugely beneficial. In addition to bringing balanced perspectives to the function of the College of Experts, it will be a very important mechanism for "cross-cultural" collaboration and alignment, that will pay handsome long-term dividends. The proportion of members of the College of Experts with relevant academic and industry should reflect the distribution of ARC funding (i.e. ~ 2:1)

Q3. How could the Act be improved to ensure academic and research expertise is obtained and maintained to support the ARC?

How could this be done without the Act becoming overly prescriptive?

THE ACT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RECOGNISE THE NEED FOR A BALANCE OF INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC RESEARCH EXPERTISE IN GOVERNING AND MANAGING THE ARC

The ARC distributes funding for academic-led and industry-led research currently on a roughly 2:1 basis. It is possible that the proportion of the latter increases over time - depending on prevailing Government policy. The profile of expertise that is drawn on to lead and guide the functioning of the ARC does not reflect this balance of activity and the quite different impact objectives, skills and experience each represent.

From this perspective there is a fundamental bias that implicitly downplays the importance of industry insight and expertise in the transformational research funded by Discovery grants. To be clear, it is recognised that "Industry insight and expertise" is, over time, embodied both in academics and their industry partners.

As noted in the consultation paper, the current Act states: “The Minister must not appoint a person as CEO unless the Minister has considered the person’s record in research and management.”. This does not explicitly preclude people with extensive experience in industry research; neither does it encourage the consideration of such candidates.

It is to be hoped that the tenure of the ARC CEO is limited , so that there is a regular flux of new talent in the role. Excess proscription within the Act would not seem advisable. However modest amendments might include:

1) The Minister must not appoint a person as CEO unless the Minister has considered the person’s record in both academic and industry research and management.

2) The ARC should establish advisory and governance mechanisms that reflect the balance of challenges, expertise and interests of both academic and industry stakeholders.
 

Q4. Should the ARC Act be amended to consolidate the pre-eminence or importance of peer review?

Please provide any specific suggestions you may have for amendment of the Act, and/or for non-legislative measures.

PEER-REVIEW IS AT BEST INADEQUATE AND AT WORST IRRELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRY RESEARCH FUNDING PROPOSALS AND PROJECT OUTCOMES

Peer-review is the primary mechanism for providing object-as-possible assessment of investigator-led funding proposals and project outcomes. The whole academic esteem economy is built around publication and citation – and it has proven both robust and effective.

The mechanism is however at best inadequate for industry-led research for at least two reasons:

1) The scope for publication of industry-led (or “transformational”) research is very limited

2) The academic literature addresses at best a small subset of that factors and issues that drive the impact of industry research – and which are of vital interest to industry and academic stakeholders engaged in it

THE PANEL SHOULD CONSIDER HOW AN EFFECTIVE ANALOGUE OF “PEER REVIEW” CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ARC AND WHETHER THIS NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE ACT

The response to Q1c of this consultation paper outlined the rationale and imperative for the ARC to establish industry research satisfaction feedback mechanisms at team, institution and sector/market (i.e. public) levels. Over time, these will provide a comprehensive, growing body of evidence as to the effectiveness of individuals, teams and institutions in delivering great industry research outcomes.

From its implementation, this feedback mechanism will provide the most pertinent evaluation information available to the ARC. The existing ARC EI programmes have the potential to deliver very important objective information of the delivered impact of industry research. However, this is both very expensive to produce and conducted long after active research activity. It will provide very valuable information that, along with industry stakeholder feedback will allow a better understanding of the correlation and causal relationships between and subjective and more objective performance measures.

The industry stakeholder feedback data, will over time, provide a comprehensive profile of the performance of all past and active research teams and their institutions. This is not possible for the EI evaluation programmes. At least at the institutional level – and eventually at the researcher / team level – the industry stakeholder feedback must play an increasingly important role in funding allocation; and from the outset should be a primary factor in research evaluation.

The lack of “liquidity” for publication of transformational research insights is a serious problem for the future trajectory of industry-research. The role of publication (or more specifically citation) as the driver of career progression is deeply embedded in the sector’s culture and customs. For industry-led research to deliver its promise for all its stakeholders, academics need to have a reasonable expectation of thriving careers when they deliver outstanding impact. For this to be the case, two things are needed – neither of which will happen “organically” within the sector:

1) The catalysis of a vibrant market for published “transformational research” insight, and

2) The alignment of career progression incentives and appointments with the nation’s need for high impact industry research

The first of these of course is a dynamic in which Australia only plays a small role. However, the Government does need to address the effective “market failure” that is represented by the above issues.

