Research organisation schemes:
Evaluation of Food Products Research

Published: 1 Jun 2005 Evaluation Unit, Foundation? for Research Science and Technology, research user survey completed by Andrew Fletcher Consulting, 2005.

Scope:

The evaluation was based on a survey of 191 organisations that were end-users of Foundation-funded RS&T in plant and animal products (excluding dairy and seafood). There was a 56% response rate. Non-food plant and animal/meat products RS&T were excluded.

Summary:

Coverage – Industry

Respondents were mostly organisations that were well-connected with research providers and/or the Foundation. Non-responders were more likely from medium, small and/or low growth companies. Consequently the survey did not provide sufficient information on these types of company.

The survey indicated that research user engagement in RS&T in the food products sector is probably circumscribed, with a large proportion of the food companies not engaged.

The survey also indicated a lack of awareness among the non-respondent group of research, the Foundation, and Foundation-funded activity in the sector.

Coverage – Portfolios

The survey findings were specifically relevant to the INF?, PQA? and NBP? portfolios, however the areas of development reported for positive outcomes showed that for almost a third of respondents the portfolio differentiation could not be applied.

 

Awareness of plant and animal/meat products RS&T

Low levels of awareness were reported of the Foundation research programmes in these areas.

Respondents’ comments on the provided list of Foundation research included:

• surprise at the extent of the science being funded by the Foundation in the sector
• interest in relevant research and a desire to know more about previously unknown programmes
• questioning how they could become more aware of the research.

Respondents acknowledged the value of Foundation funding for RS&T.

Companies had difficulty seeing a commercial focus in research programmes. However, others commented that the value in Foundation-funded research was more in building research platforms than in achieving commercial outcomes. Such platforms were seen as too expensive for companies to support themselves but could provide the basis for companies’ using applied research that lead to commercial outcomes and benefits.

Outcomes from Foundation RS&T

A number of positive outcomes were reported but half of respondents did not report any outcomes, benefits or relationships with research providers. A third of respondents reported less than 2% annual investment in R&D and 21% did not answer the RS&T investment question.
The extent of attribution of outcomes to Foundation-funded RS&T in plant and animal/meat products was often uncertain.
Recurring elements of successful outcomes reported by respondents were:

• effective relationships with research providers
• successful technology
• successful commercialisation.

It was noted that there was a challenge in getting results from research out to the productive sector.

Innovative approaches to science were suggested for deliverable outcomes to industry, but commercialisation of science by providers was not favoured. Potential was seen in broad based outcomes by companies through industry clusters.

Strengths and constraints associated with Foundation RS&T

Major strengths of Foundation-funded RS&T were:

• benefits of science research to New Zealand
• strengthening knowledge and building capability
• investment in science eg. funding projects that would not otherwise be funded.

Major constraints that prevented organisations from using Foundation research were:

• lack of information about the research
• lack of contact with researchers
• differences in approach between companies and researchers.

Other constraints cited were companies’ limited RS&T capability, lack of time to find out about programmes or to attend R&D seminars, workshops or conferences.

RS&T and the sector organisations

Companies who had reasonably well established links with the science sector had made strategic alliances with research providers, most often with CRIs.

Companies would like more interactions with research providers in a way that the companies business is understood. In this regard, providers’ packaging research as a business opportunity, when it is not, is seen as counter-productive to provider/user relationships.

Some respondents suggested that the primary relationship in RS&T in NZ was between providers and the Foundation. As such, Foundation signals determine the behaviour of researchers including their interaction with end-users. For this reason industry is not seen to be engaged by the Foundation regarding their business and commercial needs in relation to R&D, and end-users’ points of view are not taken into consideration.

Organisation’s concerns on wider issues

 

• Foundation communications - there was support for proactive communication by the Foundation aimed at reaching a wider audience of interested parties and raising awareness of research.
• RS&T funding - the funding process was seen as difficult, and could be made more user-friendly.

   

  The funding criteria/model was not always easily understood by companies, and could be perceived as narrow and lacking in flexibility. There were also issues with the length of time funding was provided for, and the relevance of the programmes.
• CRIs - some companies expressed concerns regarding the commercial focus of CRIs and the difficulties this can bring, including IP issues.

Conclusions

The evaluation responses suggested a number of specific implications for the relevant portfolio strategies:

• Building on ‘areas of excellence’ in successful engagement and high impact, such as innovative foods.
• Effective engagement of food industry organisations with the potential to benefit from RS&T, as well as those sector organisations with already well-established linkages with research providers.
• Stronger reflection of end-user perspectives in Foundation/provider/user relationships and objectives, and clarity on how this affects technology development and innovation.

Related work

Portfolio Evaluations 2001 to 2005, Consolidated Report on Portfolio-Based Evaluations of Performance of Foundation-Funded RS&T, Foundation for Research Science and Technology, 2005.