3: The Current Status of Australian Industry and University Cooperation
Research Cooperation and Government Support
The diversity of government supported mechanisms to encourage university-industry cooperation in research and research training is considerable. As the Australian Industry Commission noted recently: 'There is a plethora of programs and policies which aim to link public sector agencies with firms and other users' (Industry Commission 1995:822). However, it is important to note that the different levels at which cooperation takes place between the sectors, and the mechanisms through which cooperation occurs, are equally diverse. It can be observed that cooperation is not so much the product of different collaborative mechanisms, but rather is a complex network of interaction and interdependence. The diversity in government support therefore simply reflects the reality.
In order to unfold the complexities of this interaction, it is necessary to examine the interconnections between government programs intended to promote links between the two sectors.
Since the 1980s, the number of government sponsored mechanisms and administrative arrangements to promote university-industry linkages in research has not only increased but become more diversified to include new organisational forms that formally bind inter-sectoral partnerships. Major elements of government initiatives include:
The list is not exclusive but it is sufficient to capture the diversity and complexity of research cooperation between the two sectors. Further details on the main Government programs and their impact may be found in Appendix 6.
Key Centres of Teaching and Research Program
The KCTR program was originally conceived in order to enhance the teaching and research output of colleges in the advanced education sector (i.e. excluding the pre-1987 universities). In 1995, 33 KCTRs operated across the university system (Appendix 3) and there are currently 29 centres. Centres are funded, on average, at a level of around $250,000 per year. In 1994, the program accounted for 1.3 per cent of the separately budgeted funding for Australian university research.
It is interesting to note that this program has provided a corner-stone for further developing cooperation with industry. For example, a 1992 review of the KCTR program noted that many linkages, such as contract and cooperative ventures that have developed from the program, would not otherwise have occurred. Further, the review found that in some cases centres had generated funds from industry up to seven times the value of the original government grant (Australian Research Council 1992:12).
From the teaching perspective, it was observed that the KCTRs had been successful in more closely linking teaching programs to the needs of industry by bringing together different disciplinary strands into multi-disciplinary teaching programs that directly addressed the training needs of particular industries.
Benefits of the program from the university perspective included both the attraction of industry funding for specific training packages as well as the perceived 'fine tuning' of more general undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. This program illustrates in an interesting way the convergence between teaching, research and consulting activities.
Competitive Grants for Research and Development
This program, within the industry portfolio, brings together what were until recently five separate programs. Two of these were initially designed to overcome barriers to cooperation between universities and industry. These were the Generic Technology Grants Scheme (GTGS), and the National Teaching Company Scheme (NTCS).
The GTGS was set up to foster research collaboration. Each project requires a commercial partner, so research conducted under these grants is directly relevant to industrial problem-solving or innovative activities. They were initially provided across a wide range of industries considered to be important for Australia's competitiveness. Originally three areas were identified: biotechnology, new materials technology and information technology. Communications technology and environmental technology were later added. Although the scheme has some similarities to the CRC scheme, discussed below, in the sense that the focus is to enhance research capacity and to link university research with industries, the difference lies in the scheme's strategic direction of research into pre-identified areas. It is clear too, that Generic Technology Grants projects served as precursors to CRCs in several areas, such as photonics.
Initially the industry research and development grants had in principle application across a wide range of industries and this was considered to be an inherent weakness. The program now, however, is more tightly targeted, and the Industry Research and Development Board that administers the program now has greater discretion in targeting specific industries.
The NTCS projects seek to support the establishment of new linkages between companies and tertiary institutions through grants for the appointment of graduates over a two-year period to work on a specific research and development project. The graduate, in turn, is provided with experience in industry and the institution has the opportunity to collaborate with industry on market-oriented projects. Recent reviews of the teaching companies scheme have found that while the scheme did not necessarily promote further research and development in industry it did promote further collaboration.
...it is quite possible that without the NTCS projects would have been undertaken in-house, rather than in collaboration with a research institution.
