The role of joint venture funding and collaboration in stimulating national research activity

Over this weekend, I watched the Channels TV interview with the Executive Secretary of TETFUND, Nigeria, Professor Suleiman Bogoro. I feel hopeful when people like Prof Bogoro speak on education and research, not only because Prof Bogoro was my senior at the University of Maiduguri, but he shows awareness of what is happening in other countries. Nigerians are great at community work. I have witnessed how local communities assisted the church and government to build and support schools in the early days. Even my high school, Community Secondary School, Otobi, was the result of such community effort. Many communities across Nigeria still get involved in such community and sometimes personal support to the present day. What has been more difficult to do is an organised support for education by big business. That is what TETFUND was set up to do; to get big business to pay tax to support the educational development of Nigeria, to give back to the community. They make their profits from us, so they should plough back some of this profit. Prof Suleiman is extending the funding scheme to research, so that companies can support research in their own area of operations. They can then use the findings to make more profit and create more innovation for society. Across the world, this has been an accepted practice, so that the burden is not on government alone. This is logical; industries make money for themselves first before they can pay tax to the government. 

In 2013, I presented a paper to the Joint Annual Meeting of the Nigerian Institute of Animal Science and the Nigerian Society for Animal Production. To the best of my knowledge that paper did not appear in the proceedings because it was not an abstract. I am reproducing the paper in this blog, after removing those things that would not just go into LinkedIn. In that paper, I mainly described the cooperative funding model of the Australian government but also highlighted other models that could be considered by Nigeria.  I hope that Prof Bogoro will find this but I will endeavour to send it directly to him. Here goes.

Collaborative funding is not a new concept in Nigeria. Over the years before and after Independence, governments at all levels have collaborated with the community to support schools and hospitals, and build roads. Before the first oil boom (early 1970s), we witnessed the development of school structures by communities and religious groups, which was complemented by payment of staff salaries by the government.  The government later completely took over some or all of these schools although there is now clamour for their return, so that we may again witness the partnership of the past. Partnership for research development is, however, not as well developed, and this is not an uncommon feature of many developing countries. Nigeria currently operates an educational development funding scheme, which requires some contribution from the industries but the contributors do not seem to be adequately attached to the scheme. This lack of attachment does not augur well for clear development of research directions or adoption of the findings.

Funding models

Many countries have developed research partnerships between the research institutions and the industry, and this has generally led to a rapid development of applicable research output and progress for the industry. This paper is focused mainly on the cooperative research centre model that has been developed and used in Australia since 1991. Reference is made to similar models elsewhere but the Australian model is one that has proven to be very successful, and should be recommended for adoption by Nigeria and other developing countries.

There are several funding models that are in place around the world. The most common model is funding per head, in which the government provides research funding to educational institutions in line with the number of researchers or students enrolled at an institution. Some of this funding could then be used by postgraduate students for research. In many cases, such funding is gobbled by administrative costs and there is little left for research. In a few countries, there are funding agencies directly charged with managing research through postgraduate students or more established researchers. Examples of such agencies are the National Foundation for Research (South Africa), Australian Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (UK), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (Canada), etc. These agencies usually have annual funding rounds, during which research grants are awarded to researchers for work covering one to many years. Funding through such a model is effective at executing research but does not guarantee adoption of research findings by the end-user.

Another funding model that is common around the world is industry grant. Typically, agricultural industries generate their research funds through a levy. In Australia, levies are charged per animal head. For example, the Australian pig industry charges members about 30 cents per pig and uses this for research (Australian Pork, 2009). The industry may also have an arm of research, such as the Agrifutures, an Australian body which encompasses many different industries.  In this model, the industry calls for expression of interest from researchers, to conduct research that would be of direct benefit to such an industry. Such funding schemes are largely more successful than government grants because funding is targeted at specific problems identified by the industry. Many pharmaceutical companies have such funding schemes, aimed at developing or testing new products. The adoption rates are high, as the companies monitor the research with keen interest and use the findings that can move their production forward. 

A third scheme of funding is the one employed by philanthropic organisations. Such schemes are aimed at solving problems that confront different population groups, for example, poor communities in developing countries, alcoholics, disease groups such as Alzheimer, autism, etc. Like the industry grants, philanthropic funding is well targeted and tends to provide answers that are adopted by the government, industries and community groups. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation operates a few such schemes around the world, targeting poverty and diseases in developing countries.

