Cool Clock

Poodwaddle.com

IB Lecturer Position at GSU

Position Announcement Institute of International Business (IIB) J. Mack Robinson College of Business Georgia State University Atlanta, GA GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY invites applications for one or more non-tenure track lecturer positions effective Fall semester 2011. Candidates must have a master’s (or higher) degree in international business or related field, demonstrated high-level classroom performance in international business in an AACSB-accredited business program, and practitioner experience in international business, preferably with international entrepreneurship experience. Positions include undergraduate and/or graduate teaching as well as community and business outreach. Salaries are competitive; positions are contingent on budget approval. Send letter of application, curriculum vitae, and evidence of classroom performance to search committee chair at iib@gsu.edu or IIB, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3989, Atlanta, GA 30302-3989. Preference given to applications received by October 30, 2010. Georgia State University is an equal opportunity educational institution/affirmative action employer.

Avoiding Scurvy: Crewing the Research Ship?

In the era of ERA, what are the major implications for crewing the research organization ship?

After listening to Dr. Dawson one comes away with a few interesting quotes, "its nice to have a ragtag bunch of pirates which can do many different things" or," a desire for people who are interesting with curiosity in topics (he cares about)" and that "many strong discipline researchers are really bad listeners." So some emphasis rests on multi-disciplinary skill-sets at the UniSA Sleep Research Centre. Dr. Pocock's brief interview underscored a desire for an increasing publishing ratio requirement among researchers and a minimum of four published articles per year per head with at least 20% of the total in top ranked journals. A brief description of a few HR related blunders included a rough dismissal process for one and another researcher let go due to a desire to research without publishing. Both Research Centre Managers seek to see results from funded research initiatives.

These coincide with the overall ERA quality assessment system being tested at ARC and leading indicators from the 2009 ERA Trial appear to focus heavily upon the output and quality of research crew members contribute to the pool of new knowledge creation. The quality of research crews in Australia are being measured according to several indicators:

1. Rate of publication: in ranked journals and refereed conference publications.

2. Rate of citation analysis: relative citation impact, distribution of publications & papers.

3. Total volume: of published and research outputs.

4. HERDC Research Outcomes: Total value of grants, including research income and ratios in comparison with discipline.

5. Esteem Ranking: Editorial positions on highly ranked journals, prestigious reference works, events, fellowship awards, competitive prizes, etc.

6. Rate of applied results: Patents, designs, or commercial outcome (as applicable).

Appendix 1: ERA Indicator Principles (19 December 2008)

Both Drs. Dawson and Pocock emphasize that researchers with curiosity and good social skills are desirable and both also indicated a certain reluctance to fall back entirely on the forensic assessment measures of the ERA in populating their own crews while maintaining some minimum annual results. Dr. Dawson cautions against a strategic management system more useful in developing a corporate "factory of knowledge" model which is ruthless and possibly the antithesis to research cooperation and collaboration necessary to increase quality. Pocock indicates a resistance to growth model which would also be challenging under a strict ERA principle in strategically selecting the best crew members for a research ship.

Perhaps the ERA may reflect upon the "soft skills" evaluative needs of crew members when and if a Myers & Briggs style assessment is inclusive in the quantitative assessment of quality for example bringing forth the rankings of intellectual assets versus liabilities of the researchers in social settings, if teaching then their students' assessments, supervisors, editors, collaborators, if curious then rate of curiosity, if social then rate of social interaction, if listening then aptitude for listening, etc. Due to the extreme difficulty in measuring these qualities or expressing them in quantitative values it appears certain qualities remain unmeasurable and outside the scope of the ERA assessment.

The Ethical Management of Data

Discuss what the management of data means in practice – for institutions, groups, individual researchers (including students), research partners and/or research participants.

Institutions: “Must and should” are described as compliance-based requirements in Part A and Part B of the Australian Code as it’s a stronger interpretation of what to include in the institutional code described as requiring several secretarial revisions and several committee reviews over three years and three months at UniSA Research and Innovation Services prior to being disseminated to the university research community in online format. Dr. Hochman explained that as the Code is broad in general principles and practice the institution needs to bring it to a procedural and “user friendly” scale on the institutional level. Interestingly Dr. Hockman revealed that as of the time of the interview there were no national audits of compliance which while of concern to the administration of ARC/NHRC grants there also remain no national misconduct investigation committees leaving a lot of the auditing to Research Ethics Committees at the institutional level.