(BIE 1991:60)
The Competitive Grants for Research and Development (CGRD) account for 1.8 per cent of all separately budgeted academic research income for 1994. As noted many of the more structured and formalised arrangements, such as the Cooperative Research Centres, have emerged from the more personal and project oriented research activities initiated through the CGRD scheme or its predecessors. The telecommunications case study described below shows how at least three Cooperative Research Centres and a number of centres of expertise play an important role in the interactions between the enterprise and universities. In most of these cases, Generic Technology or other project grants were an important factor in building the longer term cooperation embedded in the cooperative centres.
Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs)
The CRC Program was launched in May 1990 with the intent to fund up to 50 centres. The total government funding commitment was estimated to rise to $100 million per year by 1995 and attract matching funding from both the private sector, universities and government research institutions. Thirty-five centres were announced in the first and second rounds of applications, and there are now 62 functioning centres (see Appendix 4).
These 62 centres have created formalised and structured arrangements with 32 of the country's 37 universities. Within each CRC the relative level of participation from each university partner varies but the arrangements necessitate the development of formal management plans. In some cases there are only three or four partners but in at least one case there are over 10 cooperative partners. This has had a flow-on effect with a secondary level of partners emerging around the periphery of the core CRC activities (see National Board of Employment, Education and Training 1993). For example, with the Distributed Systems Technology CRC and the Photonics CRC, described in the telecommunications case study, there are a number of commercial firms that seek research and development advice and services from the core group. From the university point of view, the major university partner in the Distributed Systems CRC is now engaged in research and consulting activities with other universities where there was previously no interaction at all.
There are four important features that have emerged from the Australian CRC experience. Firstly, they have been built around existing, but less formal research links (Liyanage and Mitchell 1993). Second, they have become important structures for postgraduate research studies, and third, they have contributed to the development of 'peripheral research alliances' beyond the core members of the CRC. Finally, they have played a formative role in changing research cultures in both industry and academic research groups (Department of Industry, Science and Technology 1995).
The ARC Collaborative Research Grants program was established in October 1991 to support high quality research of social and economic benefit to Australia and to encourage research collaboration between universities and industry. The program funds projects that extend from basic and strategic to applied research and development with funding being provided on a matching dollar-for-dollar basis with industry for periods of up to three years. The scheme serves to complement the CRC and CGRD schemes by providing support for collaborative research that is smaller in scale than the CRCs, shorter in time-frame and does not require the establishment of a formal research centre.
Critical selection criteria focus on interaction from the outset with actual or potential users of the research outcomes, the likelihood of the proposed research leading to economic or social benefit to Australia and the ability of the researcher or the research group involved. Industry support is defined as either cash or support in kind and industry is defined broadly as including both public and private sector commercial enterprises and service providers.
Overall the program tends to support research activities in the fields of applied science and technology and information and computer science, with a smaller proportion of the budget going to physical science, earth science and medical and health sciences.
Because the scheme is project-focused it tends to support linkages between individual researchers in each sector. As noted, funded cooperation does not depend on the existence of a formalised research centre or jointly managed commercial enterprise. However, one of the implications of the program is its capacity to generate longer term and sustainable cooperative mechanisms between industrial and academic institutions.
As the steel industry case study shows, even where relationships with selected universities have developed into long-term formalised structures, individual project grants still provide an additional and complementary mechanism for cooperation.
Networks are used extensively by BHP Research, often in a quite informal way. Relationships and business contacts in general are very much on a personal level: ' ... there exists an informal network of researchers whose track record and expertise is well known within the company. Collaboration is developed for specific projects with people you can get on with, develop a relationship with and rely upon for the results you need ... building relationships is the name of the game'.
(Interview, Case Study 1)
Australian Postgraduate Awards (Industry) - APA(I)
The APA(I) program provides an industry-linked research funding program that directly links the research and teaching components of university activities with industry.
