Investment processes:
Stakeholder Survey 2006

Andrew Fletcher Consulting Ltd.

Scope:

This survey was similar to previous stakeholder surveys undertaken in 2002 and 2003. With few significant changes in the 12 month interval between 2002 and 2003, the longer interval was allowed for change processes to occur.

A similar profile of stakeholders was sampled. Thirty-one qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and a web-based survey of 192 Foundation? stakeholders were undertaken. The over all response rate of 58%.

Summary:

Overall Performance

The Foundation’s overall performance is rated higher than in previous surveys. Satisfaction with the Foundation overall performance is higher than average for stakeholders who deal with Technology NZ, 6.3, but lower than average for CRIs, 4.9, and Universities, 5.6. – rated on a 9-point scale of ‘1’ low to ‘9’ high’. All except one of the ratings of performance in specific areas in the 2006 survey are higher than in previous surveys.

Relationships

This was the first time stakeholders were ask to rate Foundation relationships. They are seen to be fairly effective. The relationship with stakeholders’ organisations is rated 6.1. Relationships are most effective with industry/sector organisations and private sector businesses, least effective with government/local authority, research associations and businesses.

The Foundation is rated quite well for the effectiveness of its relationship management, these ratings falling in the range 6.0 to 6.3. There appears to be a direct correlation between the effectiveness of relationship management and overall satisfaction. Stakeholders who are dissatisfied rate the Foundation 3.1 for relationship management, those with average satisfaction 5.8, and satisfied stakeholders rate it 7.5. This underlines the importance of the Foundation’s current emphasis on relationship management.

Strategic Direction

While two thirds of stakeholders say they are aware of the Foundation’s investment strategy for their sector, an alternative view is that it does not have a strategy, and that the underlying problem is that there is no national strategy in place for science in New Zealand.

The Foundation’s strategy rates only average for its clarity, 5.4, although this is an improvement from 3.9 in 2003. All components of its strategy are rated higher than in the previous surveys.

PGS&T Processes

Most of those taking part in the survey deal with PGS&T funding. Their ratings of PGS&T investment process effectiveness are in the range 4.8 to 6.6.

Māori research and innovation as a balance factor is rated the lowest, annual reporting of contract performance and outcomes the highest. There are mixed feelings about the use of balance factors in general.
All processes that were rated in previous surveys show an improvement in the current survey.

Technology NZ

About half of those in the survey deal with Technology NZ. Technology NZ effectiveness is rated high, the lowest rating of 6.4 being for producing new intellectual property and the highest of 7.5 for helping achieve technical success within specific projects.

The components of Technology NZ that were also rated in previous surveys have all improved.

Stakeholders who deal with Technology NZ report their overall satisfaction as 6.3, compared with 5.3 for those who do not.

Communications

Most stakeholders feel that the Foundation’s communications are about right in amount, but more say they are too little than say they are too much. However, the survey was undertaken at a time when communications with stakeholders may have been less than usual, pending finalisation of policy issues.

The quality of the Foundation’s communications is rated quite good, in the range 5.4 to 6.1.

Their effectiveness is rated only average, though, in the range 4.8 to 5.6. Communication of RS&T achievements in New Zealand and the Foundation’s approach to Māori research and innovation are rated lowest, Foundation performance reporting requirements and communicating its events and activities important to stakeholders the highest.

Several of the key stakeholders interviewed commented on the Foundation’s style of communication. It is seen as too complex and jargon-loaded and they would prefer to see communications in plain English.

Related work

Stakeholder Survey, 2002, 2003 Andrew Fletcher Consulting Ltd.