Collaborative funding models

It could be seen from the three models presented above that much can be gained from marrying the different models. The cooperative research centre (CRC) scheme operated in Australia is one such attempt at bringing together different funders for improved outcomes.  The CRC scheme was inaugurated in 1990 through an act of parliament. The scheme operates across four broad industry classification codes – agriculture, forestry and fishing; manufacturing; mining, and services. Since its inception, 196 CRCs have been funded, including the 38 that are currently in operation. The Australian government has spent more than $3.5 billion while participants have committed a further $11.4 billion in cash and in-kind contributions. Currently, applications for new CRCs or extension of existing ones are considered every 2 years. The CRCs are now expected to function for a single term of 10 years each, and in exceptional cases up to 15 years in total (DIICCSRTE), 2013). At the end of its life, a centre has the options of becoming self-funded; turning into a centre of research excellence, or joining an institution. The selection criteria are research, results and resources. The research must address economic, social and environmental issues, be innovative and have set milestones. The results must deliver clear benefits to the industry and to the community, set a clear path to utilization and define how the intellectual property should be shared. The proposed CRC must be able to assemble the appropriate resources for its work; propose a strong leadership team; justify the funding being sought, and collaborate nationally and internationally. Cooperative research centres are required to submit annual reports, undergo a first year review and performance review. 

Most CRCs are members of the CRC Association, which also includes aspiring CRC and CRC-like groups. One of the aims of this association is to motivate and learn from one another. The CRC Association holds an annual conference, at which CRCs showcase their activities and receive awards for performance.  

How the CRC functions

All CRCs have a similar mode of operation, from conception to actual execution of research. The current guidelines for the setup and operations of a centre are detailed by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013), which oversees the programme for the Australian government. A centre is initiated by a group of researchers coming together to identify specific research problems of an industry. The researchers then make contact with the industry and express interest in developing a cooperative centre. If the industry is interested in working through such a centre, they would appoint representatives who will meet with the researchers, to further define the research problems. The key research problems are developed into themes or programmes and an application is submitted to the government through a 14-member committee based at the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE). Once approval is given for the establishment of a centre, the government matches the industry contribution dollar for dollar. 

Each CRC is headed by a chief executive, who is accountable to a board. Most CRCs operate only through a skeletal staff, usually consisting of the CEO, an administrative assistant, a financial manager, a legal officer and an educational manager. Cooperative research centres also have a research committee, which evaluates project applications and recommends them for funding to an executive committee.

Programme managers, who are usually experienced researchers, are appointed from outside the management team to oversee each of the programmes. There would be sub-programmes within each programme but these are all managed by one manager. There are proposed outcomes within each sub-programme. Researchers are required to pay close attention to the outcomes when they apply for funding. A project may be located within one institute or be spread across more than 2 institutions. Each project is headed by a project leader, who is responsible for managing the day-to-day execution of the project, submission of progress reports and a final report. Project leaders are usually employed by institutions and as such are not paid by the CRC. Students working on such projects may be on a CRC scholarship, which is usually generous (currently around $30 000 per year for living allowance, tax-free). Postdoctoral research fellows, research assistants and technicians are paid from the project funds. Most CRCs have an annual cycle of funding but projects may last from one to five years. Projects define clear milestones, which have to be met and reported in progress reports, usually every 6 months. The release of funds is linked to the meeting of these milestones. It is common for host institutions to provide additional financial support for the project although most of them do this in-kind.

Most CRCs incorporate meetings between researchers from time to time. One such meeting could include everyone with a current research project who come together annually to share ideas. New projects are developed in this way, as gaps are identified, for funding. Some CRCs also include a specific meeting of postgraduate students who are involved in research. At such meetings, the students are taught skills for research and research writing; visit industry sites and listen to presentations by industry players on career pathways.

Impact of the CRCs 

The CRC Program (CRCP) is the administrative wing of the DIICCSRTE charged with managing the entire programme for the Australian government. It assesses the impact of the CRCs in terms of how they foster links between researchers and industry; collaborate for innovation; build innovation and research capacity in small and medium enterprises (SMEs); support international engagement; develop education and industry skills, and commercialize or utilize their findings.  I will look at these different areas, to see what the CRCP expects the centres to do.

Fostering links between researchers and industry

The programme supports medium and long term end-user driven research collaborations to address the major challenges facing Australia. To achieve this aim, the CRC programme provides opportunities to:

• involve industry in research relevant to their needs

• build SME innovation and research capacity

• cultivate a culture of long term collaboration

• develop industry capacity through education and training, and

• support international engagement

The CRCs are expected to take research ideas from concept to utilisation, resulting in world class innovation, building the competitiveness of Australian business and improving the health, wellbeing and economic prosperity of all Australians.