Table 4 shows the proportion of industry-based awards among all ARC-funded postgraduate research awards by field of research. These data show the principal fields of research where this cooperative mechanism is most concentrated. Applied sciences, agricultural sciences, and earth sciences are the main focus. The unique feature of this cooperative mechanism is that it is linked more closely with basic research and is driven more by universities than by industry. However, as with many of the other cooperative mechanisms the program again blurs the distinction between research and training.
| Field of Research | APAs | APA(I)s | All Awards | APA(I) as Prop. of all Awards |
| Mathematic Sciences | 2952 | 33 | 2985 | 1.1 |
| Physical Sciences | 2576 | 77 | 2653 | 2.9 |
| Chemistry Sciences | 2547 | 587 | 3134 | 18.7 |
| Earth Sciences | 2228 | 606 | 2834 | 21.4 |
| Information & Communications Tech. | 3241 | 344 | 3585 | 9.6 |
| Applied S&T | 695 | 863 | 1558 | 55.4 |
| General Engineering | 5528 | 905 | 6433 | 14.1 |
| Biological Sciences | 7640 | 651 | 8291 | 7.9 |
| Agricultural Sciences | 1375 | 776 | 2151 | 36.1 |
| Medical & Health | 5036 | 627 | 5663 | 11.1 |
| Social Sciences | 13834 | 319 | 14153 | 2.3 |
| Humanities | 13327 | 19 | 13346 | 0.1 |
| TOTAL | 60978 | 5807 | 66785 | 8.7 |
Source: National Board of Employment, Education and Training 1996b, Table 37
This program, although long-term in overall impact, is proving to be extremely effective from the point of view of both sectors. A recent study of industry and university responses to the program found a considerable degree of consistency with the view that the program was likely to lead to further industry-university cooperative ventures.
Research and Development Corporations and Councils
The Research and Development Corporations (RDCs) present a rather different mechanism for building research links between industry and universities. In this case the links are with primary industries and they are generated by industry-based corporations and councils.
Under this model statutory research funds have been established in most cases through industry levies applied to producers. These contributions are matched by Commonwealth funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to certain limits. The Corporations are required to develop five year plans and annual operating plans in consultation with their constituency and manage the distribution of research funds to approved research projects. The RDCs were established to provide for the short-term and long-term needs of Australian industry and were not specifically designed to encourage industry/academic links. However, a significant proportion of the Corporations' research programs are carried out by university staff, and as Case Study 2 shows, they play an important role in building links between rural based industries and universities. Appendix 7 shows the Research and Development Corporations' contributions to Australian university research expenditure for 1994.
The Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation was established in 1991 as a statutory authority to achieve a higher degree of independence, flexibility and accountability to the grape and wine industry. It seeks to achieve these goals through the identification of research and development priorities, promoting the effective use of resources and increasing industry returns. The organisation is thus a major intermediary structure for generating links between the industry and research institutions, including universities. The cooperative activities are achieved by a mechanism that first, collects levies and pools funds from a large number of dispersed producers; second, sets research priorities through a collective process that involves both industry representatives and senior research scientists; and third, distributes industry research funds to institutions including universities. Finally it serves as a clearing house for both industrial and scientific information and provides financial and infrastructure support for other collaborative mechanisms such as research and training centres and a Wine Research Institute.
Science or Technology parks have tended to play a less significant role in university and industry linkages in Australia than in many other countries. Most Australian State and Territory governments have provided infrastructure support for science and technology parks as well as for related property developments.
A recent Australian government study noted that these parks have been instrumental in promoting regional economic development through their capacity to attract high-technology industries. However, the study also noted that the success of science parks is more likely to be a reflection of a city's existing industrial and research base, rather than a factor that contributes to it (Industry Commission 1995:826).
Nevertheless, there are 17 science or technology parks in Australia ( see Appendix2), and the oldest has been in existence since 1984 (Johnston 1996). Although it has been noted elsewhere that technology parks in Australia did not turn out to be the 'bonanza some had imagined in the 1980s' (Johnston 1996), their existence has provided a convenient geographic location for maintaining university links among emerging academic spin-off companies (National Board of Employment, Education and Training 1993).
