| Home || Search || Contact || Free Publications || Eshop || Privacy Statement ||

2003 RIRDC Stakeholder and Client Survey

Prepared in April 2003 by
Agknowledge^®
51 Mottram Rd, Carmel WA 6076
Ph: 08 9291 8111 Fx: 08 9291 8101, E-mail: cookes@iinet.net.au

Appendix 6 – Advisory Committee and industry organisation interviews

A total of 15 telephone interviews were conducted with Advisory Committee members and a further seven interviews were conducted with representatives from relevant industry associations.

One representative from most Advisory Committees was contacted by phone. Two representatives were contacted from the JVAP, Tea Tree and Deer Industry Advisory Committees. The issue of stakeholder satisfaction was discussed from the perspective of support and input from RIRDC, as well as perceived success of reaching intended target audience and stakeholders.

The identity of interviewed Advisory Committee members has been kept confidential to ensure committee members could speak freely.

Interviews were informal, but covered the following range of questions.

Are you happy with the make-up of the committee?
Discuss how effective the Advisory Committee is at setting research priorities.
Rate how effective the Advisory Committee is at allocating research funds to the most appropriate research projects.
How effective is the process of communicating with researchers (in terms of communicating research priorities and throughout the management of projects)?
How effective is the process of communicating within the organisation (meeting operations, telephone, publications, website management)?
How effective is the process of communicating research results back to industry and producers?
Do you consider the program is managed effectively?
Do you have any comments on senior management, the board or the organisation as a whole?

Advisory Committee responses to these questions are presented below.

Where possible, further comment was sought from some of the peak bodies that did not have representatives who sat on the Advisory Committee. Comments from these organisations are also included under their relevant industry section in the table below.

Interview summaries by programs:

Program Interview comments

Joint Venture Agro-forestry Program Committee

Advisory Committee comment
There is a good mixture of expertise on the committee. The research priorities and system of allocating funds is very clearly defined. There was a suggestion that if the secretariat is enthusiastic about a project they seem to push it harder to the committee.
Poor adoption of research
Communication of information back to producers continues to be a problem. Information is currently getting to intermediaries but does not seem to be understood and adopted by producers. There is a need for more direct communication of results to producers in the form of workshops and field days – but it is not yet clear the role JVAC needs to take in this. They need to take a more active role in co-ordinating the matrix of communication to ensure producers are delivered the research results in an appropriate format.
The program is well managed and communications within the organisation appear to be of a high standard.
The website is a brilliant resource.
Senior management and the RIRDC Board appear to take an innovative approach to making sure they are abreast with current priorities. They seem to be good at pre-empting issues and driving the agenda.
Program manager comment
The JVAP committee has changed its direction slightly since the new chairman was appointed. The new committee will become more involved in the strategic direction of program and drafting the new five-year plan.
At the moment there isn’t a lot of research that is accessible to farmers. A lot of the research is aimed at improving understanding of farm forestry rather than applied research.
We have currently employed a communications consultant to develop a strategy and create links with existing groups to help JVAP get its materials to producers. The Master Tree Growers program has been very successful and the Trees, Water and Salt guide was released eight months ago.
Suggestions:
Continue developing information networks to disseminate relevant information.

