National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme
2009 - 2010
REVIEW OF
The Centre for Innovation and Structural Change
National University of Ireland, Galway
Final REPORT
(29th April, 2010)
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
This report arises from a visit by a review team to The Centre for Innovation and
Structural Change (CISC) on the 3rd − 5th of March, 2010. The Centre had already
prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was
made available to the review team well in advance of the visit.
The review team consisted of: Professor Nicholas Phelps, Professor of Urban and
Regional Development, The Bartlett, University College London (Chair); Professor
Frank Barry, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin; Ms. Lucy Fallon-Byrne,
CEO, National Centre for Partnership and Performance, Dublin; Dr. Colin Brown,
Director of Martin Ryan Institute, NUI Galway; and Dr. Martina Prendergast,
Development Manager, Environmental Change Institute, NUI Galway acting as
Rapporteur.
Background and Context
The Centre for Innovation and Structural Change (CISC) is an inter-disciplinary
research institute building a programme of research and education on innovation
processes and policies that are fundamental to the development of a knowledge-based
economy and society. It states its core focus as ‘multidisciplinary insights into
innovative change’, and is aligned to the Applied Social Science and Public Policy
thematic research priority of the University. Established in 2002, CISC was awarded
competitive funding through the Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions
(PRTLI). CISC has been successful in securing research funding from a variety of
agencies, although 86% of the funding has been secured from national funding
sources. The total research income of CISC to date is €6.9 million, with 60% of this
funding (€3.9 million) received through cycles 3 and 4 of the PRTLI. To date, CISC is
the only research centre within a business school in Ireland to receive funding under
cycles 3 and 4 of the PRTLI. The Centre provides a focal point for researchers to
meet, engage, and collaborate. The funding has supported 34 research projects, 60
Principal Investigators, 14 Postdoctoral fellows, 34 PhD students, and 4 research
assistants. To date, one third of the PhD students have successfully submitted and
defended their dissertations.
In tandem with the quality review process, the Centre is undergoing a Strategic
Review which was instigated by the Registrar’s Office and led by the Vice President
for Research. The strategic review group is looking at a radical restructuring of CISC
into a new, broader and inclusive research institute. This new entity will encompass
the strengths that have been developed in CISC, but will also add strengths in cognate
areas from the Colleges of Business, Public Policy and Law and the College of Arts,
Social Science and Celtic Studies. This is a transformative opportunity for the centre
and will build on the collegiality that is clearly present from cognate disciplines. There
is high sense of ambition and entrepreneurial spirit among the CISC research
community and a willingness to engage in both review processes.
The panel is acutely aware that the Centre is operating in a changed national and
international environment. There are severe restrictions on resources and an increasing
focus on value for money. Within the university sector itself, there is a drive towards
strategic alliances in order to build scale and scope. There is also an increasing need
for universities and institutes to operate effectively in an international environment.
2
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
Thus, this quality review cannot be taken in isolation. It must take into consideration
the national picture of recession, cut-backs in spending and the drivers of change in
the university sector nationally and internationally.
1.
Aims, Objectives and Planning
The Centre provides an enabling, nurturing framework for researchers that promotes
excellence in research within a supportive collegiate environment. CISC is
interdisciplinary and is focused on building an internationally recognised programme
of research and education on innovation processes and policies that are fundamental to
the development of a knowledge-based economy and society. There was evidence of
an entrepreneurial approach and high ambition in the management team and among
the researchers. The panel also noted great loyalty to CISC among staff and other
stakeholders. To guarantee future sustainability, the Director articulated a strategy to
identify four strong international partners for collaboration which will act as
international best-practice models in the future.
Since 2002, there have been five priority research themes within CISC which are:
Innovation Systems, Industry Clustering, Internationally-Traded Services, InterOrganisational Systems, and High-Performance Work Systems.
Although the core focus is clearly articulated early in the self-assessment document,
there is a lack of a clearly articulated mission statement, strategy or vision statement.