Other government incentives that received comment from both industry and university respondents during the field work for the present study were those that contributed to a general improvement of the innovation environment in the country. This included the 150 per cent Tax Incentive for Research and Development, the Syndicated Research and Development Scheme, and enterprise improvement schemes (see Appendix 6). These types of industry-directed incentives differ in mode and focus from the grants programs described earlier. However, they too were introduced with the intention of bringing about increased levels of industrial research and development in Australia with the logical flow-on to more cooperation with universities. For example, expenditures on research and development commissioned from registered research agencies (which includes universities) are eligible under the 150 per cent tax concession.
From the university side, national higher education policies have permitted universities to use measures of interaction with industry as a component of 'research outcomes' that are then used in generating formulae for institutional infrastructure funding. Thus these mechanisms for promoting industry and university cooperation are generalised but nevertheless have been influential in the development of research links between the sectors.
Summary of Government Programs Supporting Cross-sectoral Research Cooperation
All of the programs discussed above are intended to promote research cooperation between universities and Australian industry. However, as discussed, many such as the Postgraduate Research Awards for Industry and the Key Centres for Teaching and Research also directly promote cooperation in training. Further, some are project-oriented and directly support links between academic researchers and their counterparts. Mechanisms associated with project grants can be one-off unstructured links, but they also have the potential to generate longer term linkages such as the CRCs.
The centre-based programs, although creating new challenges for traditional models of university administration, have, through their more formalised structures, the potential to build links within and across university departments, between universities and with industry over a comparatively long-term time frame. The Collaborative Grants, on the other hand, are more discipline specific and project-oriented. Their emphasis is more short-term and oriented to the support of direct collaboration between individual researchers across the two sectors.
The diversity of government linkage schemes has been criticised by some on the grounds that there is unnecessary overlap between programs. However, our observation is that the diversity of government schemes associated with the promotion of research cooperation reflects the actual complexity of research networks. More importantly, however, there is evidence that the research support mechanisms are becoming more closely linked with university training. This is discussed further in the following sections.
During the past ten years there has been a substantial growth in both the forms and the extent of cooperative programs for education between Australian industry and higher education institutions. A variety of forces have driven and promoted this change. These include the need to pursue international competitiveness in industry, considerable reform in labour force strategies and relations, a strong push to expand vocational education and the skill levels of the labour force, and the exposure of the post-secondary education system to higher levels of competition and accountability.
A significant player in these changes has been the vocational education sector mainly delivered through the TAFE (Technical and Further Education) system-a large network of technical colleges and institutes in almost every substantial population centre. The role of the TAFE is not considered specifically in this report. However, it should be noted that the boundary between TAFE and universities has been considerably blurred, through the inclusion of four universities which incorporate a TAFE component in their structure within the Unified National System. In addition, there has been steady progress towards articulation of TAFE qualifications with university degree programs, and a significant level of TAFE-university collaboration in the development of new training programs for industry.
The forms of cooperation between universities and industry in education and training can be usefully divided into two categories - 'traditional' and 'new'. The traditional relationship has a long history, and takes a number of forms. Australian universities have adopted one or more of these forms to an extent governed by the perceived objectives of the institution.
One of the forms of cooperation in the traditional mode is associated with the professions-medicine, law, engineering-where course content and delivery is to a significant extent set by the governing body of the profession, and there are monitoring and review procedures to ensure that professional standards are maintained.
Another is student placements in the workplace for practical experience. There has been substantial growth in cooperative (formerly 'sandwich') programs which provide for substantial work experience as a component of the course, in addition to the more common vacation work experience pattern.
Other forms include the appointment of individuals from appropriate industry or professional bodies to course advisory committees, appointment of adjunct professors who are employed in industry, and provision of funds by companies for Chairs in targeted fields.
Each of these forms has developed strongly, as shown in recent surveys of cross-sectoral initiatives (Department of Employment, Education and Training 1995a). But by-and-large they have remained 'arms length' relationships, with relatively little consequence for the culture, the traditions, the objectives and the practices of either industry or the universities. They are essentially marginal to the mainstream business of the organisations, and hence can be comfortably organised and managed without threat or change to established beliefs and procedures.