Deer Industry Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
Industry apathy
In the past, the Deer Industry has not always contributed to the process of setting industry priorities. Most sectors of the industry were consulted while the five-year plan was being prepared, but some chose not to contribute.
One member suggested program priorities needed setting more regularly than every five years in developing industries such as deer. The industry and its participants are changing very quickly.
Range of backgrounds on committee can be difficult
The committee is a fair representation of the deer industry. It contains wide extremes of skills and backgrounds and can be difficult to manage. Producers don’t necessarily understand the scientific rigour required for projects and scientists don’t understand some issues facing the industry.
According to one interviewee, some committee members appear to have their own interests in mind rather than those of the industry as a whole when they are determining research priorities.
Substandard research proposals a problem
There have been quite a few proposals received from researchers that weren’t in line with the program’s set priorities. Last year not all the available money was allocated to research and it is probable the same will happen this year. Farmers (possibly quite rightly) are starting to say: "If there is good research – fund it. If not – stop taking money from us."
A lot of the basic research work has already been completed in New Zealand (where the Deer Industry is bigger and more established). The main priority at the moment is information transfer projects. Producers want RIRDC to do more marketing research but they don’t understand the constraints of our brief. This has led to criticism in the past.
Part-time producers difficult to contact
They have tried hard through a range of forums to reach producers without great success. They currently produce and distribute a farmer-friendly newsletter and are planning a series of field days and seminars. However, most deer producers receive the bulk of their income from elsewhere. Planning field days and seminars after hours and on weekends can be a problem for researchers.
There have been some difficulties in the publishing area whereby tables were changed incorrectly by typesetters or editors and the error wasn’t picked up until after publishing.
Peter Core was a great asset to the program. Project management is generally good. However, there can be long lag times between when projects or reports are submitted and when they are published. This is understandable as the program manager has a very high workload – but it is not really acceptable.
RIRDC is a good group to work with. The organisation is supportive and open. It is sad to see Peter Core leave.
Deer Industry Association of Australia, Solange Shapiro
We are happy with the job RIRDC is doing managing the Deer Program in terms of setting research priorities, allocating funds to projects and extending information to producers.
There have been some teething problems with the change over to the new program manager. Hopefully these will be resolved soon.
The DIAA have not received any copies of published reports recently. This has been a problem for at least a year.
There has been a holdup in getting funds to projects recently and a number of reports that were finished last financial year have still not been published.
Suggestions:

Update Research Report distribution lists.

Research priorities need revising and adjusting more regularly than every five years for the fast developing deer industries.

Industry update meetings between producers and researchers to enhance mutual understanding within the industry. This would also improve visibility of the program within the deer industry to demonstrate current work in progress.

The committee could be more proactive in commissioning research.

More feedback as to the reason why reports can take a while to be approved for printing may be helpful.

Pasture Seed Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
The interviewee was happy with the make-up of the committee and processes by which research priorities are set and funds are allocated to research.
Higher adoption rates needed
Communication back to producers has improved since 2001. The committee has developed a newsletter that is distributed through seed growers and via direct mail. However, the committee is still disappointed at the observed rate of adoption of research. They need to explore more ideas to facilitate adoption.
Jeff Davis does a great job as a program managers and communication with researchers seems to be effective and well targeted.
RIRDC’s publications are consistently good, as is the website.
Merryn James is really terrific; she presents a good face to the organisation.
Good to meet the Board
The meeting between the Board and committee chairs was very worthwhile. It was good to put a face to Board members and to meet the other chairs to discuss similar problems and exchange ideas.

Tea Tree Oil Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
There is a good mix of producers, industry and researchers on the committee. As a result it has done a good job in setting priorities.
More time needed to consider proposals
The committee is not always 100 per cent effective at allocating funds to the most appropriate projects. Proposals need to be circulated earlier to give members a chance to read them properly.
Voluntary levy a problem
Oversupply in the industry means that many tea tree producers are strapped for cash and not interested in paying the research levy. Communication to producers and industry could only be improved if more money was made available to the program.
However producers are still keen to see the results of research. Information is distributed in a newsletter to all growers and there is an annual research information day at Lismore.
The Program Manager is very busy.
The Tea Tree industry has been well supported by RIRDC.

Equine Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
The interviewee suggested the committee was one of the best he has sat on. It works well, being skills rather than employment-based. The committee members complement one another. There is generally a good representation from across the industry. They have tried unsuccessfully to get a trainer on the committee.
High profile needed due to voluntary levy
Communication to industry is extensive and effective. A lot of the budget (maybe too much) seems to be spent on this, but this is probably necessary as they need to lift the profile of the horseshoe levy (which is voluntary). They have recently started running workshops for targeted industry groups (eg. race track management). This technique is expensive but effective.
Jeff Davis is good. He helps the committee keep on track with RIRDC policy.
Communication with researchers is well managed. This is simplified as it is a fairly well defined group. They purposely change the location of meetings so researchers can appear before the committee to present their work. This helps the development of better understanding between all parties.
Australian Harness Racing, Rod Pollock
The Australian Harness Racing Association recently ceased contributing to the RIRDC Equine Industries Program. In future, research and development funds will be allocated to Animal Health Australia. This decision was made as they wanted more specific research in the harness racing area and this had not been happening in the RIRDC program. They only have limited funds to put towards research and development.
The RIRDC program is very worthwhile, it is just a shame there is not enough money to fund more work.
They asked RIRDC to assist in hosting the World Trotting Conference a couple of years ago and they did a fantastic job at this.