There is an element of confusion around where the Centre is heading, and a lack of a
clearly articulated strategic purpose. There is no strategic plan in place and no
evidence of a process of strategic planning or prioritization. Key documents are
missing, and need to be drafted including an overall statement of the vision for CISC
and an accompanying operational/strategy document that can give guidance to
researchers on the research mission and the standards being sought. Because of the
lack of a strategic planning process, the Centre has remained too focussed on research
themes that arose from its original inception, and has tended to be somewhat reactive
to the funding situation rather than having a true sense of itself. The research themes
have not evolved to meet changing needs and changing potential contributors.
Because of the lack of clarity of purpose, there is difficulty in communicating the
Centre’s activities to other stakeholders and other departments. In particular, there are
issues around communicating the Centre’s achievements to university management.
The Centre needs to concentrate on mission-critical strategic areas, to make sound
choices and to abandon some of its current endeavours and approaches. The panel
feels that the Centre needs to develop clear goals and key performance indicators and
to communicate these upwards and across the university. Because it is positioned in
the business school, it should be a model of best practice in strategic planning and
management for other schools, institutes and colleges.
Recommendations
1.
As a matter of urgency, the panel recommends that the Centre develop a
clearly articulated Strategic Plan backed up with an Operational Plan.
2.
Some serious thought should be given to further clarifying the relationship
between multi-disciplinarity, research excellence and policy impact/outreach
3
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
and international reputation. This relationship needs to be expressed in terms
of a hierarchy of aims and priorities.
2. Organization and Management
The core team of CISC consists of a full-time Director and a Development Officer.
The Director and Development Officer have weekly formal meetings that deal with
management, administration and operational issues. The panel noted the enthusiasm,
energy, and dedication of the Director and Development Officer and commend the
ethos of openness and inclusiveness imparted by the management team. In addition,
there is one research assistant who mainly contribute to the administrative activities
associated with hosting the editorial offices of the academic journals. There is
considerable evidence of high levels of productivity and output, particularly in relation
to advocacy and outreach activities. The Centre has been pivotal in the success of the
PRTLI cycle 4 proposal and manages the funded programme on behalf of five centres
across the campus. The management team has also been responsive to the university’s
request to lead and coordinate the cycle 5 bid which is no small achievement
considering the lack of investment in support staff. Hence we include below a
recommendation to appoint an administrative assistant. The panel thinks that the
progress of the Centre has been adversely affected by the lack of continuity of
leadership over time, and notes that four Directors have been appointed since 2002.
The management team is supported by a Scientific Steering Committee (SSC - of
which the Director is Chairperson). This committee is responsible for overseeing the
operational functions of the Centre. It oversees the technical/scientific functions,
facilitates research activity, maintains cohesive and co-operative teamwork among
researchers, and advises on resource utilisation. The committee is representative of the
Principal Investigators (PIs) for each of the five prioritised research themes and it
meets at regular intervals. The presence of a post-doctoral representative on the
Steering Committee is positive. However, existing support to the Director from the
SSC has been ineffective. Membership of this committee should imply a strong
commitment to develop aspects of the strategic vision of CISC, together with the
Director. There should also be a recognition that members undertake a significant
administrative and promotional role. There is a need for PIs to become more active in
leading the Centre and assisting the Director. As a result of the lack of support from
the SSC, leadership has tended to remain operational and reactive rather than strategic
and proactive.
The panel feels that governance is a major issue for CISC, and is perhaps the weakest
aspect of the Centre as it is currently constituted. Although governance and
management structures were initially envisaged, they have not materialised and
neither the Board of Management nor the Advisory Board have been established. The
current lack of a functioning governance structure is problematic and results in
ineffectiveness in measuring and monitoring project performance, and in dealing with
the loosely monitored activities of the CISC community.
Membership of CISC is open to any member of the university academic community,
but there are no formalised membership commitments. There seems to be a lack of
4
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
clarity about what constitutes membership. The panel noticed a clear tension between
the desire to be inclusive and the need to offer a ‘brand’ to appeal to funding agencies.
