CSIRO Strategic Assessment

Report to CSIRO

SMBA6002 | Strategies for Growth

Team Satellite – MBA Strategies for Growth

440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

2 | IBM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Whilst CSIRO’s performance and productivity across most key indicators has increased

substantially over the 2007/08 – 2012/13 timeframe (CSIRO Structural Review, 2013, p. 9) the

organisation are cognisant of the need to seize opportunities for improvement so to ensure

ongoing competiveness (Innovation Organisational Reform (IOR), 2014, p.2). This consideration of

multiple strategy horizons is a key element that is working well and has enabled them to maintain

commitment to the objectives of their 2011-15 strategy whilst also helping to reorientate the

organisation for future success.

This report provides an assessment of (i) What is working well as part of the reform; (ii) What is

not working so well; (iii) What may have been overlooked; some suggested (iv) Recommendations

and finally; (v) Ways of measuring impact of the recommendations tabled for CSIRO’s

consideration. We have provided the most prominent findings that we believe will have the

greatest impact on CSIRO in implementing their reform program.


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

3 | IBM

FINDINGS

What is working well?

A. Reducing complexity in the way CSIRO operates has been a vital focus of this reform

(CSIRO Structural Review, 2013, p. 25). Streamlining the matrix structure has enabled

CSIRO to operate in a more simplified fashion. Specifically it has benefited the organisation

by;

i. Reduced operational complexity (Furman, 2014) (IOR, 2014, p. 3) to advance

science outcomes.

i. Provided a consolidated leadership (Furman, 2014) and management

structure. Decisions can now cascade up and down a line management

structure, allowing greater clarity (Furman, 2014) and productivity to increase.

ii. Reducing the “buying and selling” (Furman, 2014) culture of staff by

addressing the “matricisation” (CSIRO Structural Review, 2013, p. 22).

B. Prioritising a flagships-only model allows CSIRO to have a more concentrated focus on

specific scientific outcomes and this has happened by:

i. Changing the operating environment giving everyone more flexibility (Baunin,

2014) and increasing productivity.

ii. Enabling CSIRO to be responsive to unplanned opportunities (Furman, 2014)

that may lead to innovation or commercial contracting (CSIRO Structural

Review, 2013, p.10).

iii. Reducing costs (IOR, 2014, p. 3) or “not survive” (Baunin, 2014) and reducing

management time therefore contributing to the long-term financial

sustainability of CSIRO.

C. CSIRO have engaged senior research personnel to assist in the design and delivery of the

overall reform program. This has allowed the reform program to be influenced by staff

members that have both “hands on experience” and in depth understanding of their field of

science whilst directly leading teams of researchers. Specifically, this has led to the

following benefits:

i. Allowed the research personnel to bring valuable insights to the program

regarding their experience of the culture at a research level within the

organisation. For example, the feeling of risk aversion, creating a lack of

flexibility with which to perform research (Thrall, 2014). This issue is now

being addressed through the program, with an overall attempt to ‘loosen the

screws’ and allow scientists to perform their research with a greater degree of

freedom (Thrall, 2014).

ii. Allowed the research personnel to bring a “scientist’s perspective” of the

previous change program in an attempt to ensure that negative impacts are

not repeated. In the previous reform, there was a lack of understanding

around the need to change at the researcher-level. This time, there is a

significant level of understanding around the drivers of change and high staff

goodwill given the consultative nature of the reform to date (Thrall, 2014).


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

4 | IBM

D. Whilst CSIRO’s performance and productivity across most key indicators has increased

substantially over the 2007/08 – 2012/13 timeframe (CSIRO Structural Review, 2013 p. 9)

the organisation are cognisant of the need to seize opportunities for improvement so as to

ensure ongoing competiveness (IOR, 2014 p.2). CSIRO’s balanced analysis of current &

desired state is a key element that is working well and has enabled them to maintain

commitment to the objectives of their 2011-15 strategy whilst also helping to reorientate the

organisation for future success. Overall, this is expected to:

i. Contribute towards the long-term financial sustainability of the organisation

and play a pivotal role in allowing CSIRO to realise the innovation outcomes

they are seeking.

ii. Assist CSIRO’s image with key stakeholders as they will be seen as an

efficient, effective and entrepreneurial organisation who can honour existing

commitments whilst transforming.