Honeybee Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
The committee is effective at understanding industry priorities and allocating funds to the most appropriate projects.
Good communication to producers and researchers
Communication to producers is good. The committee produces a newsletter that is distributed via each state organisation, inserted in industry magazines and through the honey packers. They also make presentations at each of the state industry association meetings.
The small nature of the industry ensures researches have a good understanding of research priorities.
The program manager is overworked this means not all deadlines are reached. (This was also mentioned in the previous survey in 2001).
Australian Honeybee Industry Corporation, Steven Ware
AHBIC is in contact with RIRDC staff at least 2-3 times per month. This is in addition to contact with the Chairman of the HBRDC, Mr Keith McIlvride, where contact is of a similar nature. The contact point is Mr Jeff Davis, however AHBIC would also have contact with Simon Hearn 2-3 times per year.
RIRDC would be more effective if we had more funds available. There always seems to be more projects than funds.
RIRDC is very effective at communicating its results back to industry both in writing and also by sending a representative of the Advisory Committee to report at annual meetings of all State Associations.
RIRDC publications are very effective as are the recent addition of publications being available on CD ROM. The information is user-friendly and easily available.
RIRDC is very cost effective and the Honeybee industry has a good working relationship with it. We would not wish to be involved with any other RDC. The honeybee industry was previously involved with HRDC where our needs and wishes were constantly ignored.
We have suggested that greater attempts need to be made to leverage research funds with other research organisations. I know RIRDC has been trying to do this, but to date they have been unsuccessful.

Chicken Meat Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
Fine-tuning research priorities
The interviewee was reasonably happy with the five-yearly process by which research priorities are set. However, there could be a more formal process by which priorities are adjusted between these times.
Not attracting enough good projects
The committee was said to be excellent at assessing those projects that are submitted. However, there needs to be more work put into attracting more good quality projects in some research areas. This was also raised as an issue in the 2001 survey. Some researchers are still missing the mark – they need to provide more guidance to the research community. Perhaps more projects could be solicited. Having committee members visit researchers was a good initiative.
Not enough consultation with industry
Some large segments of industry are not contributing to the research program despite paying their research levy. More work needs to be put into encouraging input from these players – either inside or outside the committee process.
More research published
A lot of the chicken meat research does not seem to be published either due to confidentiality issues or researcher reluctance due to shared ownership. The egg program seems to have got around this. It would be good to see more projects published on the Internet – this seems the best medium of communication.
Effective communication to producers
Information is effectively communicated to producers via grower meetings and through technical representatives.
Project management is generally good.
Chicken Meat Industry Association, Jeff Fairbrother
RIRDC are doing a good job. We would never want to leave the RIRDC system. The Advisory Committee is excellent and presents a good range of people from across the industry.
Suggestions:

A more formal process for adjusting research priorities within the five-year time period could be useful.

The committee could be more proactive in commissioning research.

Establish a process to allow larger industry players to contribute to the decision making process from outside the committee if necessary.

Wildflowers and Native Plants Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
Happy with the make-up of the advisory group and the fund allocation process.
Communication to producers improved
In the past the research was not getting to growers. Now projects are only approved if they include a method to communicate the outcomes to producers.
Some researchers still miss the mark
They are still getting some research proposals that are a long way from stated priorities. They are occasionally proactive in seeking specific research.
Project management seems good and has tightened up a lot recently. The committee mid-term research inspections are a useful mechanism to have in place.