Research strands need to be broad for ‘buy in’ on the part of the researchers, but need
to appear narrow for PR purposes. The current title of CISC successfully deals with
this dilemma, and any proposed change of title would need to maintain this balance.
There is a resource deficit in administrative support when compared to other research
institutes and this is a major contributor to some self-acknowledged limitations of
CISC to date. The panel recommends the provision of two additional posts; one
Administrative Assistant and one Outreach Officer, particularly if CISC is to be rebranded and have its remit extended (see comments on Community Service below).
In terms of monitoring the Centre’s performance, there is a lack of clear reporting
mechanisms, both horizontal and vertical. Some kind of performance management
system should be initiated to motivate and monitor staff and to incentivise and reward
academic staff for involvement in the Centre. Key performance indicators will need to
be identified and data gathered as part of the strategic planning process.
Recommendations:
3.
There is a need to establish appropriate governance structures particularly a
Board of Management and an Advisory Board. It is imperative that they are
put in place as CISC emerges as a new entity.
4.
The Scientific Steering Committee needs to be re-constituted and clear terms
of reference defined. Roles and responsibilities need to be clarified to assist
the Director more effectively.
5.
The panel strongly recommends the provision of two additional posts; one
Administrative Assistant and one Outreach Officer to provide a reasonable
complement of staff in light of the current deficit.
6.
The initiation of a performance management system supported by clear key
performance indicators is imperative. Key performance indicators need to be
identified and developed and they should be communicated to members of
CISC, colleges and the University. The leadership of research clusters should
be recognised in promotional processes and should form part of performance
management systems.
3.
Programmes and Instruction
The academic staff associated with CISC have a lot of input into teaching programmes
at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and are making important contributions
to PhD training. A wide variety of programmes are available and the dissemination
activities are impressive. Great success has been achieved in obtaining PRTLI funding
for PhD scholarships, and at the PhD level, CISC has been instrumental in nurturing
and strengthening the research culture. Research funding can contribute to teaching
within schools by feeding key research themes into undergraduate programmes.
However, the relationship between CISC research and how it finds expression in
curriculum development could be usefully clarified. The panel felt that there has been
no evaluation of initial clusters and programmes which date back to 2002, and there is
a need now to review and refresh programmes and offerings. In terms of teaching, the
5
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
mission of CISC and associated staff should be revisited. There is possibly too much
emphasis on developments at undergraduate level and not enough at postgraduate
level. Masters courses and PhD-level modules rather than undergraduate programmes
should be the focus of CISC. The CISC contribution to masters programmes, it is
suggested, should be to provide interdisciplinary modules to discipline-specific
masters.
There is very good interaction between CISC and the Graduate Studies Office.
Although an induction programme in CISC is lacking, this is essentially a collegelevel activity, and should be co-ordinated by the College of Business, Public Policy
and Law. It is thought that over the coming years induction will become more of a
core activity. The current definition of a structured PhD is one that leads to a high
value research experience, is monitored by a graduate research committee (since
2007), has yearly progress reports for progression and is composed of a modular
structure for discipline-specific and generic and transferable skills. Some students
interviewed were not fully cogniscent of University-wide PhD guidelines and
regulations. The panel noted also that some students think that CISC is part of the
School of Business and Economics. In addition, the panel suggests that PhD
completion rates be more closely monitored.
The Centre is very active and successful in disseminating research findings through
seminars and events. One suggestion to further improve this activity would be to cobrand discipline-based seminars with CISC which would increase interaction with the
disciplines and increase participation.
Interdisciplinary research typically emerges endogenously through personal
interactions between researchers from different disciplines. Research institutes should
therefore strive to facilitate this. Cluster leaders and researchers from different
disciplines should be encouraged to make “generalist” presentations to the entire
CISC community to let others know what issues they are researching, and how
different disciplines approach these issues.