What is not working so well?

A. Two key objectives of the reform program are to grow revenue and reduce barriers to

commercial collaboration (IOR, 2014, p.1). These objectives suggest that CSIRO are placing

more of a focus on research with imbedded commercial outcome, which has been flagged

as a key challenge for the organisation (Thrall, 2014).

iii. The term revenue growth suggests that the outcome of a particular science

project is focussed on whether the end product will hold a commercial value.

This is a challenge for individual scientists, for whom it is difficult to keep their

name prevalent in their field of research when working on commercially-

sensitive projects (Thrall & Furman, 2014).

B. Whilst there is an excellent understanding at the Management/Senior level as to the full

extent of the reform package and the need for structural change, there is still a level of

misunderstanding as to all the features incorporated in the program across CSIRO.

i. The town hall meetings that were held to discuss the reform program were

held for interested staff only (Baunin, 2014).

ii. Still a lot of ambiguity in the program in terms of “what it means for me?”

(Baunin, 2014).

iii. Initial change to the operating model was done for the start of July 2014 and it

will take considerable time for the extent of the reform to filter through all

levels of CSIRO.

C. The change in operating model was deemed to be necessary to implement as soon as

possible (IOR, 2014, p.16) given the benefits to staff and clients, though this is still very

much a work in progress. The Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) that measure staff

performance for the desired outcomes of the reform currently don’t exist because;

i. “There wasn’t enough time to match up the KPI’s with the change in operating

model” (Baunin, 2014).


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

5 | IBM

ii. Short time frame for change is impacting staff welfare, ‘creat ing lots of

uncertainty” (Baunin, 2014). This was the opposite intent of the reform

program as they changed the operating model (IOR, 2014, p.19).

What may have been overlooked?

A. In order to fully realise the benefits of the reform program, there will need to be

considerable time and effort invested into what levers CSIRO can use in order to change

the culture and behaviour of staff. This was evident by:

i. Baunin, 2014 stated “there needs to be more cultural and behavioural

changes to occur before the strategy change will really impact the way its

intended”.

ii. Dharma Chandran (2014) said that the most important key to their success

when Leighton’s implemented their strategy reform was the levers used to

change the culture and behaviour of the organisation. The importance of this

may have been overlooked by CSIRO

iii. Lecture 8 (Cuganesan, 2014b) discussed that a key factor to success within

strategy execution is the ability to change culture and values. CSIRO will need

to heavily invest in this to ensure strategy success.

B. Considerable mention has been made on how production will increase with a change in the

operating model (IOR, 2014, p.3) and that the benefits realisation will be to see a genuine

improvement in productivity and an increase in staff engagement. There has been no

mention on how this will occur or what the organisation will do to drive this outcome. This

was evident by:

i. Our interview with Baunin, (2014) she stated that “We don’t network; there are

no prizes or grants given for great ideas” therefore impacting the drive to

innovate and generate new idea’s and science opportunities.

ii. There being a mismatch between what CSIRO reward and recognise vs. what

CSIRO ask people to deliver.

iii. There being a lack of time spent on what incentives and processes CSIRO

could put in place to continue to drive high staff engagement which will

ultimately drive productivity.

