Other schemes:
Research Consortia: A Review of Performance to Date

Published: 1 Jan 2003

Evaluation Unit, Foundation? for Research Science and Technology, 2003.

Scope:

This review of Research Consortia?:

• assessed actual outcomes to date versus original intent
• considered if changes were required to investment policy, processes and procedures
• determined what resources were required to manage and execute the programme over 2002/03 and 2003/04 
• determined the circumstances in which consortia are an appropriate option.

Summary

Substantial progress had been made to establish research consortia within tight timeframes.

How actual outcomes to date compared with original intent

A substantial list of proposals and expressions-of-interest for consortia development had been received. Feedback from stakeholders showed strong support for the model from participants in consortia, except for several key providers who had not yet accepted it.

Consortia openly illustrated the challenges of forming partnerships, especially related to the different focuses of research providers and users.

Several stakeholders involved in consortia formation experienced greater than expected costs and frustrations, and this had made them less enthusiastic for the model. Some did not recognise that the initial costs would decrease with experience.

Continued leadership from the Foundation was essential if momentum was to be maintained.

Progress to date included:

• Formation of significant new research partnerships (of 10 consortia being funded, 7 were new partnerships). Users were contributing to research programmes through the consortia formation process.
• Substantial new research funding and commitment from the private sector. 1 July 2002 – RFI? had $32m direct co-funding (excluding NSOF) of which $9m related to consortia. Consortia co-funding was expected to increase.

Some consortia appeared to be stimulated more by the possibility of accessing new funding than building effective new partnerships. This would only be problematic if the consortium relationship was insufficient to support an effective outcome. Rigorous assessment prior to contracting and regular reviews will help minimise these risks.

Changes required to Foundation investment processes and procedures

There were four main performance issues:

• Consortia structure:

   

  Most stakeholders agreed that the structure was not a critical performance factor. Some consortia formed unincorporated joint ventures rather than company structures to avoid tax issues. The strength of individual consortia depended on quality of leadership and participation in governance rather than structure.

  The Foundation showed considerable flexibility to meet the aims of the consortia policy, but needed to clearly communicate the philosophy of facilitating effective user/provider partnerships recognising that there could be a difficult transition in the formation of the partnerships, and that different forms of consortia would be appropriate.

• Set-up costs as a barrier to entry:

   

  Initial set-up costs were high (up to $1m/consortium) constraining the formation of consortia. Costs should be reduced through the sharing of experiences. Stakeholders suggested the Foundation provide an integrated advisory service similar to TBG?. This support should also include model legal documents being made available online.

• Consistency and quality of assessment:

   

  Assessment through reference groups made scoring difficult because of a lack of comparable information (eg. one or two consortia proposals compared against many PGS&T proposals), particularly when scoring connections, partnerships and the pathway to implementation. Distinguishing between the different scoring criteria for consortia had been difficult.

• Application timeframes

   

  Timeframes for applying for consortia were affected by the Foundation’s reinvestment timetable. The fixed deadlines made it difficult to put partnerships together.

Essential consortia ingredients

Essential ingredients for consortia were:

• A clearly defined research focus that attracted and sustained long-term interest by users. Prospects for some early success could also be essential, illustrating the tension between user short-term expectations compared to research providers’ longer-term expectations.
• A champion who provided effective leadership.
• Ability of the parties to form a relationship based on mutual trust.
• Multiple parties and the potential for spillovers that provided significant additional benefits over previous RFI programmes.

Additionally consortia required at least two research users (private/public partnership with public provider participation), users with majority control, binding agreements between parties, minimum three year life, minimum 50% co-funding, and investment of $5m pa by year 3 with some flexibility depending on the strength of public good benefits.

Resources required to manage and execute the programme

Some major research providers and established industry sectors would continue to look at opportunities to use the programme, however other sectors would need encouragement and assistance in identifying and defining consortia opportunities. A dedicated resource within the Foundation would be required to undertake advisory services for stakeholders developing proposals, promotion, monitoring including management of one-year reviews and relationship management (including with research users).

One-off tasks included:

• Updating and expanding consortia guidelines to make them as comprehensible as possible.
• Obtaining model or specimen consortia documents for publication on the website.
• Assessing in more depth the opportunities to reduce constraints to forming consortia, specifically a more formal and transparent initial stage including a small matched investment (covering scoping and governance).
• Reviewing and improving templates for consortia proposals.
• An annual consortia workshop to share experience.