Is it possible TEQSA might evolve to include a national ethical misconduct investigative branch?

Clarity before cash: Steve Matchett The Australian August 18, 2010

Groups: Need to be aware and in compliance with the necessary documents and guidelines, terms of mutual collaboration, and cooperation expected of them in the institution. Hockman mentions his own department, and in various disciplines, institutional staff, students all need to be aware of and in compliance with the Code through the university institutional code of research practice. Part of his role is providing updates on the latest changes to code compliance as well as evaluation of compliance.

Individual Researchers: Examples were given regarding terms of authorship forms which need to be submitted prior to publications to prevent post-publication disputes over authorship. He also gave evidence of streamlining repeated shared authorship processes and made the distinction that the Code does in fact differentiate between requirements made of institutions and individual researchers. He pointed out the importance of financial accountability to research integrity and the need for skilled grants applications which lead to approval.

Research Partners: Both Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Hockman shared examples of the collaboration relationships and necessary research partnership agreements processes that have been streamlined into short and standard two page partnership agreements (on a trial – has it become standard yet?) for low contention projects which allows the start time to quickly align with funding and approval processes rather than requiring six months of review and negotiation to complete while waiting to begin perhaps a three year grant funded research plan. At the same time more contentious projects could still be begun with rejoinders/amendments and addenda to complete the remaining points of the agreement at a later date allowing the research cycle to begin earlier.

Research Participants: He explained that some processes being introduced to many groups and researchers for the first time would benefit from online modular courses in research integrity and was hoping to set some up in the near future based on best practices among some US universities. Dr Hockman also explained the role of Human Research Ethics Committees and the streamlining of their proposals reviews and applications for research approval with a “Griffith Model” defining three levels of risk management: negligible/low /or great risk of ethical non-compliance with the Codes terms or the National Statement on Ethics. Research showed that as little as 15-20% of all research ethics approvals required committee based reviews so an online questionnaire type application was developed to streamline and speed up the approvals process for projects with negligible or low risk of unethical terms of research. Due to the process being researcher managed Dr. Hockman stated that spot checks and random audits mitigated the risk that research ethics approval applicants might misrepresent the ethics of their proposed research. In short all of this to ensure that participants are engaging in ethical research integrity.

Sandstone or Sandbox: Building Bite Into World Class Australian Research

SANDSTONE OR SANDBOX:

BUILDING BITE INTO WORLD CLASS AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH

This essay compares and contrasts risks and benefits between strategic policies focus on a few research institutions versus a national innovation system in Australia. “The Sandstones” (Go8) loom over Australia’s Capacity (2008) seeking to solidify already leading positions in Australia’s research landscape. Speed and concentration of improvement might prove the best choice. But smaller institutions would wither upon the regional vine. A new innovation system by contrast would require more diluted terms of regional engagement. Recalibration of a complex set of recommendations costs and takes more time to achieve which both Cutler and Carr appear to endorse. An egalitarian strategy seated in quality is preferred and advocated by the Review of Higher Education (Bradley et. alii.) but research among prestigious institutions could stall due to slow process change. In either direction a failure to grow successes quickly and economically enough in ensuring Australia’s quality of research is not currently an option. Australia’s GDP growth depends upon still greater innovation reform, access and participation. But what is world class?

READ THE FULL ESSAY HERE

QUT Codes in Duck Walk Lock Step?

Track down your own institution's governance framework and summarise how it maps onto the relevant code(s), in particular the Australian Code.

QUT in Duck Walk Lock Step?

Referencing my boss’s response to a local code or governance of research framework inquiry there is nothing immediately available here in Korea regarding my own institution of employment so I rely upon the easily accessible policies available at my educational provider in QUT.