Collaboration for innovation

The CRCs operate across all industry sectors, addressing issues relating to climate change and environmental sustainability, earthcare, social inclusion, information technology, engineering, finance and agribusiness. The CRC programme encourages participation from a diverse range of organisations to maximise the potential for innovative outcomes.   There are participants from universities, CSIRO and other public research organisations; federal, state and local governments and agencies; industry associations and community organisations; private enterprise and international partners. At present, around 340 organisations are involved in the CRC programme as essential participants, separate from minor participants.

Building innovation and research capacity in SMEs

Working with SMEs is an important element of the CRC programme. The CRCs offer flexible arrangements so that SMEs can choose a collaboration option that best fits their business and research priorities. Partnering with CRCs provides SMEs with advantages such as:

• improvement in access to technical expertise and specialist resources

• development of internal capabilities and skills, and

• reduction in costs and risks associated with investing in research and development (R&D)

In 2010‑11 alone, more than 400 SMEs worked in partnership with CRCs. A good example is BioProperties, which is a leading manufacturer of vaccines. The company has worked under the Australian Poultry CRC to develop a number of new vaccines that are not only used in Australia but around the world. 

Supporting international engagement

The CRC programme has been pivotal in promoting international research collaboration. All CRCs are encouraged to engage globally and CRC research is world-leading. By collaborating internationally researchers and end users can access a broader range of knowledge, resources and facilities, creating the potential for:

• more diverse sources of new ideas and inspiration

• developing networks of cutting‑edge and innovative activity

• increased opportunities for utilisation of research outcomes, and

• improved competitive advantage and access to new markets

The CRCs have a widespread international presence, with the programme supporting more than 7,500 international collaborations in 112 countries since the programme was initiated.

Developing education and industry skills

The CRCs invest in Australia’s future workforce by providing unique educational training programmes, enabling students to work with and learn from leading researchers and industry experts. From inception to date, CRCs have helped produce more than 5,500 industry‑ready postgraduates (students undertaking PhD, masters and other postgraduate programmes). The CRCs are also active in developing and delivering vocational education and training (VET) courses that integrate the latest research findings in their field.

Commercialization and utilization

A key feature of the CRC programme is that research outcomes should be easily adopted by businesses and communities. Commercialisation and utilisation outcomes include:

• new products, processes and services

• spin‑off companies

• development of new intellectual property

• industry publications

• delivery of training courses, conferences and seminars, and

• improved social and environmental benefits.

Collaboration produces a critical mass of resources that can open new industries and improve Australia’s competitive advantage

The Australian government also commissions an independent consultant, to assess the impact of the CRCs. One such assessment was conducted by The Allen Consulting Group in 2012 (Bradley, 2012). The report assessed the impact of the CRCs from economic (direct and indirect), environmental and social points of view. On the economic front, the CRCs were found to have delivered $40m/year in lower feed use by poultry and greater flock uniformity; $87m/year gain in productivity by cotton growers; $90m royalties from sale of Vision CRC patents; 4400 degrees completed through CRCs (equivalent to $16m of value); creation of a spin-off company worth $120m from the CRC for Biomarker Transaltion, and $25m worth of new technologies from the CRC for Polymers.

The CRCs have reduced green-house gas (GHG) emissions to the tune of 61 000 tCO2­-e saved; reduced energy consumption through increase in stocking density by the Seafood CRC; reduced emission of pollutants by the gold, nickel, alumina and uranium mines; reduced water use in cotton production, and protected endangered species. On the social front, CRCs have led to the establishment of numerous international collaborations; increase in business diversity; improvement in health and wellbeing; provision of education and training; improvement in safety; increase in labour force participation, and changes in character of local communities.

Benefits of joint funding and collaboration

A major advantage of collaborative funding is elimination or reduction in duplication of research. This is ensured through clear demarcation of programmes and sub-programmes. While a project may be run in more than one location, usually each sub-team works only on a part of the project. The progress and final reports contain the findings of these sub-teams. The sub-teams complement rather than duplicate one another’s efforts. The CRC model helps to bring scientists of like, and sometimes contrasting skills together for a single purpose. Researchers tend to work in collegial rather than antagonistic way to one another.   

The concept of comparative advantage is maximised through joint funding and collaboration in the CRC scheme. Projects are located at institutions, which have the best facilities to execute such projects. Institutions are also able to sub-let specific components such as analyses of samples, but overall, the host institution is usually the best placed to deliver the outcomes of the project.

The industry keeps a keen interest in the projects being funded. The progress reports are reviewed by the programme managers and the executive committee. Major findings are identified for the immediate use of the industry or commercialization. The CRCs value publication of results from research although some key results may not be immediately released to the public, in order for the specific funding industry to take advantage of such findings.