This brief synopsis of some the factor relating to the development of effective peer review mechanisms for industry-led research highlights the complexity of the challenges they represent. Understanding and responding to them will take a persistent focus – independent from rather than captive to the sector’s dominant investigator-led research perspective.

The ARC is the logical agent to consider and respond to this challenge. The issues raised here are far from either “new” or surprising to the sector; they have been the subject of discussion for decades. However, they have, to this point, been regarded as intractable, and beyond the scope of the sector to resolve.

The ARC Review provides the opportunity to consider and establish mechanisms to actively shape the much longer-term trajectory of the sector – serving the balanced interests of the stakeholders of both investigator-led and industry-led research. To effectively address the proportionate needs of the latter stakeholders – and the interests of the nation – it is imperative that the ARC tackle this issue as one aspect of “actively shaping the research industry”. A reimagining of “peer review” in the context of industry research is a vital component of this transformation.

It is clear that a more productive trajectory for industry research performance may take some years to emerge even with substantial effort. However, no improvement will occur without “market intervention” in the development of sector’s capabilities and culture by Government and its agents.

Q5. Please provide suggestions on how the ARC, researchers and universities can better preserve and strengthen the social licence for public funding of research?

The arguments for the continuing investment in basic research as a vital contributor to our society are well made and continue to be the foundation of the sector’s case for its funding.

These arguments understandably rely on the many examples of research whose long-term impact could not have been anticipated as the research was undertaken – but which have demonstrably changed our world for the better.

However, even the “average punter” can see that the proportion of research that delivers such outcomes is a very, very small proportion of total activity. There is a general recognition of the value of research as a mechanism to build the skills, in particular, of higher degree students. This however counterbalanced by the relatively low esteem with which those graduates are regarded in our society; particularly in terms of their mastery of the universal, rigorous and collaborative problem-solving skills needed to tackle real-world challenges. (n.b. not “vocational” skills)

Overall, the claims by our academic institutions that “all our research is world class” are demonstrably risible, and diminish the credibility of general claims on public funding. The sector has also been know to display considerable hubris and entitlement on the theme of funding. None of this contributes to strengthening the social license for public funding.

Many institutions are recognising these challenges and are working, on an individual basis, to better engage with communities and external research stakeholders. For many institutions this is a critical component of their competitive differentiation.

The ARC can play a constructive role across the sector in supporting the communication of research outcomes through mechanisms that leverage their existing and future evaluation data.

1) Current EI evaluation information is very difficult to access and, for non-experts, incomprehensible. The ARC could “mine” this growing data set with communications strategies that build and deliver effective narratives through a variety of channels targeting not only the general public, but also schools and important stakeholder groups – such as indigenous and migrant communities.

2) The publication of Industry stakeholder feedback data will provide a very, very powerful and highly visible demonstration of the relevance and impact of industry-led research. The ARC communications strategy should make the availability and substance of this data a centrepiece of its future narratives. As for 1) above, the ARC communications strategy can mine this data-set and the “real life stories” beyond it to deliver compelling narratives that bring alive the relevance and value of not only the sector’s research but also the people and their skills that deliver it.

Q8. With respect to ERA and EI:

(a) Do you believe there is a need for a highly rigorous, retrospective excellence and impact assessment exercise, particularly in the absence of a link to funding?

(b) What other evaluation measures or approaches (e.g. data driven approaches) could be deployed to inform research standards and future academic capability that are relevant to all disciplines, without increasing the administrative burden?

(c) Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

(d) If so, should that reference include the function of developing new methods in research assessment and keeping up with best practice and global insights?

Q8a: YES

Q8b: WITH RESPECT SPECIFICALLY TO EI, CURRENT EMPIRICAL POST-HOC EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS SHOULD BE INTEGRATED AND CORRELATED WITH IMMEDIATE POST-PROJECT SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION WITH THE EXPERIENCE, ALIGNMENT OF ACTIVITY WITH INDUSTRY OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED IMPACT

As outlined in the response to Q1c, and specifically with respect to industry-led research stakeholder satisfaction feedback uniquely delivers the insight needed for teams and institution to optimise research performance.

Conducted periodically during research, it enables industry and academic partners to understand how they can work together most effectively, best align problem solving activities with understanding the critical drivers of industry-relevant outcomes, and ensure the collaboration delivers the best possible impact.

Post-hoc evaluation will provide information teams and institutions need to build competitive capabilities. In particular, and as for the feedback received during active research, it is the conversations about where and how stakeholder expectations were exceeded – or not met – that will reveal the opportunities for improvement.

