Research organisation schemes:
Evaluation of Animal Production/Agritechnology and Plant Production and Harvesting Research
Summary
View as:
- 103 KBPDF
Published: 1 Jan 2004
Evaluation Unit, Foundation? for Research, Science and Technology, research user survey completed by Andrew Fletcher Consulting, 2004.
This evaluation was based on a survey of 137 companies, user associations, and government bodies. The survey included 26 face-to-face interviews and 111 web respondents. 234 companies were approached, a response rate of 59%.
Agriproduction is spread across 4 portfolios, Innovative Foods (INF?), Product Quality and Assurance (PQA?), Niche Biological Products and Services (NBP?), and Sustainable Product Systems (SPS?). It was difficult to draw distinctions due to the large overlap between portfolios in this sector. Of the 72 users who selected portfolios 25 selected more than 1 portfolio. 10 users selected all 4 portfolios. PQA and SPS have similarities, and the largest overlap of users. NBP has the highest levels of awareness and numbers of key alliances. Most of those surveyed who were aware of research in NBP have key alliances. INF has the highest level of positive outcomes and the highest number of benefits per user. There are similarities between INF and NBP portfolios as compared with SPS and PQA portfolios.
Current Foundation-funded research, science, and technology programs are achieving benefits for the sector. Two-thirds of those surveyed who were aware of Foundation-funded research in animal production and agritechnology, plant production and harvesting achieved positive benefits from that research. 88% of users with knowledge of specific programs achieved positive benefits from those programs.
Users perceive Foundation-funded research in animal production and agritechnology, plant production and harvesting as valuable as much in terms of the availability of capability as for commercial or other outcomes.
There is a group of companies that are mature firms with a high level of awareness and engagement. 80% of such corporate companies surveyed are co-funders. There is a second group of companies, defined by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise as ‘high-growth companies’ that have significantly lower levels of awareness, engagement, and positive outcomes. Only 17% of high-growth firms are co-funders. In this sector the challenge for the Foundation is to engage more firms in the high-growth area. Medium growth and emerging firms also have much room to improve their awareness and engagement with research.
Co-funding provides better/closer relationships, with a strong focus on user outcomes. There are not many co-funders: 41 across 74 programs. There is scope to increase the number of co-funders although co-funding mechanisms also need to target those with smaller RS&T budgets. 8 of the 9 firms surveyed with RS&T budgets >$5m already are co-funders.
Scope:
This evaluation was based on a survey of 137 companies, user associations, and government bodies. The survey included 26 face-to-face interviews and 111 web respondents. 234 companies were approached, a response rate of 59%.
Summary:
Agriproduction is spread across 4 portfolios, Innovative Foods (INF?), Product Quality and Assurance (PQA?), Niche Biological Products and Services (NBP?), and Sustainable Product Systems (SPS?). It was difficult to draw distinctions due to the large overlap between portfolios in this sector. Of the 72 users who selected portfolios 25 selected more than 1 portfolio. 10 users selected all 4 portfolios. PQA and SPS have similarities, and the largest overlap of users. NBP has the highest levels of awareness and numbers of key alliances. Most of those surveyed who were aware of research in NBP have key alliances. INF has the highest level of positive outcomes and the highest number of benefits per user. There are similarities between INF and NBP portfolios as compared with SPS and PQA portfolios.
Current Foundation-funded research, science, and technology programs are achieving benefits for the sector. Two-thirds of those surveyed who were aware of Foundation-funded research in animal production and agritechnology, plant production and harvesting achieved positive benefits from that research. 88% of users with knowledge of specific programs achieved positive benefits from those programs.
Users perceive Foundation-funded research in animal production and agritechnology, plant production and harvesting as valuable as much in terms of the availability of capability as for commercial or other outcomes.
Awareness
There is a small group, mostly industry associations and large corporate companies, actively involved in research and with a high level of awareness of research in animal production and agritechnology, plant production and harvesting. Outside of this group, awareness of Foundation-funded research programs in animal production and agritechnology, plant production and harvesting is low. This is surprising given that this is a mature sector.Industry Engagement
Industry associations have an important role in the sector. 20 responded to this survey. Industry associations have: high numbers of alliances with; high levels of awareness of and value gained from research programs in the survey. The Foundation can/should use them more as intermediaries. Most of those interviewed volunteered enthusiastically for this role. They also need to know, and be reminded, that their participation in the investment process is valued.There is a group of companies that are mature firms with a high level of awareness and engagement. 80% of such corporate companies surveyed are co-funders. There is a second group of companies, defined by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise as ‘high-growth companies’ that have significantly lower levels of awareness, engagement, and positive outcomes. Only 17% of high-growth firms are co-funders. In this sector the challenge for the Foundation is to engage more firms in the high-growth area. Medium growth and emerging firms also have much room to improve their awareness and engagement with research.
Co-funding
Increasing awareness of programs may not directly increase the number of users achieving positive outcomes but it will help.Co-funding provides better/closer relationships, with a strong focus on user outcomes. There are not many co-funders: 41 across 74 programs. There is scope to increase the number of co-funders although co-funding mechanisms also need to target those with smaller RS&T budgets. 8 of the 9 firms surveyed with RS&T budgets >$5m already are co-funders.