The CRCs have enabled highly focussed educational training through award of postgraduate scholarships. Most projects are executed by postgraduate students, typically more at the level of PhD and postdoctoral fellowships. 

Disadvantages of cooperative research funding

As with many things, cooperative funding and research is not free from disadvantages. A key disadvantage is the herding of researchers in only a few directions. This tends to narrow the focus of research in a particular subject, so that other areas that may produce high outcomes are ignored. Researchers may struggle to fit into the narrow areas that are identified, and fail to fully express their potential in other areas of research, in which they may be more competent.

 Some researchers could be left out of the collegial environment of the cooperative funding schemes. The original group, which set up the centre tends to strongly lay claim to ownership of the structures and if unrestrained, can develop into a “cult”, from which many researchers are excluded. Researchers who do not work well in collegial settings are the greatest losers under a collaborative funding scheme. Scientific history is littered with reclusive researchers who went on to create useful inventions. While it may be argued that such researchers can still flourish outside a cooperative model, they may not have access to much funding, as most of the funding is tied up in cooperative centres.

The government commits a lot of funding to the setup and running of CRCs. The CRCs may not be of any use to sections of the community, and such sections of the community do not benefit from their resources, which have been committed to the CRCs. Recent changes to the CRC scheme in Australia have tried to address this lapse through inclusion of “public good” clause to benefit the community even if it does not necessary benefit the industry.  

What model would fit Nigeria?

There is no doubt that the CRC model has rapidly advanced Australian industries. In the area of agriculture, for example, the CRC has improved beef quality, to enhance imports; improved wool quality; created a large number of vaccines for animal disease control, and developed the capacity for research through funding of postgraduate students. However, the CRC model has not replaced other funding models. It is only one of the models, which appears to be more beneficial to different industries, in economic terms. The success of the CRC model is highly dependent on development of clear research ideas, trust among researchers and trust between researchers and the industry. Research ideas need to be clearly and honestly presented for discussion. The coming together of researchers and industry players can help promote such trust, where it is lacking, as communication is a recipe for breaking down barriers.

There is a need for the Nigerian government and industry to consider a cooperative funding scheme. However, this should not exclude other schemes. Funding per student is a numbers-based scheme that can easily be implemented but its short-comings have been identified. Funding per student place has been successfully used by many countries but it is doubtful if it works as well for postgraduate students as it does for undergraduate students. This discrepancy in effectiveness is understandable as undergraduate funds are directed at areas that are largely different from those of postgraduate students. To be effective, funding per postgraduate student place should include a separate research component. This research component is then used to fund the experiments. Many times, postgraduate students are only funded for tuition fees and living allowance. No meaningful research can be done if the student is expected to fund his or her research from own pocket, which consists essentially of little savings from the living allowance. 

Some countries, e.g. Australia and South Africa, operate a publication grant scheme, in which the government pays researchers, and indirectly the institution for journal and conference papers published during the year. It is expected that this grant will be used for research work and purchase of equipment necessary for research, e.g. books, computer, software, etc. Some institutions share the grant in such way that part of the grant can be privately used by the researcher. If properly managed, such sharing enhances motivation and stimulates more research by staff.

Conclusion

There is no doubt about the effectiveness of the CRC programme operated by Australia and similar schemes in some countries. It is a scheme worth testing by Nigeria and the agricultural sector is best placed to test-run such a scheme. Agricultural research is poorly funded and the low funds are not properly managed. The results are low productivity, product shortages and high product prices. The Animal Science Association of Nigeria, the Nigerian Institute of Animal Science and similar bodies should initiate discussions with the government towards the development of a CRC-like scheme.

Bibliography

Australian Pork (2009). Update on proposed pig levy amendments. Australian Pork Ltd., Canberra, Australia.

Bradley, T. (2012). Measuring research impacts: the contribution of the CRC Program. The Allen Consulting Group. Canberra, Australia, 19pp.

Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013). Program guidelines. Cooperative Research Centres Program. Canberra, Australia, 30pp.

Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013). CRC Directory. Cooperative Research Centres Program 2012-13. Canberra, Australia, 51pp.

Poultry Cooperative Research Centre (2012). Annual report 2012. Poultry CRC, Armidale, Australia, 44pp.

THRIP (nd). Technology and human resources for industry programme. An initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry, South Africa (www.thrip.nrf.ac.za/sitepages/Home.aspx).

 Prof Paul A. Iji – Dean, College of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Fiji National University; Author of Writing and publishing your research (hard and Kindle editions) and A guide for young Africans growing up overseas. CreateSpace/Amazon. Please feel free to share.