Organic Produce Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
A diverse industry
The organic produce Advisory Committee is currently a couple of members short. There is a good mix a skills and experience. It is difficult to get a good representation of the industry together. If you take out the word ‘organics’ you are left with all of agriculture. It would be impossible to get representatives from each produce sector, geographic region and from throughout the supply chain.
More grower stimulated research needed
Industry appeared to have sufficient input towards the program’s five-year plan. Again it can be hard to get representation from the whole industry due to its fragmented nature and diversity. It would be good to encourage grower groups to stimulate research projects and solicit researchers to submit proposals on their behalf.
Funds a constraint
The committee does as well as it can considering the small amount of funding allocated to the program. They only have $250k per year, of which about $150k can be allocated to new projects in any year. It seems wrong that an industry worth $300million should only have $250k to allocate to research and development.
Producer involvement helpful for adoption
They have had the best results at extending research results when projects are designed to incorporate active producer involvement throughout their duration. The program mails a newsletter out directly to organic producers but they could use the State Departments and other media more to disseminate information.
The RIRDC Board appears to be in touch, accessible and receptive.
NASA, Mark Usage
He doesn’t believe that employees (as opposed to Directors) of certification companies should be on the advisory board. There is the potential they could use their positions for commercial gain.
Research funds should be spent on basic research in the organic area. Development funds are also needed to establish the Organic Federation of Australia as a strong umbrella organisation to give the industry an active and proactive voice.
Research information doesn’t seem to travel back to producers as well as it could. RIRDC could fund more Information Forums and Workshops for producers. The RIRDC funded seminars so far have been too academic for producers. There is a need for more ‘hands-on’ practical information.
Suggestions:

Encourage grower groups to stimulate research projects and solicit researchers to submit proposals on their behalf.

More practical workshops for producers.

Rice Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
High producer representation
The Rice Advisory Committee appears to be running very effectively. Its large producer representation is helpful in terms of assuring adequate industry representation.
Communication of information back to producers is excellent. There appears to be a high adoption of research.
Problems with researchers understanding the industry
They could improve communications with researchers. Many do not have an adequate understanding of the rice industry. Some have never been to the area.
The Board meeting and lunches with the Advisory Committee chairs are a good initiative.
Suggestions:

Organise a researcher tour of the rice-growing region to enhance understanding of the industry.

Rare Natural Animal Fibres Research and Development Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
There were no issues with this Advisory Committee. It was thought to operate effectively and be well managed.
It works well considering the different groups represented. There appears to be no parochialism within the committee. All proposals are assessed on their merits.

Fodder Industry Advisory Committee Advisory Committee comment
There were no issues with the make-up or operation of the committee in terms of setting research priorities or allocation of research funds.
They had one research project that was very behind schedule – but this is a fault at the researchers end rather than a fault in RIRDC’s project management.
Improved communications to producers
They have increased efforts to communicate research findings back to producers during the past couple of years with the introduction of a producer newsletter which is sent direct to their own list, distributed to exporter’s producers and to Australia Fodder Industry Association members. They also present research results at the annual AFIA conference.
Some research proposals off target
Some research proposals are still not aligned with the five-year plan – but this appears to be improving. The committee is starting to be more proactive in calling for submissions in specified areas of research.
Australian Fodder Industry Association, Colin Peace
Colin currently sits in on about three or four Fodder Advisory Committee meetings a year, but is not a participant. He is regularly in contact with RIRDC staff.
He believes the advisory group is well balanced and representative of the industry.
At present only the Hay Export Industry contributes levy funds to the program, this means the program is understandably biased towards export industry projects despite this representing only a small percentage of the whole fodder industry.
It would be good to see more emphasis on extension but resources are limited and few of the projects are completed yet. He envies GRDC’s resources and extension network. The program is just about at the stage where they could think about holding "Update" meetings with advisors, consultants and district agronomists in a similar way to GRDC.
Regional development groups (similar to DRDC) may be useful to provide regional feedback and engender ownership in the program, but this would increase RIRDC’s administration costs.
The program is currently managed very efficiently, which is important considering the limited funds.

Appendix 7 – Producer interviews
A total of 53 telephone interviews were completed with producers.

As the producers names where gathered from a variety of sources it would be misleading to discuss total results. Results are discussed under each of the separate data sources.

Producers were asked the following questions:

Which industry are you most involved with in Agriculture?
Have you heard of RIRDC?
Are you aware of the sort of research and development funded through RIRDC?
Are you aware of reading or hearing about any RIRDC-funded research? If so, what and comment on its relevance.
Have you received any information or publications from RIRDC? If so, what and comment on its relevance.
How does information received from RIRDC compare to that received from other organisations?
Have you seen the RIRDC Website – any comments?
Do you have any general comments or suggestions for RIRDC?