Publication of this information will, again uniquely across the activities of the ARC, provide the information industry needs to find research partners and create a huge incentive for institutions to integrate this form of feedback active industry research. These is a very powerful positive feedback dynamic.

The granularity and comprehensiveness of this information, as it accumulates over time, will provide and unparalleled insight into how the subjective judgement of key stakeholders correlates with more the rigorous and much more costly post-hoc EI evaluation. In the event there is a divergence in these evaluations, this will highlight the need to better manage stakeholder expectations during the course of industry research.

The establishment of real-time feedback on the critical drivers of industry research outcomes will for the first time deliver ARC the mechanism to actively catalyse performance improvement. The simple 3 question survey detailed at http://inspiringimpact.works/ delivers all this with effectively zero administrative overhead. Eliciting and acting on feedback that directly improves research outcomes is not “administration” – it is world class industry research.

Q8c: YES

Q8d: YES. WITH AN EXPANDED SCOPE AS FOLLOWS:

The ARC should systematically evaluate and where appropriate develop and implement new methods and global best practices in research assessment and performance improvement in both the academic and commercial sectors

Q9. With respect to the ARC’s capability to evaluate research excellence and impact:

(a) How can the ARC best use its expertise and capability in evaluating the outcomes and benefits of research to demonstrate the ongoing value and excellence of Australian research in different disciplines and/or in response to perceived problems?

(b) What elements would be important so that such a capability could inform potential collaborators and end-users, share best practice, and identify national gaps and opportunities?

(c) Would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?

Q9a: SPECIFICALLY FOR INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND AS OUTLINED IN THE RESPONSE TO Q1c, THE ARC NEEDS TO EXPAND ITS EXPERTISE AND CAPABILTIES TO ESTABLISH AND PUBLISH SURVEYS OF INDUSTRY RESEARCH STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION. THIS WILL POWERFULLY DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMIC SECTOR TO ACTIVELY DRIVE INDUSTRY-RELEVANT IMPACT IMPROVEMENT

There is no more powerful statement to industry and the public than the publication of industry satisfaction with the research in which they invested. It explicitly both demonstrates the commitment to delighting industry partners, and establishes the mechanism that teams and institutions need to achieve that.

The publicly visible evolution of performance over time will, for institutions and the sector as a whole, clearly demonstrate their performance trajectories in addressing the prevailing scepticism of the value of academic research. The public is widely exposed to and involved in satisfaction feedback. It will immediately understand the relevance of value of this information. Satisfaction ratings may be “gameable” in the short term, but as all major brands know, ultimately they directly correlate with the drivers of price, referral and repurchase. These drivers will only be positive for industry stakeholders when the impact they realise from industry research directly corresponds to their expectations.

In this sense, the proposed publicized stakeholder feedback is arguably going to be the most relevant, understandable and trusted evaluation measure that the ARC will provide. It is a pity there is no equivalently credible analogue for investigator-led research…

Q9b: ASSUMING THE PUBLICATION OF STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK FOR INDUSTRY RESEARCH, THE ARC COULD GREATLY ACCELERATE SECTOR-WIDE PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SYSTEMATIC MECHANISMS FOR CAPTURING AND SHARING BEST PRACTICES

Based on direct experience with driving performance improvement in industry research, the sector will need to build new capabilities and significantly “tune” its culture at both team and institutional levels, if it is to unlock its full impact potential.

As outlined in the response to Q4, in order to create sustained, globally competitive industry research capabilities, institutions will need to build career paths and cultures that attract and appropriately advance and remunerate outstanding industry talent. A vibrant industry research ecosystem would see the free flow of talent between academia and industry – as we see in the most outstanding research hubs of Europe and the USA. Institutions will need to develop training programmes that build the rigorous, collaborative, problem-led and impact-driven capabilities uniquely needed for industry research. These skills are also exactly those needed by all graduate students…. Finally, research teams and individuals will greatly benefit from access to relevant case studies, best practices – and most importantly mentors – that together can provide the practical guidance and courage needed to deliver extraordinary outcomes.

Institutions will quickly recognise that the ability to reliably delight their industry partners is a powerful competitive differentiator. This will limit their willingness to share key insights. Nonetheless, the ARC is in a unique position to catalyse a range of transformational initiatives ranging from sector-wide structural changes (i.e. in career paths) to research community forums for sharing insights and best practices.

