sadc research and innovation management workshop report · sadc research and innovation management...

SADC Research and Innovation Management

Workshop Report

3rd Draft: 1 June 2012

S A D C R & I M a n a g e m e n t W o r k s h o p , 1 4 - 1 5 M a r c h 2 0 1 2 , S o u t h A f r i c a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

1.1 BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

2. WORKSHOP FORMAT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

3. WORKSHOP DELEGATES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4

4. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP SESSIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

4.1 OPENING OF THE WORKSHOP------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

4.1.1. Welcoming the delegates --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 4.1.2 Remarks from the SADC Chair ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 4.1.3 Remarks from South Africa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 4.1.4 Opening address ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

4.2 SESSION I: THE STATE AND CHALLENGES OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IN SADC -------------- 9 4.3 SESSION II: PRIORITISING RESEARCH AT THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL AND SUPPORTING CASE STUDIES ---------- 12

4.3.1 Session IIA: Prioritising research and innovation at the institutional level----------------------------- 12 4.3.2 Session II B: Case Studies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

4.4 SESSION III: FACILITATING RESEARCH AND SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT R&I MANAGEMENT --------------------------- 18

4.4.1 Session III A: Facilitating research ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 4.4.2 Session III B: Examples of systems to support research management-------------------------------- 20

4.5 SESSION IV: INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ----------------------- 21

4.5.1 The Intellectual Property Rights Act and the National Intellectual Property Management Office 21 4.5.2 Basics of IP and technology transfer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

4.6 SESSION V: SADC TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING NEEDS-------------------------------------------------------- 26 4.7 CLOSING REMARKS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27

5. WORKSHOP FINDINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

6. WORKSHOP EVALUATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31

7. FOLLOW-UP ACTION PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31

ANNEXURE A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 32

PRE-WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32

ANNEXURE B ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 36

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

ANNEXURE C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 38

LIST OF WORKSHOP DELEGATES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38

ANNEXURE D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 39

WORKSHOP PRESENTERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39

ANNEXURE E ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 46

WORKSHOP EVALUATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 ANNEXURE F

PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Research and Innovation (R&I) are key drivers of productivity, economic growth, quality of life and a country‟s competitive advantage. This is especially true in an era of rapid technological change and global competition. Knowledgeable and skilled R&I managers have a vital role to play in the facilitation of excellent and relevant R&I. In line with the SADC vision and mission of a common future to promote sustainable and equitable economic growth and socio-economic development the SADC Ministers responsible for science, technology and innovation at their meeting in Windhoek, Namibia in May 2011, mandated the Department of Science and Technology (DST) in South Africa to host a SADC R&I workshop. The DST in partnership with the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA), and in consultation with the SADC Secretariat and SADC Member States, hosted the first SADC Research and Innovation Management workshop at the Royal Elephant Hotel and Conference Centre in Centurion, South Africa from 14-15 March 2012. This workshop marked the beginning of a process to build capacity in research and innovation management in order to facilitate and promote research, development and innovation in the SADC region. 1.2 Objectives of the workshop The following objectives were identified in the conceptualization phase of the workshop:

To involve policy makers and research leaders or senior R&I managers from research institutions as participants;

To provide an overview of key elements involved in R&I management;

To involve excellent facilitators to train delegates and to share their experiences;

To provide opportunity for delegates to discuss amongst each other and to share their challenges and experiences;

To promote research and innovation collaboration at SADC level; and

To serve as a platform to understand the priorities for training, capacity development and specific intervention programmes to benefit science, technology and innovation in SADC.