Recommendations:
7. CISC contribution to masters programmes should be to provide
interdisciplinary modules to discipline-specific masters.
8. Discipline-based seminars should be co-branded with CISC to encourage
increased participation.
4.
Scholarship and Research
By taking a cross-disciplinary approach to research and through the development and
delivery of education and training, particularly to PhD students, CISC has developed a
good record of scholarship and research in innovation and structural change.
Currently, academics affiliated to CISC are supervising 20 PhD students in a broad
range of discipline areas. The Centre currently has six postdoctoral fellows, and has
appointed two senior research fellows. There is a large quantity of output and the
research scholarship achievements since 2003 include 169 peer-reviewed journal
6
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
publications, 14 books, 91 book chapters, 310 conference papers, and 110 other
publications (reports, media articles, conference proceedings).
The panel felt that CISC has not been sufficiently strong in its leadership in research
and scholarship either within NUI Galway or within the international arena. The
Centre seems to have suffered from underperformance in the early days of its
establishment. The reality facing CISC in the next five years is that national research
funding will moderate or decline rapidly and international research funding will
become much more competitive. There was no strong sense of the research ethos of
CISC, and, in particular, of aiming for high international quality standards and
reputation. This should be clarified in a research strategy which would give clear
guidance on how CISC can gain an international reputation and aim for publications
in high-quality academic journals. The strategy should also specify the extent and
nature of its policy advice and outputs. Greater engagement with the activities of
leading academic journals and associated societies should be pursued. The panel was
impressed however by the fact that CISC hosts the editorial offices for the Human
Resources Management Journal and the Irish Journal of Management. There is a need
to increase the scholarship quality of research output among the CISC research
community and staff need to be encouraged to target high quality journals. There is a
lack of quality assurance and quantity of output may be overvalued relative to quality.
CISC needs to set high quality standards and to embed them. The panel recommends
the development of policies to monitor as well as increase the quality of publications
arising from research.
There are opportunities for and a desire to enlarge the research remit of CISC and
suggestions that the Centre be renamed and re-branded. Any moves in these regards
should seek to address the apparent mis-match between research strengths and
demonstrable high-quality outputs.
One of the constant sources of concern between CISC and the School of Business and
Economics has been the lack of coherent alignment between the core research mission
and themes of CISC and those of the School of Business and Economics. Some
research active people in the College of Business, Public Policy and Law do not
appear at present to be involved in CISC. This is an opportune time for CISC to
develop and define its future strategy and mission (in parallel with the Strategic
Review exercise) and to coherently align its research themes with those of the
associated schools and colleges.
A strategy is to develop strong formalised international collaborations with
comparable research centres in North America, Europe and Asia. The links developed
with Michael Best and others could be a model for building good international
collaborative relationships and might even come to represent something of a model
within the university.
CISC has developed a working paper series which has provided a platform to
researchers and research teams in the development of their research agendas.
Arrangements are in place to move the series to the institutional repository (ARAN)
7
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
and an ISSN number has been secured for the series of 31 papers to date. The panel
were concerned that there was no vetting or peer-review process for the working
papers. Since working papers can sometimes (wrongly) be viewed as academic
research publications, the panel felt that there might be some value to reformulating
the series as an outreach vehicle to national and local policymakers, industry,
journalists etc, which would entail writing them in popular rather than academic style.
An alternative suggestion would be to develop a new “Policy Paper” series. Given
that the research themes of CISC tend to be policy-relevant, each publication –
whether directed towards an academic or a policy audience – might be accompanied
by a two-page press release. This approach might prove beneficial in securing further
funding from policymakers and industry.
The panel encourages CISC and its research community to consider compiling and
sharing databases of, for example, company contact details. While mindful of the
proprietorial rights that some researchers feel on such matters, this is one of the
administrative economies of scale that a centre like CISC could usefully offer. Joint
collaborative work via the centre could be the way to resolve these dilemmas. The
Centre might also consider – perhaps in collaboration with the university library –
funding the acquisition of databases requested by particular research clusters.