If producers were unaware of RIRDC they were asked if they received information from any other organisations, whether they used the Internet and given the RIRDC website address if they were interested. The phone call was then terminated.

The major issues to come from these phone surveys are:

Awareness of RIRDC was lowest amongst broadacre and agro-forestry producers. Awareness was high with producers from the equine and deer industries.
Low understanding of the role of RIRDC amongst broadacre and agro-forestry producers, even those who have attended courses that had been produced and funded by JVAP and RIRDC.
Those producers who received RIRDC information or had attended courses regarded the organisation and its information highly.
Low awareness and use of the RIRDC Internet site, even by those producers who regularly received information from RIRDC.
The Website was highly regarded by those producers who did use it.
More work needs to be done improving communication with the deer industry.
The low awareness and level of understanding about RIRDC and JVAP with producers who had attended the MTP was surprising. Perhaps RIRDC need to reassess its branding of courses presented by other organisations. It would seem logical to ensure this group received follow-up information from JVAP including a subscription to the newsletter. Maybe this a subscription form and information on RIRDC research could be included in course notes.

Broadacre Producers

Twenty five phone interviews were completed with mostly broadacre producers.

Twenty four producers indicated they were most involved in broadacre agriculture. One of the broadacre producers was 100% organic.

One producer received most his income from rice.

Thirteen of the 25 producers thought they may have heard of RIRDC, but only four producers showed any understanding about which industries RIRDC is responsible for managing research and development. One of these producers grew rice, one was 100% organic and the other two were broadacre producers.

Only the rice producer remembered receiving publications from RIRDC. This producer was atypical as he is also a Board member of Sunrice Australia.

Another producer recalled seeing an RIRDC article in the Kondinin Group magazine, Farming Ahead.

No interviewed producers had accessed the RIRDC website or remembered attending any RIRDC sponsored events, with the exception of the rice grower who had frequent contact with RIRDC staff.

Broadacre phone interviewees by industry of main involvement.

Cereal cropping Livestock Cropping/ livestock Rice

Number of producers 10 4 10 1

Producer phone interviewee awareness of RIRDC

Number of producers

Total producers interviewed 25

Number of producers who had heard of RIRDC 13

Number of producers who understood RIRDC responsibilities 4

Number of producers who recalled receiving RIRDC information 2

Number of producers who recalled receiving information from GRDC 8

Number of producers who recalled receiving information from AWI 5

Number of producers who used the Internet 8

Number of producers who used the RIRDC Website 0

Producer phone interviewee comments:

Research into better pasture and feed varieties is vital.
Producers in the Geraldton area (WA) are not satisfied with what is being done by the Department of Agriculture. We are starting up a Northern Farmers group to do research for farmers.
RIRDC is doing a good job with the rice industry. I guess they could do more – but I doubt it would be economic to do so. I would like to see more research into the nut industry.
Develop a way to farm kangaroos economically.

Deer Producers

Eight deer producers were contacted. Four were sourced from the Deer Industry database supplied by RIRDC and four were sourced sing the Telstra White Pages.

All the deer producers interviewed were aware of RIRDC.

All eight producers used to receive a regular newsletter from RIRDC, but only two were aware of receiving one in the past twelve months. The others said it "just stopped coming". Those who didn’t receive the newsletter were not members of a Deer Industry association. Interestingly, three of those who said they did not receive the newsletter were contacted from the Deer Industry list supplied by RIRDC.

Four producers (50%) indicated they were scaling down their involvement in the Deer Industry.

None of the interviewees had used the RIRDC website.