In contrast, the 'new' forms of cooperation are much more far-reaching, and represent a very substantial transformation, in many cases, in the missions of universities, the objectives and importance of education in company planning, and in the nature of the relationship between the two players. These ventures are rather more in the form of partnerships or strategic alliances, and shaped by the experience that has been gained in the effective management of such alliances.
They involve a much higher level of joint ownership, with course design, delivery, assessment and overall evaluation being the product of a shared initiative involving committed staff from both university and company (Treyvaud and Davies 1991).
An examination of a range of these 'new' forms of cooperation has enabled the common features of successful cooperative education programs to be identified:
The Australian Council for Viticulture acknowledges industry as relatively pro-active in the training area, but believes there is a greater need for it to become more involved in the design and implementation of curricula. From the Council's perspective, industry is unaware of the potential influence it can exert on its academic partners and is still allowing the universities to drive both the undergraduate and postgraduate programs:
a situation which may not always be in the best interests of industry or its research needs...business people do not think in educational terms and are relatively unfamiliar with university requirements or traditions. In short, there is a cultural gap between industry and the universities, which must be narrowed if an effective partnership is to continue.
In response to this situation the Council conducts workshops which bring industry and university representatives together in a common forum to discuss training and research concerns. In the area of postgraduate research training, there is now a summer scholarship program, where postgraduates from various institutions take part in a student 'exchange' for up to three months.
There is also a move to try and bring more people, particularly growers and producers, from industry into the universities and CSIRO, in an effort to introduce more relevant curricula into degree courses, as well as to provide industry with a greater input into course design.
One university is running workshops in conjunction with short courses, but some informants have argued that although these have been designed for industry, they are almost exclusively driven by academics.
Characteristics of 'New' University-Industry Cooperative Programs in Education and Training
Data showing the extent of university and industry cooperation in education and training in Australia were collected through the Department of Employment, Education and Training in a survey of cross-sectoral initiatives in 1995. This information was followed-up for the present study with a request in May 1996 to selected universities to update and extend the data available. On this basis 76 'new' initiatives have been identified (see Appendix 1). Undoubtedly, the list is not comprehensive, but probably represents the substantial majority of such programs. There are also some difficulties associated with the classification of initiatives as traditional or new. Some straddle the somewhat artificial boundary. Nevertheless, the findings presented in Appendix 1 provide a substantial picture of these types of initiatives in Australia today.
Of the total of 36 public universities, 23 have reported at least one program which fits the guidelines of new cooperative education ventures. However, there is a substantial level of concentration, with just five universities accounting for 50 per cent of the programs, by number.
It is the newer universities, rather than the more traditional and long-established universities, which apparently are seeing the opportunity to establish a market presence for themselves in cooperative education. Their relative youth may also suggest that there are fewer entrenched attitudes and practices to overcome.
With regard to the type of partner, the following figures indicate that it is the private sector and government that dominate, to about an equal extent:
| Private Company(ies) | 30 |
| Industry Associations | 11 |
| Government Agency | 19 |
| Government Department (incl Public Service Commission) | 11 |
| Professional Association | 12 |
| Trade Union | 2 |
In total, 54 per cent of programs are with industry, either directly with companies, or via industry associations. Government, in various guises, is involved in 39 per cent of the cooperative programs. The other major category of partner is professional associations.
With regard to the type of economic activity of the partner, it is the producer services, in particular financial services, accounting, consulting and management that are the largest category, involved in 32 per cent of programs.
The pattern by economic activity is concentrated very strongly towards the service industries. All told, three-quarters of partners are in this sector which is not only the largest, but the fastest growing.
With regard to the type of course, the majority are specialised non-award courses for industry partners (34%), or subjects which could also contribute towards accredited courses (18%). These were followed by courses leading to a Graduate Certificate (17%), Diploma or Associate Diploma (14%), or a professional qualification (9%). Significantly, only 8 per cent of programs were designed to lead to an undergraduate or postgraduate degree.