2. WORKSHOP FORMAT

Delegates were provided with a pre-workshop questionnaire where they could prioritise their training and capacity development needs. The questionnaire is available in Annexure A. The workshop provided, on the first day, an overview of the state of R&I Management in SADC as well as global and in particular SADC specific challenges for R&I managers. It


considered R&I leadership, the institutional R&I strategy and the organisation of R&I management as important components in prioritising R&I at the institutional level. Case studies from two different institutions were presented to illustrate strategic prioritisation of R&I and setting up a research support centre as part of an institutional strategy, respectively. The sessions on the second day-, dealt with different aspects of research facilitation including the basics of research management and administration, servant- leadership in research management and administration and creating and maintaining an institutional research culture. A separate session focused on a basic introduction to intellectual property and technology transfer. The last session of the workshop offered the opportunity to discuss the analysis of the pre-workshop questionnaire, to summarise and confirm the major findings of the workshop and to pave the way forward. Overall, the workshop was designed to be interactive and most sessions made provision for practical sessions where smaller groups had to discuss a particular topic and give feedback to the rest of the group. Each delegate received a workshop book containing information on the venue, the programme and session notes. The detailed programme is available in Annexure B.

3. WORKSHOP DELEGATES The workshop targeted senior policy makers at the level of Directors / Permanent Secretaries with responsibility for research and innovation at national level as well as research leaders and senior R&I Managers at the levels of Deputy Vice-Chancellor responsible for research, Director of Research or Senior Manager in the central / departmental Research Support Office and academics taking on a research management role. A total number of 39 delegates participated in the workshop (including the facilitators). A total number of 26 delegates came from SADC countries other than South Africa. Eleven (11) of the 14 SADC countries were represented at the workshop. The breakdown of representatives from government and from research institutions per country is portrayed in the table below.

Country Number of delegates from government departments

Number of delegates from research institutions

Angola 1 1

Botswana 1 2

Lesotho 3 0

Malawi 2 2

Mauritius 0 1

Mozambique 2 1

Namibia 2 0

South Africa 6 6

Swaziland 1 2

Zambia 1 1

Zimbabwe 2 1

TOTAL 21 17


The complete list of delegates is available in Annexure C.

4. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP SESSIONS The major points of each session will be summarised in this section. Profiles of the presenters are available in Annexure D. 4.1 Opening of the workshop

4.1.1. Welcoming the delegates

Ms Anneline Morgan, Director of Africa Co-operation at the DST, South Africa welcomed all the delegates, explained the background and the purpose of the workshop and allowed delegates to introduce themselves. She called attention to the following points

In general there is limited research capacity and research coordination in Africa;

It is essential to invest in R&I to contribute to economic development and to increase the global contribution to research output;

No country in Africa has reached the 1% contribution of GDP to research as yet; and

Increasing the investment in R&I is essential to set a national research agenda. 4.1.2 Remarks from the SADC Chair

Dr Emingarda Castelbranco from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Angola made remarks on behalf of the SADC Chair. She gave a brief overview of the state of higher education and science, technology and innovation in Angola with a focus on what Angola has done to make progress. In 2010 a Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology was established with the mission to prepare, conduct, execute and control the policies in the field of higher education and science, technology and innovation. This has reinforced Angola‟s commitment to creating conditions to propel the country in the development of science and technology. Higher education in Angola The higher education sector in Angola has seen remarkable growth in the six years of peace, between 2001/2 and 2008. During this time the number of citizens with degrees doubled and the percentage of academic staff with a Masters or doctoral qualification increased from 10% in 2001 to 20% in 2008. Currently there are seven public universities and 10 private universities in the country. These institutions have created new opportunities for training and sustainable development in Angola. Research, technological development, entrepreneurship and innovation The following important developments were noted:

Adoption of three important governing documents – National Policy for Science, Technology and Innovation; National Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation; Coordinating Mechanism of the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation.


Hosting of the 2nd National Conference of Science and Technology in which 40 international scientists from countries such as South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Europe, USA, Canada and Brazil participated.

Hosting the 3rd Fair of the Creator-Inventor.

Launch of the Scientific Journal of Science and Technology.

Completion of a survey on laboratory and scientific potential in Angola.