Deer producer phone interviewee awareness of RIRDC

Total producers surveyed 8
Number of producers who had heard of RIRDC - 8
Number of producers who understood RIRDC responsibilities - 8
Number of producers who recalled receiving RIRDC information - 8
Number of producers currently receiving RIRDC information - 2
Number of producers who accessed the RIRDC website - 0

Producer comments

Three producers requested RIRDC fund more research on marketing. This is where the industry has fallen down.
Do more research on rusa deer.
One producer had sent three letters to the Advisory Committee requesting research into rusa fawns had not received a reply to any of his letters.
Provide a forum for producers to communicate with others in the industry (e.g. a questions and answers chat page on the website or in the newsletter).
A lot of good R&D has been done in the industry – however the industry has failed to adequately develop its Australian markets and has been held to ransom by the abattoirs.
It appears many of the people making decisions in the industry have never touched a deer. The Advisory Committee needs to be sacked and replaced. Research funds are being wasted. There is no need for further research into ecchymosis– a lot of the research seems to have been done before. A lot of other producers feel the same. We pay a $10 levy per exported animal – but there is no adequate explanation of where money is spent and what has come from it.
RIRDC are doing as well as they can. The deer magazine is good to get.
New Zealand research appears to be more relevant.

Equine Industry

Five people were contacted from the Equine Industry database supplied by RIRDC. All five recalled receiving an Equine research newsletter from RIRDC and were very complimentary about its content and style.

None of the interviewees had used the RIRDC website.

There were no comments or suggestions for improvement.

Agro-forestry Producers

Fifteen producers were interviewed from a database of agro-forestry producers who had attended the Master Tree growers Program, which was produced and funded by JVAP.

Two thirds (11 producers) of those interviewed thought they may have heard of RIRDC and JVAP, but only half (6) of these had any idea about what RIRDC did or which industries they funded. This understanding is surprisingly low considering this group had all attended the MTG course. In fact, only two producers interviewed linked the course to RIRDC or JVAP. Three producers linked the MTG with Greening Australia and one with the University of NSW. The courses were all presented by consultants or staff from other organisations. Producers tended to link the MTG with the organisation who presented it.

All those producers interviewed found the MTG course useful.

Only six producers recalled seeing any information on RIRDC or JVAP research. This is surprisingly low, especially considering all MTG producers were given information on RIRDC and JVAP research. Only one producer spontaneously mentioned receiving the ‘Shaping the Future with Farm Forestry’ newsletter.

Five producers said they used the Internet for information but only two of these had seen the RIRDC website. Both these producers found the Website a useful resource. However, both of these producers were atypical. One had previously worked as a consultant for RIRDC and the other’s main source of income was a tree planting business.

Agro-forestry producer phone interviewee awareness of RIRDC
Total producers surveyed - 15
Number of producers who had heard of RIRDC - 11
Number of producers who understood RIRDC responsibilities - 6
Number of producers who has heard of JVAP - 10
Number of producers who recalled receiving RIRDC or JVAP information - 6
Number of producers who used the Internet - 5
Number of producers who had used the RIRDC website - 2
Number of producers who thought the Master Tree Growers Program was useful - 15

Producer comments

We regularly receive RIRDC information on their Wildflower research – which is great. RIRDC’s agro-forestry information is very broad. It is difficult to find information suited specifically to our region and tree varieties. We have purchased a couple of RIRDC publications after seeing articles in the Weekly Times or Stock and Land. RIRDC are doing a good job.
The RIRDC website is good. I have downloaded a few free reports and purchased a couple of reports – from memory, these were all of a fair quality. I first found out about the site when I was looking for Tea Tree information on another website with a link to the RIRDC site. Our property is 100% organic and I think I get a RIRDC newsletter on organic produce. I would like to see more research into finding crops that are suitable for our existing soil types and nutrient levels.
I purchased a couple of reports on Blackwood Cultivation recently. In general the report was good – relevant, easily understood and not too technical. I hear about RIRDC information through the Australia Forest Growers and our local Farm Forestry newsletter. I use the Internet a bit, but have never thought about using the RIRDC Website – although it does sound useful.
I receive the Australian Forest Grower newsletter and Agro-forestry News but have never heard of JVAP or RIRDC. More information on fertilizer and management requirements after planting would be useful.
People don’t seem to look after their trees well enough after planting. More post-planting management information would be good. I like getting hands-on workshops.
I have heard of RIRDC and JVAP but I wouldn’t have a clue what they do. Most of the research I see is about eucalypts. We specialize in mixed species cabinet timbers and have had to do our own work. The Queensland DPIE seems to have a wealth of information on red cedar, but it never seems to filter down to producers. We are reluctant users of the Internet.
I have heard of RIRDC and JVAP but haven’t received any information from either of them. I am concerned with the way trees are being fertilized. High nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are leading to more deaths during drought and following insect attacks.
I have heard of RIRDC only, but don’t know what they fund or do. More research funds should be put towards Agro-forestry. Farmers look after trees with commercial value – this doesn’t always happen with some of the trees planted with Landcare grants.
I have received information from RIRDC (magazine) and JVAP (2020 Vision) in the past, but not recently. I get the bulk of my information from the Australian Forestry publication and I go to Australian Forest Growers conferences. They need to get more information on agro-forestry to schools and agricultural colleges.
I am a retired consultant and have received funding from RIRDC in the past. There is no shortage of information or groups. An amalgamation of groups might be good. Everything about RIRDC is positive.
I have a tree planting contract business, which provides the bulk of money income. I like the RIRDC website, but I haven’t used it for a little while. RIRDC should be well supported as they are doing good work. They seem to be getting the message out there. I like their seminars. Farmers are currently in survival mode. It is a very difficult time to get action and adoption in farm forestry.