C. There is currently considerable uncertainty around the research agenda that is being

pursued by CSIRO. This is inclusive of which areas should be further explored and which

areas should be reduced or totally exited (Thrall, 2014). This was seen in the following

ways:

i. That there are numerous elements for consideration when selecting areas of

science to pursue/reduce, e.g. CSIRO’s ranking in a particular science area

compared to other research agencies, the important areas of science for

Australia domestically, what will deliver the highest commercial return and

which areas are attracting highest levels of external funding (Thrall, 2014).

ii. That it seems CSIRO may not be fully equipped to make these science

agenda decisions at this point in time, and the reform has not specifically


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

6 | IBM

addressed this point. As there are key objectives regarding revenue growth

and cost reduction, it appears this may have been overlooked in the reform.

Overall, this may impact on the delivery of world-class science and ensuring the long-term

financial sustainability of CSIRO.

D. Uncertainty and confusion for staff have been a historical issue in CSIRO, as indicated by

the confusion around implementation of the matrix approach some years ago (CSIRO

Structural Review, 2013, p.21). The reform has again created lots of uncertainty (Baunin,

2014) and many people are in new or modified roles. It seems the affect of this has been

overlooked in the following ways:

i. People are unsure about their job security (Baunin, 2014) as the reform

coincides with a redundancy program. This point impacts on a person’s

capacity to work effectively and see the reform as positive. CSIRO maybe

ignoring “choice levers” that could benefit strategy execution (Cuganesan,

2014a, p.8).

ii. It seems the reform has not fully taken into account the cultural behavior of

staff (Baunin, 2014) nor how to measure the effectiveness of staff culture and

how engagement is impacted (Cuganesan, 2014b, p.6). Measuring cultural

barriers and benefits to the organisation will help predict staff satisfaction and

engagement (Cuganesan, 2014b, p.6). CSIRO will need to shift their

measurements to include qualitative and quantitative data (Baunin, 2014).

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Measure the level of ambiguity within all roles throughout the organisation and seek to

reduce this over the course of the reform through a series of activities highlighted below:

i. Currently CSIRO are in an Enterprise Resource Bargaining phase (Flanagan,

2014). Each department leader to reissue job descriptions throughout their

department. These descriptions to be agreed upon by leader and individual

employees through facilitation by HR representative.

ii. Explicitly align the KPI’s of these new job descriptions with the outcomes /

benefits to be realised by the new strategy and ensure it connects with the

culture component of the review (IOR, 2014, p.13).

iii. CSIRO could potentially use a multiple measurement system, alternatively

known as a balanced scorecard (Cuganesan, 2014b, p.5) that separates their

scientific output from organisational requirements.

B. A core recommendation of this report is that CSIRO would benefit from initiatives designed

to increase employee understanding of the objectives of the reform program and how these

relate to the enterprise’s overall winning aspiration. This would ensure that the overarching

need to change would be better understood rather than just an appreciation to increase


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

7 | IBM

financial sustainability. This is vital to distinguish the reform separate to other parallel

programs, such as the redundancies currently taking place.

Three specific programs that could be instigated to fulfil the requirements identified above

include;

(i) Running an internal culture & values jam where employee input into a revised

mission statement is sourced from throughout the organisation.

(ii) The establishment of an internal communications framework (e.g. video blog) that

captures employee stories as they exhibit behaviours aligned to the objectives of

the reform.

The development of easy-to-digest assets (e.g. datagram’s, infographics, video blogs) that

more concisely capture – as opposed to current initiatives such as employee town halls -

the overarching objectives of the reform will be beneficial. The success of these initiatives

could also be measured through communication metrics and quantified further by

conducting another staff survey.

C. Another recommendation is that whilst there is an understanding of the need to improve

collaboration within CSIRO, the process of how will be achieved has not been addressed.

Baunin, 2014, stated “at the moment, people depend on being allocated to a range of

projects, which is our version of collaboration” and “there is still a huge focus on the work of

the individual, rather than the team”. CSIRO has a top down allocation method which isn’t a

driver of organic collaboration. The following could be implemented to assist the reform;

i. CSIRO could develop an internal rewards program that sets about

recognising improved effort of individuals to transfer their learning’s across

multiple business areas.

ii. As the KPI’s are still in development (Baunin, 2014 & Thrall, 2014) the

opportunity to align collaboration outcomes sought with individual

performance cannot be missed.

iii. Specific requirement for all team heads to debrief every two weeks will

improve communication levels across the business and drive organic

collaboration. There is considerable knowledge locked up in within the

scientists and research departments in CSIRO which isn’t being captured.