Launching of scientific cooperation agreement between Angola and South Africa. Dr Castelbranco concluded by sharing important components of the National Policy for Science, Technology and Innovation. She pointed out that the goal of the Policy was to set guidelines to ensure that science, technology and innovation have a greater impact on the national economy and that it contributes effectively to human development. The goals of the Policy are organised to support three pillars:

Organisation and development of the National System on Science, Technology and

Innovation;

Contribute to the sustainable development of Angola through science, technology and innovation; and

Funding the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation. 4.1.3 Remarks from South Africa

Dr Andrew Kaniki, Executive Director of Knowledge Fields Development at the National Research Foundation (NRF) explained the mandate of the NRF and provided an overview of the NRF Strategic Plan, titled NRF Vision 2015. The mission of the NRF is to contribute to the knowledge economy in South Africa to attain at least 1% of the global R&D output by 2015. South Africa is currently contributing 0.16% to global research output. The vision of the NRF is to ensure world-class research, a transformed society and a sustainable environment. This vision will be guided by the following strategic goals:

Internationally competitive science, technology and innovation systems;

Representative research and technical workforce in South Africa;

World-class science benchmarking and grant systems;

Leading edge research, technology and innovation platforms; and

A vibrant national science system. Dr Kaniki stressed the fact that we cannot talk seriously about research without adequate investment. The NRF‟s investment has grown from R945 million in 2010 to R1,3 billion in 2011, with just under 3000 researchers supported as grant holders in 2011. The NRF‟s investments are guided by a set of principles that include the following:

A healthy balance between strategy-driven and demand-pull;

Effective, goal oriented resource allocation;

Competitive funding;

Merit-based and rigorous peer review;

The PhD as a driver;

Cross-fertilisation of talent within the National System of Innovation;

Fairness, transparency, accountability; and

Transformation and excellence.


Human capacity development is seen as a key component for research excellence. For this reason the NRF has programmes supporting the full research excellence pipeline, from the next generation of researchers to the emerging researchers to the established researchers. The NRF promotes international competitive research through various instruments including:

The NRF rating system. o Currently approximately 85% of the rated researchers are attached to South African

universities, with close to 9% being employed by science councils, museums or national facilities.

o Studies have shown that the top performing universities in South Africa host the largest percentage of rated researchers in relation to the total number of academic staff.

The South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) o Between 2007 and 2011, 92 Chairs were awarded. These Chairs are spread

across all disciplines - Natural and Agricultural Sciences (46%), Engineering and Applied Technology (22%), Health Sciences (17%), Humanities (10%) and Social Sciences (5%).

o In 2012 another 60 Chairs were approved for funding and the process of recruitment for these Chairs has commenced.

The Centres of Excellence (CoE) o The NRF are currently supporting 8 CoE‟s in the areas of Biomedical TB research,

Birds as keys to biodiversity conservation, Invasion biology, Tree health biotechnology, Catalysis, Strong materials, Epidemiological modelling and analysis and Applied Centre for climate and earth system sciences.

o The CoE‟s collectively graduated 60 Masters and 24 doctoral students in 2009, compared to 39 and 21 respectively in 2007.

Dr Kaniki concluded by saying that the South African research system is characterised by a below par spending that consequently restricts research performance. For this reason an increase in the % of GDP allocated to research becomes critical. 4.1.4 Opening address

Dr David Langley, the Director of Research and Enterprise Development at the University of Bristol delivered the opening address titled “A view from the global hill for research and innovation”. Dr Langley gave emphasis to the fact that the best fundamental research is driven by curiosity and warned that research institutions have to think what this means to the public at large and to Government. They also need to increasingly focus on big questions and grand challenges that affect society and the planet and they have to communicate more effectively on what all of this means in a way that is more accessible to policy makers. He identified the biggest challenge for universities as the ability to work coherently and in particular to demonstrate how they add to the totality of activities rather than appear as disparate groups of individual research projects. In addition they need to work much more in partnership with other universities, nationally and internationally and universities will need stronger and more meaningful institutional (and governmental) strategies. Dr Langley then discussed the role of higher education in economic growth, the importance of national policy as well as internationalisation and ended off with a discussion on his thoughts about research management and administration.


