Connecting the Industry and Research cultures in Australia

By Richard Manasseh

Since I have over 20 years' experience in R&D for industries in Australia and overseas, I have been asked to comment on any difference in attitudes to R&D between this country and others. Of course, there have been many professional, detailed investigations into the Australian innovation system and underlying attitudes. I do not pretend to be an expert on this, merely to reflect on personal experiences and suggest one improvement.

First, let us check the statistics. It has been remarked for years that we invest proportionally less on R&D than the average industrialised country. The apparent good news is that in recent years this percentage has been climbing, though is still below average [1]. But when it comes to patenting, a key indicator of our interest in developing ideas into money-making technology, we come 20th out of 28 [2]. And although business investment in R&D has recently grown, only 18% of Australian firms actually introduce new-technology products [3], well below average. In Canada, that figure is 77% [4]. My guess is that a lot of the recent growth in Australia's business R&D is thanks to mining-boom profits getting saved from taxation by labelling incremental improvements as R&D [3]. Governments have tightened up on such practices, but it is unreasonable to over-regulate and over-police. On average we should expect that as revenues rise, all associated metrics should rise, including companies' incremental improvement expenditure.

Many reasons have been proposed for the chronically poor levels of Australian business investment in innovation. Many say "Poor incentives", which translates to wanting to pay less tax. Tax concessions have gone up and down over the past 10-20 years: ten years ago only Portugal and Spain were more generous than Australia in their tax incentives for R&D [5]; we have now dropped back.

Another common opinion is "companies have their headquarters overseas so do their R&D overseas". In fact, the largest growth in Australian R&D employment in recent years is thanks to foreign-owned companies [1]. These factors wax and wane over the years. But in my experience, fundamental attitudes to R&D in Australia have not shifted.

My interactions with other engineering cultures have been those of the USA, France, Japan, the UK, and to a lesser extent South Africa and China. It seems that, on average, there are systematic differences in attitudes to R&D in Australia and overseas. Engineers in some countries seem to have a stronger belief in the link between R&D and prosperity. Of course, the existence of this link is quickly acknowledged by Australian engineers. However, to many Australian engineers, the relation between R&D and the advancement of their company's prospects - and of their individual careers - seems remote.

Consequently, research is acknowledged as something that is important to do, but important for someone else to do, and someone else to fund (like the government).

I am not sure from where this cultural difference stems, but it may be a mixture of our education system and the nature of the biggest employment markets for Australian engineers.

Of course, there are many exceptions to my "averaged" opinion. I have encountered companies overseas that will not invest a cent unless there is clear evidence of immediate return. And I have met successful Australian engineers who have sponsored research and reaped the long-term benefits.

Irrespective of government- and corporate-level policies, there remains a ground-level disconnection between practicing engineers and the research community that we should work to fix. Policies come and go and can help or hinder. But technological innovations are not made by government and corporate leaders.

They are made by people like you.

Experiences of my colleagues overseas - and some local experiences of my colleagues and I - shows that a long-term relationship between a research provider and an industry engineer generates long-term benefits. Even if the current project is a failure, both parties have been educated by the process. Sticking with the relationship delivers higher productivity. Faced with a difficult issue, engineers learn "who to call" once they have had detailed interactions with a researcher. Even better, they learn what fundamental questions to ask. And innovation for a new product often comes from putting different heads together.

Most universities run final-year projects where students are sent to industryon placements. I believe that this process, often ignored or wasted by bothsides, presents one mechanism for changing our R&D culture. In particular, I believe it should be viewed as a practical networking mechanism for industry and research providers, as much as a training program for students.

If you are in industry and have a small, practical engineering project that is not critical, get in touch with a local university. Or several. Chat to the academics running research projects. Find one really interested in your industry and its fundamental problems, not necessarily the immediate subject of your project. The academic may work on a topic that seems ridiculously esoteric and specialised. But understand that competition for government research funds is intense, that the international impact rankings of all researchers in the world can be instantly compared, and the only way for them to stay competitive is to focus - and publish - on one or two specialties. You are competing for their attention to make your long-term interests their second specialty - or in the long run, maybe their first. Yes, supervising the student could be time-costly and there is overhead in the paperwork you have to do. But view this relationship as an investment. Make sure the academic supervising the students is involved in your meetings. It may take a couple of years and a few rounds of students, but remember many academics are hungry for industry involvement and it takes time to get the ideas that can really help.

Do not view this relationship as merely something that may be good for your company. View it as good for your career. You just need to sponsor one genuine innovation and your CV will stand out.

If you are in research, likewise view the interaction with industry as an investment in your own career. Yes, the student project the industry wants done is probably dismayingly far from your research topic and probably will not yield the publications you urgently need. And the company is unlikely to give you research cash today. But go to the meetings. Put serious effort into helping your students help the company. Understand that engineers in industry work on much shorter, more tightly programmed time scales than you do, and that they may move jobs much more frequently. Understand that they need confidence that their first investment in your students will not make them look bad. And understand that someone spending time to talk to you means you have struck an exceptional individual. Learn what the industry's needs really are. The idea for an innovation may come next year or later. Once your industry partner understands the benefit you can really offer, small amounts of money to support a PhD or Masters project should not be a problem. The simple fact that you have a relationship with industry can be a surprisingly powerful draw-card attracting good students to you. Students are sensitive to any way they can get an edge in the job market and many are impressed by evidence of industry relevance.

Then, if there is mutual agreement on a potential innovation, look for substantial funding together. The Australian Research Council (ARC)'s Linkage Projects provide government cash for cases where industry genuinely supports a research project. They are competitive, but not so competitive as the academically-driven ARC Discovery projects. If you have an established relationship, you are already ahead in the competition.

Plus, if industry is impressed by one of the students, some of the difficulty of future recruitment is reduced. And further down the track, the former placement student, immediately recognising the value of the experience, in turn sponsors new student projects ... The relationship between the industry engineer and the research academic becomes one of career-long, mutual benefit. I have seen this work. It only needs to work once to change your career.

It is not the only solution to the Australian industry and research disconnection.

But it is one we can implement now.

Disclaimer

This represents my own views and not those or any past or present employer.

References

[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009,

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/8104.0/

[2] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Main Science and

Technology Indicators (MSTI): 2010/1 edition",

http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,3343,en_2649_34451_1901082_1_1_1_1,00.html

[3] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/57/41557063.pdf

[4] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/452075145463

[5] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010,

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/27/2498389.pdf

Richard Manasseh is a mechanical engineer by training and was asked to write this blog entry because of his experience in numerous countries. He now works as a lecturer in sustainability engineering.

What do you think about cooperation between industrys and academia in Australia? Take the poll.