“What I find interesting is that as a science organisation, we don’t actually

know how we capture learning’s and transfer that between groups” (Nadia

Baunin).

iv. Incorporate enterprise social technologies (e.g. Yammer, IBM Connections)

as part of planned ICT transformation (IOR, 2014, p.16) to facilitate for

increased employee collaboration.

D. The final recommendation is for CSIRO to consider scenario planning as part of their

strategic planning process as they proceed with the reform. Considering how actions now


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

8 | IBM

relate to multiple horizons of growth, explored through the development of potential

scenarios, is strategic best practice (Cuganesan, 2014c, p.7) and will benefit CSIRO in;

i. Gaining insights into environmental changes.

ii. Contribute to reducing uncertainty.

iii. Helping foster conversations about strategy.

iv. Assist to identifying opportunities and threats.

v. Enable CSIRO to better plan around uncertainty in the future. For example if

specific best outcome targets are achieved in the short term, there is an ability

to utilise that outcome quickly and readjust the reform program to take

advantage of it.

WAYS OF MEASURING

A. The recommendations detailed previously can be broadly categorised into the following

three areas;

i. Alleviating Role & Task Ambiguity;

ii. Alleviating Strategic Ambiguity; and

iii. Improving employee collaboration.

In seeking to measure the impact of these recommendations, it is important to consider the

existing frameworks that will be applied by CSIRO. CSIRO have incorporated a range of

tactics to measure the impact of the reform program in the short-medium term (IOR, 2014

p.2). In measuring the impact of the supplementary recommendations made within this

report, these very metrics (e.g. Staff Survey, Research Director feedback, Staff

Engagement Index, RTO benchmarks, Willingness to Recommend metrics etc.) have been

considered and are seen as maintaining their utility in measuring the impact of the

additional recommendations.

To compliment these measures, it is recommended that CSIRO explore the following:

iv. When conducting the proposed employee culture & values jam measure

employee engagement (i.e. number of staff participating) and analyse the

extent of alignment of employee output with the objectives of the reform.

Subsequent rounds, with accompanying education may be required until

acceptable levels of convergence exist with strategic objectives. The ultimate

number of rounds required to reach this point could be a secondary

measurement of employee understanding

B. Having established the internal communications program to showcase the demonstration of

behaviours that map to the strategic objectives, quantitative metrics (i.e. number of stories

submitted / flagship) and communication metrics (i.e. number of email opens, click/through,

downloads, comments etc.) could be employed. Analysis of the results by flagship, job-role

and employee demographics could assist in targeting future initiatives.


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

9 | IBM

C. Make use of data & analytics to analyse organisational trends in electronic communications

(e.g. volume of email b/w and within flagships, adoption/uptake of instant messaging

services b/w and within flagships, use of enterprise social platforms etc.) throughout the

organisation. By monitoring trends in peer-to-peer collaboration via electronic channels,

seeking to identify those employees that demonstrate enhanced collaboration and

understanding the drivers for these improvements, the leadership team will be better

informed and positioned to develop and execute initiatives to replicate throughout the

organisation.