The role of higher education in economic growth He stated that higher education is central to economic growth and pointed out that universities have to demonstrate this to convince Government to invest more in research. He highlighted some of the challenges that universities will have to deal with. This includes the fact that governments usually need more immediate timescales while research more than often is iterative and long term. Demonstrating the impact of government funded research is also becoming a serious requirement while the challenge for universities is to predict and articulate impact in advance. National policy Dr Langley emphasised that national policy should support a strong and innovative national research base to ensure prosperity in a globalised knowledge based economy. Internationalisation Dr Langley indicated that world class research is inherently international. Furthermore the grant challenges are global, interdisciplinary and transnational. Internationalisation adds to the reputation and profile of a university, major funding bodies are beginning to offer support for international collaborations and many major companies are global. He stressed that the support for international research should be maintained and strengthened and identified the following as essential components:

Governments need to maintain investment in their national research base to secure economic prosperity, tap into new sources of innovation and growth and sustain vital connections across the global research landscape;

International collaboration should be embedded into national research strategies;

Research funders (including government) should provide greater support for international collaboration through mobility grants and mechanisms that support networks;

National border agencies should minimise barriers to the flow of talented people and ensure that visa regulations aren‟t too bureaucratic;

Funders of global research programmes should devise ways to better co-ordinate their efforts, share good practice and maximise impact; and

International capacity building should be a priority.

Research Management and Administration Dr Langley indicated that research management and administration has grown in parallel with the increasing complexity of research and funding. Funding is more competitive and larger in scale, funding calls are changing and favour excellence with critical mass, funding is more milestone driven, subject to more governance, audit and bureaucracy, research is more multi-disciplinary involving partners not only across disciplines but across institutions and country borders. There is also the increasing requirement to demonstrate the impact and benefit of research. Subsequently, research management and administration is important because it is critical for funders and universities that:

• Resources are properly costed, priced, negotiated and managed; • Researchers are supported by skilled, high-quality professional support throughout

the research cycle; • Risks associated with research projects are well managed; and


• Research has the greatest potential to deliver key milestones, achievements, innovations and impact (economic, societal).

Dr Langley concluded with a summary of the key solutions to some of the challenges that we face in terms of R&I and R&I management:

Universities should focus on quality and ask the right questions to ensure relevance of their research;

Capacity building in general and developing the next generation of researchers in particular is essential;

Universities require good partners in open innovation;

Collaboration with industry and with each other is essential – this requires visionary leadership and mutual respect;

Universities have to develop skills to advise and inform policy makers;

Public funds should be used wisely;

Support for international research is critical; and

Skilled and experienced research managers and administrators are key enablers of excellence in research.

4.2 Session I: The state and challenges of research and innovation management in

SADC Dr José Jackson-Malete, the Deputy-Director of Research at the University of Botswana and the Vice-President of SADC and African Partnerships at SARIMA provided a brief overview of what SARIMA is and what the role and activities of the SARIMA SADC Portfolio entails. After this, she continued to discuss the state of R&I in SADC, the state of R&I management in SADC and the challenges for management. Her formal presentation was followed by group discussions and feedback session. SARIMA SADC Portfolio

SARIMA SADC members have grown significantly over the years (133 in 2007 to 295 in 2011). However, the vast majority of members currently are from South Africa.

The SADC Portfolio has the following priorities: o To increase the number of SADC members (outside of RSA) by 50% by 2013; o To develop a comprehensive SADC R&I management programme in SARIMA; o To increase the number of SARIMA capacity building programmes in SADC

countries; o To establish SADC relevant content in the SARIMA Conference Programme; o To increase the number of SADC facilitators at SARIMA events; and o To increase the number of SARIMA proposals submitted for funding involving

SADC region.

The state of R&I in SADC

In Africa, the business sector invests relatively little in R&D in most countries, with government being the most important funding sector;

Government and higher education institutions are the most important performers of R&D;

Most developing countries invest less than 1 % GDP in R&D;

The drivers of economic competitiveness are human capital and technological change (knowledge production and innovation);

The African content has a limited skilled R&I workforce; and


Doctorate holders have a research qualification and are a pillar of the research system. Their presence is an indicator of a country‟s attractiveness for new and foreign talents. However, there are not enough doctorates in Africa.

The state of R&I Management in SADC Dr Jackson-Malete used three primary sources to demonstrate the state of R&I Management in SADC. That is, the RIMI4AC Project Benchmarking Study (Kirkland et al, 2011), SADC IP Management Study (Neba, 2011) and the Global Research Report – Africa (Thomson Reuters, 2010). The following were emphasised based on the resource documents:

Research strategy: o Over 90% of institutions indicated that they had a research policy or strategy

drafted. o Almost 85% of research management offices indicated that they were involved in

the development and implementation of the research strategy. o All the universities agreed that the research management office, research board,

Senate, faculties and departments should be key groups involved in setting up the institutional research strategy and that external stakeholders such as the private sector should also be involved.

o 40% indicated that research strategies are reviewed every five years; another 40% indicated that there was no specific review term.

o Over 50% reported that their strategy was well known and / or well communicated. o Limited information about institutions performance or their strengths and

weaknesses was available. Sources of information included annual reports, annual audits of research outputs, the Vice-Chancellor‟s reports and annual performance systems. However, in some cases, these types of reports were not available.

o All universities thought that they needed to develop more methods, indicators and matrices to assess performance.

Support for submission of external proposals: o 40% reported that researchers were required to submit proposals through the

research management office, but most did not and tended to consult the research management office only when they experience problems with their proposals.

o Institutions have limited knowledge about who has received external funding at most universities, except perhaps in the Finance / Bursar‟s office.

Costing and pricing of external proposals: o Less than one third of research policies stated a rate for overheads and there is no

clear guidance also on whether staff were allowed to claim extra salary costs (from externally funded projects).

o All institutions agreed that staff costs; overheads and indirect costs; purchase processes; and incentives for staff were a complicated area in general.

Legal support: o 57% of the universities stated that they used external sources for legal advice at

some stage during the application process. o Just over 25% reported that they did not consult external advice (or they did not

know of any cases where this had happened). o 18% stated that they relied on their own in-house legal counsel.

Project management and control: o Almost all institutions indicated that there were no mechanisms in place for

monitoring external grants.


o Responsibility was with the principal investigator or the research team. o In some institutions, monitoring was included in the research management office

function including activities such as reminding researchers of project deadlines and checking whether targets or deliverables stated in the respective project proposal have been met.

o They were of the opinion that training in project management ought to be compulsory for all principal investigators.

Research capacity development: o 50% of the group reported that training for principal investigators and /or project

managers was available but not compulsory in their universities.

External collaboration: o For almost every country the most frequent collaborative partner is the USA as a

consequence of researchers who have studied in the USA maintaining links with those research groups when they return home.

o The UK and Germany are the other common partners.

Intellectual Property (IP) Management: o Patent laws were reported to be administered across several ministries including

the Ministries of Trade, Commerce and Industry or their equivalents, the Ministries of Law and Constitutional Affairs or their equivalents.

o A few countries have set up dedicated IP offices. These include the Zimbabwe IP Office, Copyright Administration in Zambia, the Registrar of Companies and Intellectual Property in Botswana and the Copyright Society of Malawi.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Systems: o Offices responsible for IP governance are generally known to be understaffed and

underequipped, with information at their disposal rarely searched and used by researchers.

o Shortage of technical (scientific and engineering) and legal expertise, and where legal expertise does exist, is not generally very well versed in matters relating to the acquisition and maintenance of IPR.

o It is experienced as a challenge to attract and retain scientists and engineers to join IP offices, largely due to government salaries being uncompetitive with those of the private sector.

o IP institutions often poorly understood within government bureaucracies and their operations have been accorded low priority.

o Most IP offices are under-budgeted by the ministries to which they report, or by government treasuries.

o SADC countries, with the exception of South Africa generally performed poorly on the IPR ranking, with Zimbabwe and Zambia ranked 100 and 105 respectively on a list of 115 countries surveyed

IP Laws: o Are generally outdated.

Cooperation in IP: o African Regional IP Organisation (ARIPO) members cooperate mostly on industrial

property (IP excluding copyright) and on biopiracy, especially in the area of traditional knowledge.

o No cooperative copyright treaties amongst SADC member countries exist currently. o There is no harmonization of copyright laws in the SADC region.


Group discussion and feedback Groups were requested to identify the key challenges faced by SADC institutions in R&I management and they then had to draft some basic points for a SADC-wide programme to strengthen R&I management. The groups identified the following as challenges:

Limited financial resources;

Fragmentation and lack of coordination of research;

Government perceived to have limited interest in research compared to teaching;

Lack of networking;

Limited capacity (human resources and infrastructure);

Not enough higher education institutions to address the demand for higher education;

Non-operational national policies;

No/limited prioritization on national level;

Brain drain;

Lack of enforcement of quality control;

Lack of experience and tools for monitoring and evaluation;

Lack of research publications – research is done but not converted to articles;

Limited time for research;

Lack of training opportunities for capacity building;

Lack of IP offices; and

The gap that exist between researchers and policy makers.

The groups identified the following as components of a SADC-wide programme to strengthen R&I Management:

Communicating science and its impact o Support for research collaboration in particular to address problems of the

continent. Targets for research output, including training of masters and doctoral students should be set in the context of such collaboration.

o A database of SADC researchers and what the focus of their research is. o Share knowledge and experience on developing IP policies. o Develop skills and expertise to attract external funding. o Develop a culture to identify and acknowledge SADC-specific strengths e.g.

indigenous knowledge. 4.3 Session II: Prioritising research at the institutional level and supporting case

studies

4.3.1 Session IIA: Prioritising research and innovation at the institutional level

Prof Yogeshkumar Naik, the Director of Research and Innovation at the National University of Science and Technology in Zimbabwe, started off by asking a fundamental question: Why should we do research? According to him the main reasons are to create new knowledge to enable us to improve livelihoods, to create opportunities for innovation, to create a sustainable environment for growth and to contribute to economic development. He highlighted some of the challenges for North-South collaboration that included the fact that the North generally has good government funding and infrastructure as well as sufficiently trained human power while the South is characterised by poor infrastructure, inadequate government funding and insufficient trained human capital.


In terms of prioritisation of research he highlighted a few things that SADC universities need to do. These include:

To become or to remain competitive;

To address SADC researchers concerns;

To attain international recognition;

To provide research funding locally to „kick start‟ research;

To „diversify‟ from HIV/AIDS related research funding;

To identify local needs, to do applied research and to use indigenous knowledge systems where necessary or appropriate;

To identify niches of „basic‟ research for current and future local needs;

To identify partners with infrastructure in the “North” for collaboration on other projects; and

To create opportunities for entrepreneurship and commercialisation. He emphasised that SADC universities have to meet the needs of local societies and should focus on local issues/concerns, poverty alleviation and entrepreneurship. Prof Naik‟s presentation moreover focused on potential research support structures and functions. He suggested the following structure and functions as part of a research support office:

Director – With overall responsibility for designing, developing and reviewing institutional R&I strategic plans, policies, procedures and systems; developing and managing the Strategic Plan, performing international best practice and national imperatives, identifying and exploiting alternative sources of research funding, developing a university wide and focused research culture and agenda, providing research skills training, introducing research-mentoring programmes for junior academic staff and managing the Research Board activities.

Training officer – With responsibility for doctoral project proposal writing, grant proposal writing, research methodology training, manuscript writing, research ethics, conference presentations, database/literature mining, statistical analysis and grantsmanship.

Support activities Officer – With responsible for ISI Web of Science/Scopus, young (emerging) researcher programmes, student/supervisor relationships, promotion procedures, mentoring programmes, annual research days and a seminars programme.

Funding sources Officer – With responsibility for awards and prizes, funding application calls, searching for opportunities e.g. EU (FP8), TWAS, IFS, DfID etc.

International grants administration Officer – With responsibility for ethics issues, IP issues, report tracking, closing projects and final reporting.

Local grants administration Officer – With responsibility for ethics issues, IP issues, report tracking, closing projects and final reporting.


Administrative Officer – With responsibility for registers of all projects, courses and workshop programming, seminars programming, annual reports, register and reports of all training courses and workshops.