Q9c: THE INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION DATA PROPOSED IN Q1c AS THE BASIS OF THE MOST POWERFUL POSSIBLE ACTIVE PERFORMANCE DRIVER WILL DELIVER GRANULAR TIME-SERIES PERFORMANCE DATA THAT SHOULD BE EMBEDDED IN THE SECTOR’S FUTURE PERFORMANCE TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMME AND RESEARCH SERVICES ECOSYSTEM

This submission outlines the imperative to establish industry stakeholders’ satisfaction feedback as a foundation for performance improvement. It is vital both during active research and as an immediate pos-hoc evaluation, as a published basis for a vibrant industry research services ecosystem. The minimum role for the ARC is to capture and publish post-hoc survey data. Any institution not asleep at the wheel will certainly integrate this survey in active research – once it is adopted for post-hoc publication.

The ARC could play a much more active and helpful role for the sector by providing the mechanisms for each research team to capture this feedback, along with guidance on how to use they feedback they are receiving. Indeed, it is easy to imagine this could be augmented with tools to help teams drill down to understand what’s driving performance gaps – and, by capturing and sharing relevant best practices from across the sector – effectively deliver pragmatic, data-driven mentoring…

If institutions are willing to share the granular time-series data from the periodic feedback captured during active research – and this is correlated with the methodologies / best practices adopted by teams – the sector would establish an incredibly powerful “learning engine”. This would potentially over time, significantly accelerate the performance of teams and individuals new to industry research.

Industry-research is therefore arguably the domain where a data-driven performance improvement methodology has both the greatest relevance and potential for transformative impact and lowest barriers to entry and cost of implementation.

Q10. Having regard to the Review’s Terms of Reference, the ARC Act itself, the function, structure and operation of the ARC, and the current and potential role of the ARC in fostering excellent Australian research of global significance, do you have any other comments or suggestions?

The Terms of Reference can be construed narrowly – constraining its scope to the narrowest definitions of governance and the legislation of its current form – or broadly, more boldly following the guidance of the Minister to “reshape the industry” to fundamentally reconsider and reconceptualise the role of the ARC.

I strongly encourage the Panel to be bold. The impulse for this review is a friendly but deep bipartisan and public scepticism of the sector’s governance and justification of its public and industry funded research activities. The sector is justifiably proud of its achievements – but also subject to considerable hubris, introversion, entitlement and a curious defensiveness and lack of confidence in its “real value” to stakeholders other than its own.

As noted elsewhere in this submission, the sector has many wise heads, with deep experience. The opportunities and mechanisms for improvement outlined in this submission – specifically focused on industry research – are “nothing new”. The responses needed to capture the opportunities have been long discussed within and to some extent across institutions – and at levels from Chancellory, Deans and the research teams within them. However, the ultimate response has been that the issues cannot be addressed by individual institutions – and there is no sector-wide appetite to upset the status quo. The need for attractive career paths that are driven by demonstrably outstanding impact – rather than citation – is not only critical for a vibrant industry research services ecosystem, but also for the sector’s education services. But the accepted response is “that’s not something we can change”. While that acceptance remains unchallenged, the sector simply will never realise its full industry research impact potential. (Nor, frankly, its education potential…) Indeed, it is hard to see it delivering any meaningful improvement in its industry research performance.

The ARC is in a position to carefully consider and reconceive a future trajectory for the sector that achieves a new and better balance of outcomes for all its research stakeholders. Such a future cannot and will not be realised while the sector’s research model and career incentives remains captive to the prevailing, self-serving investigator-led paradigm. This is not an argument that the latter should be changed, but rather that new and better ways of ding things are actively nurtured and a more robust, equitable and valuable balance realised.

The ARC is the most powerful agent of government in shaping Australian academic research. It controls the key drivers of the sector’s performance; the distribution of funds, the measurement and communication of performance, and initiatives to actively improve outcomes. Together these will define the sector’s trajectory in the coming decades, both in terms of measurable impact and the perceptions of all its stakeholders; academics, industry, government and the broader public.

The ARC Review Panel should not be asking “how can we (comfortably) evolve current practice”. Rather, it should be asking, separately for investigator-led and industry-led research:
1) What does success look like in 10 years from the perspective of the stakeholders of each class of research?
2) What are the key features of the respective research models that need to be in place for this to be achieved?
3) What has to happen to ensure these features are in place in order to deliver 10 year objectives?
4) Where can or must the ARC play a critical role in putting the sector’s research performance on the required trajectory? What does this mean for the “ARC business model”; what must stay the same, strengthen, be added or removed…?
5) What are implications, separately for legislation, the governance, strategy and operation of the ARC?

Submission received

15 November 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published and my name and/or the name of the organisation to be published alongside the submission. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.