With regard to the target audience of the program, for most companies and government departments and agencies, it was their staff; for industry associations it was the staff of their member organisations; and for professional associations it was their members.
Recent initiatives reflect an apparently new process of commercial organisations inviting universities to tender to deliver their training needs, or their programs. For the latter, this model has been established through the various Public Service Commissions, which have invited tenders for the design and delivery of specified training programs. However, the model has recently been extended to the private sector, with the Australian Institute of Company Directors calling for expressions of interest from universities in:
In a case like this, a commercial organisation with an established training product is seeking to out-source its provision and delivery into the university sector.
In something of a landmark case in cooperative education, Elders Ltd, a large provider of services to the rural industries (woolbroking, livestock, merchandising, real estate, finance and insurance) with over 1,500 employees, has taken the initiative in calling for tenders from universities to become a partner in the delivery of enterprise based educational programs. The major areas of competency development identified by Elders are: policy development, information management, leadership, communication, selling and marketing, customer service, quality improvement processes, personal effectiveness, systems thinking, problem solving skills, the business environment, and global business trends. The requirements of the university provider (see box) can be read as a definitive checklist of the 'new' strongly customer-driven cooperative education. We suggest that perhaps this may represent a template for future industry-university cooperative ventures in education and training.
A template for future industry-university cooperative ventures in training and education
Delivery must be:
With regard to content and structure, the university must:
Learning methodologies must:
With regard to administration, the university must have systems and procedures which are able to:
A wide range of consulting and services are provided by universities for industry in Australia. Such activities range from technical development, testing, policy advice or even product development projects. However, because a high proportion of these activities are informal and often arranged directly between academics and industrial clients it is difficult to gauge the extent of collaboration through this mode.
Through the 1980s most Australian universities began establishing 'commercial arms' to manage these sorts of cooperative links and to assist academics with the commercialisation of new technologies. There are now 110 commercial enterprises owned and controlled by Australian universities. A large proportion of the activities carried out through these enterprises comprises consulting and/or service activities.
Until recently there was no formal mechanism for reporting on the activities of these commercial arms, but it has recently been estimated that 30 per cent of their activities are associated with licensing, royalties or sale of intellectual property, 45 per cent with consulting activities and 25 per cent with teaching courses (Johnston 1996:42). Again the point to be made is that this mechanism is serving to integrate all three modes of university-industry cooperation-research, teaching and consultancy.
The case studies described in the present study also illustrate the extent to which consulting links are generally made through informal connections. As our steel producers pointed out:
When an interesting research idea arises, it is usually a matter of several phone calls from the interested parties to get the idea up and running with a suitable research team. People are also brought in from around the world to do particular consultancies, but these people are always well known to BHP and usually have a long track record with them.
(Interview, Case Study 1)
While this is a fairly typical response from a big firm seeking academic consultants, it has also been observed that the commercial arms of universities often get in the way of short-term research or consulting projects that have tight time frames. In some cases it is also said that they place undue emphasis on intellectual property issues and make unreasonable claims in terms of financial return.
On the other hand, these informal links often perform a valuable role in generating long-term collaborative ventures involving an integration of teaching, research and consulting activities.
BHP for example, for a long time engaged with a wide range of informal contacts with the University of Wollongong, has now embarked on an ambitious collaborative project to establish an Institute for Steel Processing and Products at the University alongside its major steel processing plant. The Institute represents yet another structure that brings together both teaching and research modes of cooperation.
The aim of the new Institute is 'to foster world class research in steel processing and products, and the cultural aspects of the introduction of new technologies, and to provide high quality postgraduate training to those involved in the steel processing industry'. Its objectives (see box) neatly summarise the convergence between cooperative activities covering training (part-time and short courses), technical collaboration and research and research training and their inter-dependence embedded in new cooperative structures.
Example of Integrated Modes of Cooperation in Formalised Industry
and University Structures
Objectives of the BHP/University of Wollongong Institute for Steel Processing and Products: