Alternatives to cutting research

Cancel the Boggo Road development and rebuild a more modest joint facility at the existing facility at Cleveland:

$84 million is committed to new laboratory complexes in Brisbane that will not provide adequate facilities for the research. The Ecoscience Precinct development is one of two joint project with the Queensland Government that will affect staff from six CSIRO divisions. The Marine Research Laboratory at Cleveland which does aquaculture and environmental research mainly for the fisheries industry will be the most adversely affected and is unlikely to be able to continue its current research program without being split up and sent to other facilities.

The planned development at Boggo Road is located inland, away from direct access to the sea and large scale saltwater facilities. A more modest development at the existing site at Cleveland would cost less, allow full continuation of the research and should be given full and proper consideration.

Cut losses on CSIRO’s Business Enabling Technology Review (BETR) project, including SAP:

As part of its major change project BETR, CSIRO is spending around $34 million per year on implementing a proprietary integrated IT business management system, mySAP Business Suite, which we anticipate will constrain operational innovation and be an ongoing drain on research funds. CSIRO has overly complex contracting and decision-making requirements along with extensive public sector accountabilities. The BETR project has driven an overhaul of business processes that may relieve some of the bureaucracy and paperwork research staff are having to cope with.

A central feature of the BETR project is the implementation of SAP. The cost/benefits of this system have not been disclosed to staff, who are facing major constraints in their work to fit with SAP capabilities. The research projects are carrying the cost of the implementation delays and budget blowouts in their Organisational overheads. The track record of SAP is not good for innovation and may actually impede productivity. Reports in the media claim that the productivity of SAP users is 20% below their competitors. We have concerns about its flexibility for new and different operations, the ongoing cost and disruptions from maintenance and upgrades and being locked into licensed software products.

CSIRO management should give greater consideration to replacing SAP with more modest flexible alternatives, using open source software wherever they can. Sometimes thinking big can be counterproductive.

Rationalise the matrix structure for more efficient decision-making:

CSIRO has restructured its research into a highly complex matrix, which has had limited acceptance from staff. It has separated the science capabilities (people) on the left hand side from the science output (results and money) on the right hand side and removed support services from their previous integration with the science. People are confused about their responsibilities, functions have narrowed and flexibility reduced. Research staff are now burdened with many additional bureaucratic duties, such that science is starting to become the thing they do later, when we have time. The matrix needs some serious rationalisation.

A specific example of possible rationalisation:

Remove the requirement for Program Leaders to approval of our science outputs, and return to a single science quality approval process to reduce processing costs. Program Leaders have been required to look for political sensitivities in scientific reports. That role has no place in CSIRO. Reducing such tasks on research capability managers on the left hand side of the matrix structure would allow a merge of management with the right hand side of the matrix, which controls the research money.