Compliance with and implementation of the Australian Code appears evident and expounded upon in QUT’s Manual of Policy and Procedure (MOPP) which includes a governance framework mostly covered by D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research, with additional documents providing more details such as MOPP B/8.1 Code of Conduct, MOPP D/2.7 Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct, MOPP D/2.8 Management of research data (to be approved), and MOPP D/5.4 Code of Good Practice for Postgraduate Research Studies and Supervision at QUT.

MOPP D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research: Covers principles for the responsible conduct of research, roles and responsibilities for responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, management of research data, supervision and training of research students and staff, publication and dissemination of research findings, authorship, peer review, management of conflicts of interest relating to research activities, and collaborative research with other institutions. These subsections correlate highly with the Australian Code in both Parts A and B as may be seen in the following chart.

MOPP D/2.6 QUT Code of Conduct for Research	Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
2.6.1 Principles for the responsible conduct of research	Section 1 General principles of responsible research 1.3
2.6.2 Application	Dealt with at length in description of institutional, individual responsibilities for each subsection.
2.6.3 Roles and responsibilities for responsible conduct of research	Responsibilities of researchers and supervisors of research trainees 3.1
2.6.4 Research misconduct	Section 9 Breaches of the Code and misconduct in research 9.3
2.6.5 Management of research data	Section 2 Management of research data and primary materials 2.1
2.6.6 Supervision and training of research students and staff	Section 3 Supervision of research trainees 3.1
2.6.7 Publication and dissemination of research findings	Section 4 Publication and dissemination of research findings 4.1
2.6.8 Authorship	Section 5 Authorship 5.1
2.6.9 Peer review	Section 6 Peer review 6.1
2.6.10 Management of conflicts of interest relating to research activities	Section 7 Conflicts of interest 7.1
2.6.11 Collaborative research with other institutions	Section 8 Collaborative research across institutions 8.1
http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_02_06.jsp	http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/r39.pdf

It is interesting to note that the ranking for misconduct are so highly positioned in the QUT document reference as compared to falling under Section 9 of the Australian Code. Surely this does not indicate order of importance or evidence of disregard?

QUT MOPP B/8.1 Code of Conduct: This document explores the QUT designation of conduct code above and beyond the Australian Code description which defines national guidelines while local Queensland legislation includes institutional and individual compliance from The Public Sector Ethics Act 1994:

respect for the law and system of government

respect for persons

integrity

diligence

economy and efficiency

QUT MOPP D/2.7 Procedures for dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Elaborates upon the Australian Code however requires modifications in description of procedural investigations of complaints dependent upon collective bargaining agreements differentiated among: academic, professional or senior staff. The Australian Code does not itself make such distinctions but permits institutions to do so. This might represent differentiation in representational allowances and/or effect private or public investigations or publication of results.

QUT MOPP D/2.8 Management of research data (to be approved): As this section is being reviewed it must indicate that it is an area of necessary improvement at QUT for alignment with Australian Code requirements.

QUT MOPP D/5.4 Code of Good Practice for Postgraduate Research Studies and Supervision: Responsibilities are clearly described in the areas: institution, department, supervisor and candidate. It is refreshing to note that the candidate’s list is shorter than the others.

In conclusion, is it possible that the Australian Code and the QUT Code might have been written by the same group of perhaps itinerant authors?

Three Visionary Research Organisations

Discuss the similarities and differences that you think are important between CISRO, Wolcock Research Institute and CW+L at UniSA.

Similarities: These are all innovative research organisations in Australia with clearly defined scope of vision and mission objectives. They all started small or didn't exist at all. Their collective reasons for existence are to fulfill research needs that improve the knowledge and lives of Australians as well as incorporation of international collaboration in their reach and relevance to the world at large. It wasn't until someone expressed their vision and mission that any of them got started at all. Each could be said to share similar reasons for existence whereby through differences in scope and scale of research study all were designed to organize groups of people to work together for common purposes to find innovative solutions to improve quality of life whether through science, medicine or societal study. Each fulfills societal needs either for new products, better treatments or ways to understand important societal needs.

While the two smallest ships seemingly grew out of the passion, care and leadership of two individuals they have successfully grown their original direction into group and team oriented research organisations. While they are smaller than CISRO they are not small and have proven big enough in terms of vision and mission to survive the vicissitudes of time, relevance, and funding. Not all do.