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

10 | IBM

References:

Baunin, N. 2014, Hogan, B & Gray, P. 15th July 2014, Sydney

Chandran, D. 2014, Leighton Presentation at Strategies for Growth, University of Sydney, Sydney, 22nd July 2014

CSIRO, 2013, Structural Review, CSIRO, Sydney CSIRO, 2014, Innovation Organisation Reform, CSIRO, Sydney Cuganesan, S. 2014a, Lecture 7 SMBA6002, University of Sydney, Sydney, 16th July Cuganesan, S. 2014b, Lecture 8 SMBA6002, University of Sydney, Sydney, 22nd July 2014 Cuganesan, S. 2014c, Lecture 9 SMBA6002, University of Sydney, Sydney, 29th July 2014 Flanagan, L. 2014, Flood N. & Hogan, B. 11th July 2014, Sydney Furman, S. 2014, Evans R. & Flood N. 16 th July 2014, Sydney Thrall, P. 2014, Evans, R. & Gray, P. 17th July 2014, Sydney


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

11 | IBM

INTERVIEW SUMARYS

Interviewee Name: Leigh Flanagan – Executive Manager (Audit)

Interviewers: Blake Hogan & Nicholas Flood

Interview Date: Friday, 11th July 2014

What has worked well in the reform?

The reform aligns well with the widespread understanding - throughout the organisation – of the need to minimise the risk associated with “external shocks” (e.g. reduced govt. funding) sets a shared agenda for the need to change. To these ends, the reform has been accepted as being one that meets an organisational need.

Risks appear to have been managed well early in the reform. This, to a large part, reflects conscious action prior to execution, including: (i) establishing an internal audit function (an independent and objective third-party of the audit and how it is progressing); (ii) an understanding and appreciation of the criticality of CSFs, managing risk and key measurements of how the IRP is going and how change is being perceived/experienced.

The risk mgmt/audit function enjoys sponsorship form the executive leadership. Through this sponsorship they have been empowered to supply timely – almost live assurance – fortnightly reports on status and mgmt, which is driving behaviour across the org as the mgrs need to demonstrate what actions they are taking to minimise risk.

The strategy is driving behaviour. At @28m LF clearly indicates that his plans in audit are reflective of the agenda set-out within the IRP. That this pivot is occurring reflects well on the strategy. LF mentions that he is tasked with aligning this and that the extent to which the alignment exists.

Enough clarity exists in the IRP, the strategy, alignment with the annual plan, KAs and KRAs allow for high-level objectives to aide in the calibration of operational objectives throughout the organisation. Alignment of these operational plans with the IRP and the strategy appear to have the buy-in of senior leadership and the extent to which they are aligned are seen to be a mandatory requirement of these plans.

What are the barriers and challenges that still exist?

Whilst an understanding exists broadly about the need to minimise financial risk, the broader need for change is perhaps less well understood. @8:55 – Blake asks to what extent did Leigh understand the change as an employee or is his knowledge more of a result of him being pulled into help lead/manage the change – More the latter.

Whilst Leigh’s organisation was reporting up on the CSF – I wonder to what extent these were communicated at lower levels

Lots of people in new or modified roles @18m suggests that this ambiguity of function is still to be relieved

In assessing the status of the current strategy LF (@38M mentioned the status of the change and drew on a lot of qualitative inputs to assess the success of the strategy. Hard metrics to assess strategy would be better.

@40m “we’ve had a hair-cut, our goals are the same, we are still the same organisation as we were before”

@44m Delivery of research projects is core-business – additional focus on this as part of the


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

12 | IBM

strategy may yield procedures, polices and standards, mgmt. methodologies that support this but WE ARE NOT THERE Yet.

@45:30m - Practice & processes that should be better within the organisation are still about. These are known about, yet it would appear that they are not stamped out authoritatively but perhaps accepted. Sends a conflicting message.

Recommendations:

LF suggests that a lot of the content of the IRP are things that should be occurring anyway – e.g. streamlining systems, processes etc. but that through incorporating them in the IRP it gives them greater gravitational pull. This can be leveraged further.

LF mentions at 16m that there is an EBA underway at present – this represents a unique opportunity to interlock KPIs with outcomes sought by the reform.

LF mentions that they have also spoke with “Enterprise Functions” e.g. HR and Health & Safety. Got the feeling that it is more a secondary priority with the execs/mgrs. Being the primary

Get behind a BOLD Idea – seems like the change is assessed as an enhancement/optimisation rather than being a wholesale revision what the org is.

