There should be at least two sets of criteria relating to –

Capturing a “vision” – an identifiable, measurable, and desired result that attracts widespread university, industry, and community support, commitment and imagination. For example, clean growth, global leadership in digital manufacturing, a fairer and more equitable society (all capable of being broken into sub-challenges).

Addressing an endemic problem – where the causes and solution is known, but the means to effectively resolve it have not been developed. A current example is the link between diet, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (sub-challenges would emerge around clinical, public health, and behavioural responses).

Criteria should be developed separately for each mission, rather than laying down a generic on rules, giving greater scope for innovation.

No. My Paper Challenges for Australian Research and Innovation pointed to a ‘mismatch’ between research commitment in health and medical research relative to commitment to engineering and technology research.

There are opportunities to link supply to demand around AI, data lytics, robotics, visualisation, cyber, clean energy, and net zero emissions.

University researchers are not necessarily in the best position to identify demand. Moreover, researchers, acting alone, will tend to focus on supply – technology push.

Demand should be reflected in institutional, faculty and institute research plans and priorities based on industry (market) research and analysis.

Technology transfer offices and research office crucial role (see below) and should be resourced to do so.

Good, based on experience in Agriculture – for example, eradication of FMD, rabbits, drought and pest-resistant crops, work on fruit fly eradication.

Industry should be heavily involved in developing missions and strategies.

The technology readiness framework in the Consultation Paper (proof of concept, scale-up, commercialisation) is well known. However, it reflects a “technology push” approach that may not align with market or end-user demand considerations.

In opening the commercialisation gate, mindsets must move from technological possibilities to hard-headed business assessment. A widely used framework used by venture investors involves consideration of –

• Desirability – What’s the unique value proposition? Do people really want this product or service? Does it make sense for them? How much are they prepared to pay?
• Viability – Is there the makings of a sustainable business? What has to be true for this business to work? What are the costs? How will it be paid for? Is the management team up to the job?
• Feasibility – Is the business model functionally possible in the foreseeable future (e.g. complementary sales, distribution, and service infrastructure, connection to global value chains)? Is it 24/7 reliable? Can quality be guaranteed?

This approach would ensure that a technology push perspective can be extended into a business assessment (demand-driven) approach. It could draw together incentives in technology development (R&D) programs with a wide range of business development incentives in Commonwealth and state/territory enterprise development programs.

Selection based on objective, expert, and independent assessment of a problem (need) to be addressed and/or an opportunity to be captured.

Projects within Missions must be unique, distinctive, and contain a stretch factor. They cannot be extensions of “science as usual”.

Progressive measurement of outputs, outcomes, impacts, and results achieved in relation to purpose. Measures should capture substantial change to pre-existing conditions.

For business, risk-adjusted long term return on investment; for universities, assurance of funding for research; for investors capacity to leverage investments into larger portfolios.

Brand, reputation, and credibility can also be important.

Consistency with Board or Council endorsed medium to longer-term strategic plans. That is, participation should not be an “add-on” to gain access to more funding.

Industrial PhDs would be an essential design element. University academic boards should be encouraged to design and endorse Industrial PhD programs involving students working in industry and bringing industry projects (subject to effective handling of IP issues). Scholarships should be made available.

Yes. Staff in business and academia tend to have little understanding of how their counterpart organisations operate.

There is scope for greater interchange of personnel and establishing stronger business connections. This could include:

• Appointment of “industry professors” or “professors of practice” under short term and/or conjoint arrangements
• Leveraging the contribution and participation of alumni communities
• Strategically initiated adjunct and honorary appointment arrangements.

There are many programs across the research sector (e.g. CSIRO, CRCs, DST) designed to increase industry collaboration. These should be examined to see what would work for universities.

Consideration should be given to extending aspects of the Entrepreneurs Program, the ARC Industrial Transformation Research Program, and extending the CRC and CRC-P programs.

State governments have experimented with “innovation vouchers” to build university and SME connections.

Collaboration could be improved by creating a network of UK ‘catapult like’ centres within or adjacent to universities, drawing in working models across the university system, including Cicada innovations, Canberra Innovation Network, Melbourne Connect, Fishburners, UNE Smart Region Incubator, CSU AgriPark, and extending to State government initiatives such as NSW Agriculture’s Gate Program, Brisbane’s The Precinct, and Adelaide’s Tonsley Innovation District.

Opportunities may exist to embed collaboration arrangements in property development initiatives currently underway in and around university campuses. Costs of SME participation may be a barrier.

With multiple stakeholders, a collegial governance model could be developed with decisions reached on consensus around the merit of proposals.

Decisions should be reported on a three-year cycle and updated annually.

A small secretariat would support the ‘college’.

Responsibility and accountability for resource allocation and commitment would appropriately rest with a Minister.

Projects would be submitted by stakeholder members and through consultation processes.

Projects would be selected based on meeting criteria and order of priority.

Project management would involve annual reporting against milestones and regular external reviews (well established in the CRC program’s architecture).

Governance related reporting can be designed around five to seven KPIs designed to give an overview of how results are tracking concerning benchmarks established in the governance framework.

Support should focus on strengthening, building, and appropriately investing in university-business engagement arrangements, including but not limited to:

• Cooperative research centres, including those modelled on, but not part of, the formal CRC program.
• The ARC research translation program.
• Place-based innovation initiatives, including innovation hubs, precincts, and districts, that facilitate connections and collaboration between universities and businesses. These initiatives cover a mix of incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces, and innovation support activities.
• Creating separately funded institutes of applied industrial research connecting universities and industry but not driven by the pressure for citation-based promotion. The model has worked well for medical research institutes.

There is a place for independent intermediaries and brokers who can initiate and facilitate the creation of sustained connections where system failures can be identified.

System failures concern information asymmetries in relation to market opportunities, knowledge of the availability of testing laboratories and scale up facilities, and cost-effective business advice.

There have been previous government initiatives, including the Australian Institute for Commercialisation, which continues without Commonwealth funding.