Most importantly they all support the adage that together we rise and divided we fall. Perhaps indicative as well is that over time these organisations have only grown as a result of further inclusivity, dynamism and cross-disciplinary synergies which engage and perhaps "t-bone" and/or combine various disciplines to the benefit of collective and diffusive knowledge sharing.

Differences: In terms of strategy CISRO’s scope is the vastest considering it employs over 6000 people, has a high profile and is the largest of these three tall ships. It also possesses the longest pedigree and has grown substantially over several decades to incorporate numerous cross indexed charters (perhaps an elder form of the favoured expression of mission) which help define and categorize the numerous research specialisations present which include: information services, manufacturing and minerals, environment, energy and agribusiness.

In terms of mission and vision CISRO is the most grandiose in keeping with its significant scientific inventions, commercial successes and incorporates its vision and beliefs system to address:

1. A people oriented innovation policy of world class performance.

2. A commitment to safety and environmental sustainability.

3. Seeks deep science and innovation solutions.

4. Implements an effective and appropriate risk management system.

5. Supports individual creativity and flexibility.

In contrast, The Woolcock Medical Research Institute was crafted from its association with The Prince Albert Hospital of The University of Sydney with the individual drive and leadership of Professor Wolcock who began study of asthma with one patient and who grew the organization into the area of respiratory and sleep-related health care research. Our notes credit significant tax provisions provided by government incentives for the establishment of the centre itself. In terms of strategy the vision and mission expanded out of the skills and dedication of one researcher into the collaboration of many where now over fifty different research projects operate at the same time.

Wolcock Institute incorporates its mission of improvement in respiratory and sleep health of Australians through: research, education, prevention and care.

The Centre for Work and Life (CW+L) is still led by its original founder Professor Barb Pocock and focuses on work and quality of life research driven to improve understanding of current and future needs of Australia's stressed out and over-worked workers. In terms of strategy Pocock appears most entrepreneurial of the three considering her eloquence in the ABC Interview of 2007 available in the media section.

Her initial engagement in research of the sociology of work in Australia was made from a particularly left-wing and perhaps rebellious perspective which led to progressive self-realization and perhaps well defined and honed negotiation skills. Her description of finding a niche in the research environment at UniSA is very similar to the process through which many business oriented enterprises find their own unique customer oriented valuation. This is no surprise considering her economics specialization and interest in and abilities for hard work appear inspiring. This appears to be the humanities-based research example among the three ships.

The CW+L Charter includes five goals:

1. To improve the quality of work and life in Australia through analysis and innovative thinking.

2. To use logic and reasoning to assist organisations in generating policies which support the first goal.

3. To encourage collaboration through quantitative and qualitative research.

4. To train life and work researchers.

5. To widely share knowledge and information about life and work in Australia.

Powering Ideas: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

Powering Ideas: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

What is the role of individual research organisations in the national innovation system?

BACKGROUNDER

First I note the whirlwinds of political intrigue surrounding the personages and required readings of this our first week of discussion on the innovation fleet of Australia. The plight of Horatio Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar appear picturesque by comparison.

Enter Terry Cutler well seated at Melbourne and the CISRO Board of Directors quickly detailing his definition of "the coalition of the willing" describing commercialisation of research to be a "misguided focus" better suited to business than university research programs in this interview with Gerhard Vorster and Deloitte. His aim of reaching the first 25% quartile of all OECD innovation measures in the next decade based on the 2020 Conference seems occupied with positioning and ranking in international statistics from competitor nations that may or may not over or underestimate their innovation spending. His own recommendations total an estimated 3 billion dollars of tax payer-fronted debt something it appears Australia had minimized during the Howard administration according to Chart Seven State Net Debt in Dimarco, Pirie and Au-Yeung.

Dr. Denise Bradley also resides in nearby South Australia with a long history at UniSA but now a ready government employee and most recently appointed to the Chair of TEQSA - Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency a new level of toothy government oversight recommended in her own landmark Review of Australian Higher Education.