LF’s KPI was centred on “providing valued advice & recommendations” = could this be firmed-up??

Interviewee Name: Dr Scott Furman

Interviewers: Robyn Evans & Nicholas Flood

Interview Date: Wednesday, 16th July 2014


The current reform has enabled a strong science perspective to be included in strategy. The Science leaders influence the reform by acting as a “reality check” to the strategy and its capacity to understand and include how scientists think, behave and operate innovatively.

The Town Hall meetings lead by the Science leaders (15:45) has created interest and excitement for people. Dr Furman reports that staff are enthusiastic and excited about these changes. This process of Town Hall meetings has helped them to “get on board” the changes. It includes the reform of every aspect of CSIRO that will allow for better performance and longer lasting change across the organisation.

Moving away from the matrix model has significantly reduced difficulties for all staff and enables “consolidated leadership” (11:36) that can cascade up and down the line management. This change along with the changing of the financial model is reducing poor behaviour by staff. The previous finance model had a culture of “buying and selling” (11:36) staff between divisions and flagships, which left no ability to be responsive to research opportunities.


One of the challenges that was highlighted by Dr Furman is the ability for the organisation to maintain a culture of collaboration. The matrix model supported collaboration well and there is risk of returning to the silo model (17:18) that occurred in the 1990’s.

A barrier to this reform is the issue of internal finances. The financial systems are not yet fully integrated into the reform and can be a risk of reducing the effectiveness of the reform. In addition the reform is happening at the same time as budget cuts and this is a challenge to the organisation,


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

13 | IBM

as people are generally not as positive and may confuse the reform and budget cuts (28:50).

Another barrier to the reform is the lack of sponsorship at the highest level of the reform. Previous reforms have been driven by the CEO and this not the case in this reform. This maybe a barrier to enthusing staff and having complete commitment to the reform.

A further challenge will be to maintain the reputation of the quality of science done by CSIRO whilst balancing this with the science that is more commercially viable and “useful” to Australia and the globe.

Recommendations:

Carefully select research agenda that can assure quality excellence in science and also produce commercial advantage. Suggested fields of study were food generation, solar energy, aqua culture, and biotechnology and bio medical space.

Further develop the community of researchers, internally and externally. This is vital to maintaining and further developing collaboration within the organisation and across the sciences and will contribute to the science success of CSIRO.

Ensuring scientists are able to have a meaningful career by further investigating how to manage the balance of commercially focused science and the professional status/reputation of the individual scientist within their field of excellence.

CSIRO needs identify and acknowledge the “elephants in the room” and for these elephants to be addressed.

Interviewee Name: Nadia Baunin

Interviewers: Blake Hogan, Phil Gray

Interview Date: Tuesday, 15th July, 2014


The understanding of the reason for change. It has been well documented and discussed that as time goes on, the expectation of funds appropriated from the government will get smaller and smaller. “If we didn’t do what we did, we may not be around in 20 years’ time”.

“The change is giving people more flexibility in terms of the operating environment which needed to happen”.

Communicating the new structure and reasons for change have been well managed.

Removing the matrix was a positive (31.43 min). Mismatch between the capability of the matrix and where people were working in CSIRO. As CSIRO improves the ability to collaborate, there will be less need for the matrix. Areas that they classed as critical to success were covered in the reform.


Currently no KPI systems that will match the ideal outcomes sort from the reform to the staff members. Acknowledges that they are working on it, but to date, not able to be implemented.

One of Nadia’s biggest points was that there “needs to be more cultural and behavioural changes to occur yet before the strategy change will really impact the way it’s intended”.

Unsure of what levers CSIRO is going to use to meet its desired objectives and unsure how the alignment between publications vs revenue generation will actually work.

Still missing engagement across all levels, Town Hall meetings were run for “interested staff only”.


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

14 | IBM

CSIRO have no program that currently exists to praise, generate grants for ideas or network incentives that will drive collaboration.