Communications Officer – With responsibility for the newsletter, promotional material, expos and fairs, news briefs for policy makers and web page maintenance.

Prof Naik accentuated the importance of networking to enable participation in bigger grant opportunities. However, in SADC the challenges for the researchers are isolation due to the lack of regional and international contacts. He expressed support for a SADC database of research institutions, researchers and their areas of expertise as one of the means to overcome this challenge. According to him, another challenge that can hamper networking is the lack of confidence. He is of the opinion that participation in courses and receiving research grants for projects will go a long way to build researcher confidence. He concluded the formal presentation by highlighting that the presentation was merely descriptive and that prioritisation should be done by considering the national, local and institutional needs.

Group discussion and feedback The following assignments were given to the groups: (a) The research support model suggested is not perfect. Given resource constraints

(financial as well as manpower) suggest five ways in which to improve on it. Feedback from group discussions It was suggested that some of the structures be merged. One director can oversee the following “units”:

Communication and Publication.

Funding and Grantsmanship.

Training and Support activity.

Administration.

Commercialisation. (b) There may be additional needs for researchers besides those that were described.

Suggest five possible needs of SADC researchers. Feedback from group discussions

The need for change management - there are many rigid and outdated systems that discourage researchers.

Competitive salaries, that are closer to private sector, to retain scholars in academia.

Conducive policies for example recognition of different types of outputs for tenure (at universities) e.g. patents to be weighed along with publications.

An innovation fund for „blue skies‟ research to be conducted and hopefully commercialised.

Rapid implementation of research ideas within the prioritised areas. (c) Junior researchers need „seed‟ money for projects and to develop their careers. Suggest

five ways in which governments could assist younger researchers.


Feedback from group discussions

Ministries should budget for research funds to carry out research (on ministry specific issues/problems).

There should be a National Research Council to manage (and coordinate) the research funds for national research priorities.

Provide bursaries for young promising researchers.

Tax holidays on salaries for young researchers. d) Mentoring junior researchers is essential to instill ethics, discipline and integrity. Suggest

five issues that junior researchers should learn from mentors. Feedback from group discussions

Ethics in research and ethical research practices.

The benefits and „art‟ of collaborative research.

Appropriate „tools‟ and resources that can be identified through collaboration.

Mentors can identify potential opportunities through their own networks.

Mentors can assist by using their own networks or helping to identify partners for collaborations that result in „joint‟ applications, research, publications, grant administration, intellectual property and patenting endeavors.

4.3.2 Session II B: Case Studies

4.3.2.1 Case study 1: How to introduce a strategic research framework and prioritise

research activities

Prof Amanda Lourens, the Vice-rector of Research and Planning at the North-West University in South Africa, demonstrated how her institution shaped their research agenda through the introduction of a focussed approach. She discussed this in the context of national demands and international trends and accentuated the advantages of a focused approach to research. She argued that at national level there are a range of demands that require universities to focus their research activities, concentrating resources on a more limited number of areas. Furthermore, international trends support universities adopting a research agenda which identifies and develops strategic priority areas and she referred to Canada, England, Scotland, Ireland and Australia as examples. According to her the benefits of a focussed approach include the following:

To provide research with a high profile in the university and to continually build that profile;

To build research capacity;

To provide the university with a strategic identity;

To differentiate the university from other institutions; and

To channel resources into strategically important areas. In general the criteria for focused grouping will include:

Critical mass: There must be an existing core of researchers with a proven track record in the field.

Leadership capacity.

Capacity and competence: There must be resources to support the research, post-graduate programmes, including qualified staff and infrastructure as well as strategic collaboration and partners.


Financial resources: There must be the prospect of long-term research funding to ensure sustainability and there should preferably already be committed resources.

Multi-disciplinarity: The selected field should preferably be multi-disciplinary and promote cross-disciplinary collaborations.

Distinctive: The field should be distinctive or complementary to research activities at other national universities.