Appendix 8 – Researcher interviews
A total of ten phone interviews were completed with researchers who had applied for funding with RIRDC. The source of individual comments has been kept confidential to encourage researchers to speak freely. Researchers participating in the phone interviews are listed in Appendix 9.

The researchers were asked the following questions:

Are you currently funded by RIRDC?
As a researcher, how have you found it dealing with RIRDC?
How does RIRDC compare with other RDCs?
Are you aware of any changes in RIRDC over the past couple of years?
What are your thoughts on RIRDC’s delivery of information to end-users?

Nine of the interviewed researchers were complimentary about RIRDC, the other was not so positive about the organisation as he had recently had a number of research proposals rejected.

The majority of researchers had praise for RIRDC’s project management and communication.

The main points to come from the phone interviews with researchers were:

RIRDC’s program management had become much tighter and more professional in the past couple of years.
RIRDC program managers were recognised as being efficient, well qualified with a dedication to their relevant industries and to quality research.
The RIRDC Online newsletter was highly valued by the research community. A number of researchers indicated they forwarded it to a number of others within their department indicating that readership is probably much higher than the distribution list.
The RIRDC Website is a valuable resource for the research community.
The research reporting systems could be streamlined. Researchers find the volume and detail required in progress reports confusing and time consuming. The optimal timing of required reports should also be reconsidered.
Increased opportunities for interaction between program managers (or the Advisory Committee) and researchers would be valued by the research community.

Individual comments are listed below.

Positive comments about RIRDC by researchers

RIRDC has demonstrated a strong commitment to innovative science. RIRDC assesses projects without fear or favour. This is not always the case with some of the larger R&D organisations that sometimes appear to follow research fashions rather than being interested in science and fact.
The program manager’s efforts to understand the research and the industry means they are very connected to issues and are often stimulators of new areas of research. They are quick to support new and innovative work.
RIRDC seems to be doing its job better with more urgency. Money seems to be getting harder to find and they are frantic trying to maintain researcher funds. This has meant more work for the program managers in both picking the right projects and managing them.
RIRDC seems streaks ahead of the other organisations. RIRDC’s systems view across industries is very valuable. It deserves to be five to 10 times its current size.
Over the past couple of years there has been a big increase in the professionalism of the RIRDC Canberra staff. Project and financial management and reporting are much tighter now than in the past. This is positive, as researchers need to be accountable for delivery times and project outcomes.
The RIRDC website is superior to most other RDC sites. It is easy to use and find relevant information.
It is now a lot easier to communicate with program managers than it was a few years ago.
RIRDC has improved the website layout a lot and the research outlines and priorities are more specific.
RIRDC’s delivery of information has improved a lot in the past with the website and the online newsletter. It was all pretty clunky before.
RIRDC appear to have consistently improved their game in the past few years. They appear more professional. Project and milestone reporting is tighter and research priorities are more specific. Researchers now have a better idea of what RIRDC want and RIRDC have a better understanding of researchers.
RIRDC has come a long way in the past couple of years.