Like-minded but elected Senator and member of ruling Australia Labour Party Kim Carr is a former teacher and Minister of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. His website details several South Australia highlighted initiatives based on Powering Ideas and his government is now led by Ms. Julia Gillard resident of South Australia, former Minister of Education, former socialist and former Deputy Prime Minister under the tragic leadership of the Brisbane-based resigned fluently Mandarin Kevin Rudd. This sine quo non resulted in his ownership of the "Resource Super Profits Tax" proposal to be levied on Australia's top two export trade sectors the proceeds possibly earmarked to pay for the innovation renovation of the third sector based on the proposals of Cutler, Bradley, Carr and the Group of Eight study " Adding to Australia's Capacity" authors unknown but surmised to resemble a "Band of Brothers and Sisters." The latest Minister of Education Crean another resident of Victoria career politician-union stalwart appears to be under-reporting educational reforms limited to PCs in every high school classroom in his latest radio interview. It is also evident that the socialists have definitely turned against P.M. Gillard.

What is the role of individual research organisations in the national innovation system?

The report Powering Ideas does not specifically detail the role of individual research organisations in the national innovation system other than participation in and compliance with what appears "top down" style managerial reform proposals. In the introduction mention is made of increased science and innovation budgets, with a 25% increase from 2009 to 2010 detailing a declining productivity and reduced spending since 1993-94 coinciding with the last Labour Party government of Paul Keating.

The National Innovation Priorities listed seem to coincide with campaign promises made by Kevin Rudd while mention is made that the duties of universities and public research domains remain the provision of knowledge and skilled workforces rather than any commercialisation of research. This in line with Cutler's admission that research commercialisation be made a dirty word. Their contribution is listed to include propagating an increase in the numbers of internationally benchmarked research groups, organize more vigorous industry research partnerships, form more collaborative team research projects across institutions, gather project financing from the Education Investment Fund detailing several recent disbursements already in its third round, and conforming to well detailed business and public sector innovation initiatives such as increasing business engagement by 25% and developing better policy direction and improvement decisions management by 2020.

Individual research organisations are expected to participate in increased collaboration efforts to realize a doubling effect over the next ten years which would require approximately 7% growth per year to 2020. However as the report details on page 20 the rate of R & D spending growth is already 8% a year thus the doubling effect of such a growth rate suggests the 2020 goal in research funds increases may be reached in 7.5 years or 2017 second quarter rather than 2020. This might prove a useful incentive to suggest the innovation renovation platform in Powering Ideas is simply political.

For example, the OECD estimates of 2.5% of GDP in countries like Korea may be accurate but the oversight accountability and transparency of such funds dispersal and application results may be difficult or impossible to trace. This is also the dilemma often faced by sales agents in many corporations who require boosts in sales figures to justify performance based review while undermining actual profit earnings through negotiated concessions and other tax breaks to secure deals which might provide a lower level of actual net benefits to funds spent. Might the same not be said for funding future collaborations?

For example, while CISRO basks in profit earnings based on patent royalties certain of our required readings recommend universities and individual research organisations dispense with intellectual property protections which copyright and patent laws allow for more open source and knowledge transfer benefits to reduce the estimated 30% of funded research conducted in duplicate. One cannot hope to implement a national research policy based on the successes of only one research organisation and at that expect the followers to give up their golden gooses/geese. Especially if the benchmarked leader has yet to do so. Where would the lauded cochlear bionic ear be if it had not been a patented and rights protected innovation?

Hallelujah!

Lightfoot's Hot Foot

Tribute to the end of exam grading...

Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science)

Rock on Brrrrrrrrrrruce!

For those anonymous rubbish stirrers...

Contracts: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

What does RM need to know before entering into negotiations with a potential sponsor?

RM has to plan and prepare a solid agenda based on the requirements of the research at hand to establish whether a contract is indeed practical or possible. Contingency, concessions equitable distribution and perhaps restrictions and constraints such as those present in Guide to Contract Negotiation & Preparation of Contracts at ANU will need to be well planned for in advance and written in stone and otherwise memorized to make sure no boundaries are exceeded.