Recommendations:
9. Develop policies to monitor as well as increase the quality of publications
arising from research.
10. Reconsider the value of the working paper series vis-a-vis a public policy
paper series with associated press releases.
5.
Community Service
CISC has clearly been very engaged in community service and this the panel saw as
one of its major strengths. It has a strong commitment to knowledge transfer through
its scholarship activities and expert dissemination to internal and external
stakeholders. To this end, CISC has hosted several national and international
conferences in addition to public lectures, workshops, research seminars and other
events since 2002. In excess of 50 seminars have been hosted by CISC, and 13
conferences and 27 course modules have been directly impacted by the scholarship
activities of the centre. The Centre, through its Development Officer, has developed a
core competency in organising conferences and events and the panel believes this
merits an additional post of outreach officer to assist and refine these activities. CISC
researchers contribute actively to national and international conferences and several
have been invited to academic, practitioner and policy events as keynote or invited
speakers. CISC has developed strong connections with local businesses and has
formed strong strategic partnerships with external organisations and agencies such as
the IDA, Forfás etc. Such engagement with outside bodies is very effective and the
panel commends this strong contribution to local and regional policy. This sort of
outreach activity compares very favourably with similar activities in other universities
and research centres.
8
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
There is an opportunity now for CISC to take stock and review its outreach activities.
There may be a role for running one day or short CPD taught courses, partly as an
income stream and partly to clarify what sorts of teaching outputs a research institute
should be producing. CISC may need to look at prioritising which events to organise
in the current climate of funding shortages and resource deficits.
Recommendations:
11.
Consider a re-focussing of outreach events in light of current funding
shortages and resource deficits, including fewer events at national level.
12.
The appointment of an outreach officer to largely assume responsibilities
currently with the Development officer and other CISC affiliated staff on an informal
basis.
6.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
A real opportunity exists for CISC to engage at a deeper level of multi-disciplinary
research not alone within the community but across the university given the relevance
of its research agenda.
Recommendations
1. As a matter of urgency, the panel recommends that the Centre develop a
clearly articulated Strategic Plan backed up with an Operational Plan.
2. Some serious thought should be given to further clarifying the relationship
between multi-disciplinarity, research excellence and policy impact/outreach
and international reputation. This relationship needs to be clearly expressed in
a hierarchy of aims and priorities.
3. There is a need to establish appropriate governance structures particularly a
Board of Management and an Advisory Board. It is imperative that these are
put in place as CISC emerges as a new entity.
4. The Scientific Steering Committee needs to be re-constituted and clear terms
of reference defined. Roles and responsibilities need to be clarified to assist
the Director more effectively.
5. The panel strongly recommends the provision of two additional posts; one
Administrative Assistant and one Outreach Officer to provide a reasonable
complement of staff in light of the current deficit.
6. The initiation of a performance management system supported by clear key
performance indicators is now imperative. Key performance indicators need
to be identified and developed and they should be communicated to members
of CISC, colleges and the University. The leadership of research clusters
should be recognised in promotional processes and should form part of
performance management systems.
7. CISC’s contribution to Masters programmes should be to provide
interdisciplinary modules to discipline-specific masters.
8. Discipline-based seminars should be co-branded with CISC to encourage
increased participation.
9
Centre for Innovation and Structural Change: Review Report 2010
9. CISC needs to develop policies to monitor as well as increase the quality of
publications arising from research.
10. The value of the working paper series should be reconsidered vis-a-vis a
public policy paper series with associated press releases.
11. Consider a re-focussing of outreach events in light of current funding
shortages and resource deficits.
12. The appointment of an outreach officer to largely assume responsibilities
currently with the Development officer and other CISC affiliated staff on an
informal basis.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
Professor Nicholas Phelps (Chair)
Professor Frank Barry
Ms Lucy Fallon-Byrne
Dr Colin Brown
Dr Martina Prendergast, (Rapporteur)
(29th April, 2010).
10