HEPI Conference, December 2nd 2010

Competition V Collaboration : What Does the Future Hold?

Professor David GreenawayUniversity of Nottingham

Coverage

1. Changing Patterns of Competition2. Drivers of Collaboration3. Geography of Collaboration4. The Future for Collaboration5. A Case Study : Collaboration and

Nottingham

Changing Patterns of Competition

Changing Patterns of Competition

• Who competes?– Individual researchers – Disciplinary clusters– Higher education institutions– Nations

What Are We Competing Over?

• Funding (Research Councils, RAE / REF, EU……)

• Research resources (PhD students, key labs…..)

• Impact (citations, innovation, transformation….)

• Prestige (RAE, League Tables, Prizes……)• Success (we just like winning!)

How is the Competitive Landscape Changing?

• Increased pressures on available resources

• Changing expectations of funding agenciesTo be competitive, need overlapping geographies

• Higher education becoming more globalised

• Geography of global competition changing– Old competitors opening up (eg US)– New competitors emerging (eg China and

India)

Collaboration

Drivers of Collaboration

• Individual– Gains from trade (pooling, access, citations…)– Funding agency priorities (multidisciplinary

research focus, geography….)• Disciplinary– Critical mass / survival (scale, depth….)– Delivery (access to essential inputs, adding value)

• Institutional– Market access (diversification, penetration…..)– Visibility (brand development, league tables….)

• National– Spillovers (learning by collaborating, innovation

and growth)– Prestige (league tables)

Geography of Collaboration

• Local• Regional• National• International– Diffusion of knowledge does not respect

boundaries

Collaboration Will Increase

• ‘Grand Challenges’ are global (food security, energy technologies, public health…….)

• Growing linkage of research and innovation• Strategic partnerships with Research Councils• Falling trade costs• Globalisation of higher education• Increased business to business engagement• Globalisation of business to business

engagement• Income diversification

Index, 1985-100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Sea freightP assenger air transportInternational callsTarriffs in OECD countries Costs of processing information

Trade Costs 1980-2005

HE Students Studying Overseas

Imports and Exports of International Students

Global Trends in Research Collaboration

Country Growth in Collaborative Research Outputs 1996-2005 (% increase)

China 214

India 186

Australia 162

Japan 155

United Kingdom 154

Germany 153

United States 148

France 146

Canada 142

More Collaboration Will HelpDrive Success

• Individual (citations, impact, funding)• Disciplinary (competitiveness, critical

mass, spillovers)• Institutional (competitiveness,

leverage, survival)• National (knowledge based economy,

inovation, competitiveness)

A Case Study

Collaboration and the University of Nottingham

Collaboration at Nottingham

• Well embedded in institutional DNA• Collaborations at all levels

(individual, disciplinary, institutional)• Partnerships with: other Universities;

Research Councils; SMEs; global businesses; public sector bodies

• ‘Death of distance’ means collaborations are local and global

Local Collaborations

• Education– Biocity– Nottingham University Samworth Academy

• Business– Boots– Network of SMEs

• Public Services– Nottingham University Hospitals Trust

Regional / NationalCollaborations

• Higher Education– Midlands Physics Alliance (+ Birmingham

and Warwick)– Midlands Energy Consortium and MEGS (+

Birmingham and Loughborough)– Manufacturing Technology Centre (+

Birmingham and Loughborough)

• Research Councils– BBSRC (Strategic Partnership)– EPSRC (Framework Agreement)

Regional / NationalCollaborations

• Business– Rolls Royce (UTCs + MTC)– Eon (MEC)– BGS (National Centre for Carbon Capture

and Storage)– GSK (Carbon Neutral Laboratories)

International Collaborations

• innumerable individual, School and University collaborations

• Universitas 21 network• International Campuses– University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus– University of Nottingham Ningbo China

Nottingham Malaysia

University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus

• Research and Knowledge Transfer Opportunities– Addressing national / regional priorities

(engineering, pharmaceutical sciences)– Leveraging global priorities (Crops for the

Future)– Diversification of research funding (EU,

MOSTI)– Building new collaborations (University,

business, public sector)

Nottingham China

University of Nottingham Ningbo China

• Research and Knowledge Transfer Opportunities:– Addressing local / national priorities

(manufacturing, business and finance)– Leveraging for global priorities (sustainable

energy technologies)– Diversification of research funding (MOST,

Sustainable Manufacturing Key Labs)– Building new collaborations (University,

business, public sector)

Conclusions

• Competition and collaboration are not mutually exclusive

• Collaboration has the potential to add real value

• With increased links between research and innovation and increased globalisation, potential for collaboration grows

• Enormous potential globally