It appears fairly standard that University IP should never be surrendered in Australia. At the same time this appears as a standard not applied to many generic drug manufacturers in the sale of their products to poorer nations where there have been many cases of international legislation which require corporations provision their IP to assist in making medicine more affordable for those who can least afford it to the entire sector. Unrestricted licensing to the funding partner might also be difficult to regulate in many foreign markets if the sponsor is an international corporation they might perhaps be making billions off the university licensed IP abroad while the university itself sees no further profits without a bold contingency on future earnings in place.



At the same time universities may see increasing ethical and legal challenge in when or if their IP rules may be restricting global development. So far I have not read of any one challenging university IP rules but heterodox economist Chang Ha-Choon takes on the entire neo-liberal market approach in Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. (2002)

Minimizing University exposure to unrecoverable liabilities also appears to be an important consideration as ANU relates that larger multi-party negotiations will increase the risk of unforeseeable liabilities claims or challenges. Yet, is there not some form of research risk insurance or force majeure clause for small ventures provided by the Australian Government similar to export nonpayment insurance which reduces exposure to small businesses with 90% risk coverage? It appears to work for the exporters wouldn't it work to encourage more small multiparty research consortia?

It seems universities seek to ensure the research project can actually be completed in the time and with the assets required in the contract. This would imply that failure to do so will extract late delivery and penalty as potentially with export shipments.

While these terms appear fixed positions most businesses might see them as potentially limiting shared interests and the RM would need to include a central university legal team to review the final document, screen all agreed terms, vet departmental endorsements, investigate commercial forecasts, ensure term sheets are in agreement with contract terms, perform final sign off on any boiler plate contract, present final draft to research director, pass to research department chair, witness signing and provide copies by and to all principals, provision signed copy to Chancellery for final signature, forward copies of the contract to department, Chancellery and legal team and and assign to filing cabinet for as long as a couple of decades or university dictates decree. No bureaucracy there?

As product lifecycles are increasingly short in most competitive commercial sectors any delay could reduce the possible profits of the research itself. While the university legal team may provide final content review and lead negotiator the more the involved RM can confirm through understanding and moderating the negotiation process the easier it may be.

The RM could enroll in some form of course work to gain greater competency in the legal aspects of sponsored research management contracts. Additionally the RM could employ tactical training in real negotiations, arbitration and conflict management.



Experience is often not the only or best solution to improving skills in contract negotiation. In fact, as my Notre Dame Certificate taught me in 2007 crucial human weaknesses such as cognitive biases, emotions and irrationality, partisan assumptions,and selective information filtering all often reinforce zero sum positions rather than provide opportunities for shared interests. Good RMs seek the creation of value or shared gains through collaboration, but with lack of negotiation training might be encouraged to practice judgmental overconfidence in one's own skill set only reinforcing innate human aversions to loss or risk as well as the perpetuation of reactive devaluation. No manager really wants to hear they lack negotiation skills or the ability to frame good questions to gather the best information possible contributing to their decisions. But having lived outside the western world for more than a decade I often fear it's aversion to risk is it's biggest disadvantage. This would apply to the interests of collaborative research rather than isolated enclaves in terms of positions on multiparty contracts.

What should RM be aware of concerning existing funding contracts when planning for new funding cycles and applications?

As an apocryphal, in the worst case scenario conflicts of interest or IP sharing would be found post contract signing as a class mate indicated and this would imply a lack of due diligence in which case in common law it would be potentially challenging for the university to recoup any losses of IP protection, patent or copyright. Conflicts between current and future contracts need to be anticipated and I am certain the best RMs out there are as popular for their smooth negotiation skills as they are for their competent juggling of BATNAS (best alternative to negotiated agreement) and their knowledge of university IP reservation points, restrictions and constraints. An RM's past performance in managing contracts will implicate future responsibilities.

Research Collaboration: Orientation to the Future

Research Collaboration: Orientation to the Future

Any experiences you may have had in the past good or bad with collaborations? Would you manage things differently now?

The impetus for my taking on these studies was an APEC Asian Research Project Proposal that came my way via linkedin and a former Wollongong resident now manager of a Boutique NGO recruitment business in Bonn, Germany. He had found my listing which includes training in operations and research management already through my studies at UOW and Concordia/FITT (Forum for International Trade Training Canada) which would have been applicable to the TOR requirements of a Pan Asian analysis of operational food security provisions.