Internal data suggest that whilst we think we do collaborate well, we actually aren’t very good at it and wonders how well top down vs organic collaboration will work.

There is still a big internal focus on the individual performance as opposed to team performance.

Recommendations:

Focus on how to achieve an ideal level of collaboration within CSIRO. What does that mean for us? And then how we can achieve a higher level?

Ensure that KPI’s and CSIRO objectives under the reform program are closely aligned.

Provide additional information on why CSIRO needs to become more commercial to ensure buy in at all levels (data shared currently to only those that want to find out).

CSIRO needs to define a plan to change the culture and behaviour of the organisation to ensure long term change is achieved.

Interviewee Name: Dr Peter Thrall

Interviewers: Robyn Evans, Phil Gray

Interview Date: Thursday, 17th July, 2014


The organisation is ‘delayering’ in order to improve efficiency and increase focus on the science itself. The shift to a ‘flagship-only’ model means the organisation is focusing on ‘managing science’ rather than ‘managing people.’

The level of analysis both prior to and in conjunction with the reform. This analysis has involved consulting with internal staff and external parties in order to make informed changes to CSIRO. This also leads to buy-in from staff, as they feel as though they have contributed in some way to the changes that will ultimately impact them.

The understanding of the driving factors causing the change, throughout all levels of the organisation. This understanding has been created through communication by management on and on-going basis.

Research leaders (such as Peter) have been seconded full-time into the reform program. This has allowed CSIRO to ensure the program brings the perspective of the researchers and an overall focus on science to any changes that may be made to the organisation. It will also ensure the same mistakes (as viewed by researchers) are avoided.


They are still in the process of developing a system that rewards scientists based on the actual outcome of their science as opposed to the number of journals they are published in, patents they deliver, etc. This system would be used in order to encourage certain behaviours and promote scientists within the organisation. Therefore, there has not been a change in the KPI system that links performance measures to the overall CSIRO strategy.

CSIRO are viewed externally as providing a service that is both valuable and costly. Peter feels as though their overheads cause them to operate at a higher cost, such as their facilities, equipment


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

15 | IBM

and general administration tasks. These overheads make it difficult to compete with other organisations, such as universities. The cost of their service produces a barrier to commercial collaboration. CSIRO are “a little top heavy”.

CSIRO has been labelled as slow to deal with in their interactions with commercial organisations. This is another barrier facing commercial collaboration and needs to be dealt with.

Collaboration across areas of science has been a real focus in this reform. However, there still needs to be specifics put in place in order to encourage and reward this collaboration in order to avoid silos. As they have not put in place a new KPI structure, there is no formal way of rewarding collaboration as of yet.

It is likely CSIRO will need to exit certain areas of research as a result of the change. There are a number of elements that need to be considered when determining which areas to focus on and which areas to reduce: CSIRO’s ranking in a particular science area compared to other research agencies, The important areas of science for Australia domestically, What will deliver the highest commercial return, Which areas are attracting highest levels of external funding. Peter stated, that currently, he does not believe that CSIRO are sophisticated enough to make these sorts of decisions.

Recommendations:

CSIRO need to reduce their overheads in order to effectively compete with similar organisations (mainly universities). Their cost is a significant barrier to commercial collaboration and needs to be addressed in order to further improve their relationship with external parties.

Improve their efficiency when dealing with external organisations. This is once again another barrier to commercial collaboration.

Develop a strong KPI structure that links with the current strategy and the upcoming 15-25 strategy.

Following on from the development of KPI’s that reward the actual output of a scientist’s work, CSIRO needs to be strong when enforcing breaches/poor performance in relation to the new KPI’s. Without this enforcement, they run the risk of not implementing the required changes in order to prepare CSIRO for the future.

Reward and recognise collaboration within the different areas of science.


440497226, 440536293, 200219965, 440524005

16 | IBM

Business

CSIRO Strategic Assessment