Negative comments about RIRDC by researchers

RIRDC is fastidious about rules. They try so hard to understand the research completely that they can be overbearing to some researchers.
RIRDC requires more detail in their documentation than some of the other RDC’s, which is very time consuming for researchers. Researchers need to spend a lot of time with RIRDC for the often small amount of funds allocated.
The high requirement for researchers to disseminate information is onerous for researchers but efficient for RIRDC.
There can be problems getting feedback from the Advisory Committees on proposals and preliminary proposals. This feedback often comes back later than expected and contains ‘woolly’ comments and weak excuses. Sometimes it would have been better to have said nothing at all.
The timing of proposals can also be a problem. Final submissions are due the first week in February. It can be a problem completing these as many people (researchers and business) like to take time off in the January school holidays. Some other RDC’s call for submissions in the end of February with an answer by April or May, others time submissions so that the full submission is in before Christmas.
There a quite a few different progress reports are required over the year. Researches are often confused with the difference between annual reports and outcome reports. This needs to be outlined more clearly.
The research is published on the web and announced on the e-mail newsletter – but most of the industry doesn’t know it exists.
A lot of the information appears to be buried in the organisation. The Reports need to be abstracted on Medline and CAB. Not even the research community knows what has been done.
The timing of publishing of Research Reports needs to consider researcher intentions to publish in refereed journals or apply for patenting.
Some programs appear a bit short-sighted. The heavy industry component of Advisory Committees means they can be unwilling to investigate problems that may be looming in the future.
RIRDC may benefit by changing the reporting process to focus more on research outcomes rather than inputs. There shouldn’t be a need to supply all the detail on operating expenses. Other RDC’s don’t require as much detail.
It can be confusing working out what is required of each report – even when templates are sent. Program managers sometimes forget that many researchers are dealing with a number of R&D organisations – all with different reporting requirements. They deal with their reporting procedures every day and forget that other people don’t. It would be good if program managers could attach the template when requesting reports – it can take a while to track down and download the right template from the net.
A lot of research money appears to be wasted with research not carried out by professionals. A lot of the current research is too commercial it is almost funded development work for a company
RIRDC compares favourably other RDC’s. But, with some RDC’s there is more one-to-one communication with the program managers, which is good.
A lot of time seems to be wasted worrying about how future research results will be communicated to producers. Surely it is more appropriate to get the results first and determine the best communication methods second.

Suggestions for improvement in RIRDC made by researchers

It is dangerous to rely on the Departments to disseminate information as many are cutting back on their extension. RIRDC needs to be more proactive in getting its information out to producers. They need more direct mail, more workshops and training sessions and a stronger push into newspapers and magazines.
It would be helpful to include a spreadsheet in the proposal and reporting templates for including budget information.
ACIAR negotiate more with researchers. More interaction with program managers and the Advisory Committee would be beneficial so researchers can tailor research proposals to meet RIRDC needs and get it funded.
Perhaps programs could back a couple of good researchers rather than back specific projects. They could give two to three post-doctoral fellowships to senior research fellows (like Bruce McGreggor or Sandra Eadey) and give these researchers a (say) five-year appointment and a worthwhile budget. Individual industries could then apply to use their services.

Appendix 9 – List of Interviewees
Program Managers
Roslyn Prinsley
Jeff Davis

Industry and Government
Gavan Cattanach– AFFA
Anna Cronin– NFF
Peter Arkle - NFF
Peta Slack-Smith – Senator Troeth’s office
Solange Shapiro - DIAA
Rod Pollock – AHR
Steve Warne –AHBIC
Jeff Fairbother – CMIA
Mark Usage – NASA
Quentin Kennedy- DeTA
Chris Melham - ASA
Colin Peace – AFIA
Quentin Kennedy - -BFofC

Media
Babs McHugh
Pat Francis
Shane Wright
Asa Walquist
Mark Phelps
Lindsay Bock
Peter Brady
Kate Dowler
Ed Gannon
Xavier Duff
David McKenzie
Mark Griggs
Gib Wettenhal
Tony Biggs
Cameron Morse

Staff members
Murray Hansen
Andrea Bryant
Sam Leone

Researchers
John Bartle
Phil Glatz
Ben Lethbridge
Graham Burgess
Donald Loch
Dr Wayne Jorgenson
Mark Hardwick
Lee Peterson
Ryde James
Dr Alexander Cameron

Advisory Committee Members
16 - Confidential
Producers

53 - Confidential
Back to contents

Links