Following the proposal rejection after application and approval process which took a few months I realized the best way to capitalize on such a marvellous missed opportunity was to acquire more training in the role of an RM to add curbside appeal to my already excellent future potential usefulness to similar organisations who might be found fishing around Korea in future. As Paige recommended at the beginning of the course by trying to imagine the role of RM as an impending future reality ~ something I wouldn't mind juggling parallel to my teaching position ~ I look forward to realization of such a goal by positioning myself here in Korea as perhaps one of the rare few who might then hold such qualifications without having had to leave here or sacrifice gainful employment to achieve in the meantime.



Discuss any issues that may occur when running a research project funded by both an industry collaborator and a seperate unrelated grant.

Many of you have mentioned here the potential pitfalls of a multi-sponsored research project including the competitive interests of business versus researcher goals namely the possible divide between commercially viable and IP protected or academically publishable and socially beneficial knowledge sharing results and the conflicting milestones which might prevent benefits for both without sacrificing one facet or goal of joint venture research over the other. The other perspective is that you might end up running two seperate projects which might see conflicts in terms of informational cross-over which might tend to encourage some forms of moral hazard.

To address Paige's issues regarding moving from informal to formal terms of cooperation and collaboration one might easily consider the generally accepted practice of recommended export practices and procdures. Appreciate any comments to see whether these procedural issues have any actual cross-over.

1. Where one could compare a university to a domestic economy or at least at times smaller cities those rare instances of external or export sales/short-term contract collaborations will provide a company or research department with a record of transactions and/or potential industry partners when seeking larger scale collaborations in future. It would seem reasonable to expect collaborators to proceed on a mutual interests level of progressive gains over time.

2. To pursue foreign market oriented sales or further industry research collaborations many companies/universities often need to employ new middle management team techniques and more warm bodies to ensure the goals of future research collaboration growth are being met at the level of which core decision makers may have overall control. Many researchers would need to delegate and designate an RM other than the lead researcher out of a lack of extra time above and beyond their regular duties to solicit or respond to unsolicited enquiries, stack a date book of future projects well in advance of milestones for larger scale future exports or research collaborations.

3. Focusing on a key market for future export or research collaboration itself requires significant market research itself in terms of research competitors and dynamic global environments as others have pointed out. Decision makers might not need to rely exclusively on subject matter experts or even core research personnel if they possess the resources to hire consultants in country or to canvass the corporate world to provide new contacts and possible corporate research funding leads then they are recommended to do so.

4. Possibly the best university to corporate research collaborations rely heavily on key contact relationships which may have evolved personally over lifetimes of friendship, professional association, university alumni groups, etc. Regardless of the actual contractual details if there are not strong extra-curricular linkages for many I'm sure the research scale will remain minimal in its synergies. While many of our paper readings this week suggested otherwise, face to face contact is still integral if not with regular site visits then through localized up and downstream research consortia which appear not dissimilar to supplier-based JIT systems in terms of factory and industrial site collocations all over Asia. The same appears to be happening in Australia with the increased incidence of incubator and innovation parks adjacent to university sites. This cannot be a coincidence and makes for cozy bedfellows I'm sure.

5. While the financing and budgets of the research itself need to be closely monitored no small scale collaboration will evolve into a large and long term association or joint venture until real profits are being generated. No increasing scale of budgets will be supported without direct industry or consumer adoption or utilisation of the results of the research. This is the corporate monkey mantra: See no results, Hear no results, Have no more bananas. While I realize there are many academics who would be quite satisified to make repeated progress without commercial results aside from possible CSR or dog and pony shows (as BP's recent scandal fueled Gulf of Mexico gaff indicates) even essential corporate research is often overlooked or under-performed.



In another word: Toyota.

6. It is the RM's responsibility to look beyond the actual terms of agreement to forsee future problems before they are encountered and some understanding of corporate terms of agreement such as binding versus non-binding letters of intent and possible tutelage in the agreements on general terms and conditions terminology as well as consultation with a university lawyer would probably be of benefit to any future RM on campus.

These would be some of the steps in accessing a foreign export market. Is there not some alignment with RM collaboration needs?