Prof Lourens explained the Research Entity Model of the North-West University and discussed the advantages that this model had for the researchers and the institution. She highlighted the following advantages for the researchers:

It made research a priority of the university and it thus created a greater awareness of

research across the institution and succeeded in getting more people involved and

productive;

It resulted in a better allocation of resources and increased influx of resources;

It resulted in better output;

It ensured improved training of researchers;

It created groups and units that now have national profile;

It helped establish a research culture, as the entire research process was now managed;

Decisions were made in a more directed manner;

The approach guided people to conduct research in a business-like fashion; and

It led to investing in strengths. For the institution the following advantages were apparent:

Quality improvement as evident through external evaluation;

Increase in research output (publications, research masters and doctorates);

Market attractiveness and external recognition of research;

Created national and international visibility and influence;

Encouraged and created enthusiasm amongst staff;

Increase in research time;

Postgraduate education integrated into research and an improvement of quality of postgraduate education;

Research Support office was created; and

Focused strategic planning, monitoring and review within focus areas. In conclusion, Prof Lourens shared the lessons learnt from the implementation of a focused research model. Noteworthy are the following points:

The focused approach is difficult to implement in established universities, where systems and processes are entrenched, and „turf‟ has been established. It requires very strong leadership;

It should not be permanent structures- five to ten year life span;

It must have focused resources and management;

It must be managed; they cannot be expected to operate in a „virtual environment‟ and still be required to deliver;

It should be positioned within the Faculties;

It must each have strong leadership, preferably at the level of a director;

Additional funding must be made available to drive the Areas of Research Strength to establish them as the primary areas within the university;

Allowance must be made for continued support of individual researchers of high quality whose research does not fit into the theme of any of the focus areas;


Coordinated Research Support is critical;

Buy-in from academic staff s extremely important; and

Strong involvement of external and internal advisors/review teams is important.

4.3.2.2 Case study 2: Setting up a research management office as part of an

institutional strategy Dr Kamija Phiri, the Dean of Postgraduate Studies and Research at the College of Medicine at the University of Malawi stated that excellence in research is highly dependent on two factors, namely, the quality of individual skills and the quality of the research environment. The latter is relevant to the institution and the environment in the broader context. Issues such as funding, adequate infrastructure, robust governance, research incentives and time available for research are all elements of an encouraging research environment. The College of Medicine faced a number of challenges including increasing teaching loads in the face of increasing enrolment, brain-drain and dwindling resources, limited research capacity among faculty and the lack of motivation of staff due to limited research opportunities. He pointed out that these challenges are not unique to the College of Medicine and can be added to a list of other challenges faced by the College and other African institutions. His comprehensive list also included the following:

Predominantly individualized capacity building instead of combined with broader institutional strengthening;

Staff studying abroad – encourage brain drain;

Fragmentation of research and research capacity building by too many players;

Political and economic instability;

Over reliance on international funds;

Poor links to national policymakers, non-governmental organizations, and the public;

Intellectual isolation;

Internationalization of research;

Increasing competitiveness of funding;

Shifting of focus by funding agencies away from informal arrangements with individual researchers and to the assurance of institutional oversight for funded projects; and

Increasing demand for better accountability of resources by the broader society. To address the challenges faced by the College of Medicine they decided to opt for a Research Support Centre (RSC) Model so that the institution is able to attract, train and retain capable researchers. The RSC offers a nexus that anchors research related activities to facilitate evolution of and ensure a corporate identity, motivation, good practice and culture of research. The RSC was established through a capacity development grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and in partnership with the Emma Children‟s Hospital in Amsterdam and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. The activities hosted under the RSC currently include the following:

Individual researcher support through one-on-one consultation on research methodology, data management, statistics and proposal writing and submission.

Governance and compliance -research policies (approvals, good research practice, incentives and intellectual property), clinical trials support and support to the research ethics committee.


Research skills development – developing courses (grant writing, GCP, research methodology, clinical trial design, data management, research integrity, project management, scientific writing) and other skills development initiatives such as research seminars, journal clubs and mentorship.

Information services – offering an information hub on funding opportunities, training opportunities, conferences, collaborations, communication, dissemination of research results, a research database, publication tracking, international relations, knowledge translation and policy maker engagement.

Grants administration – administration, identifying funding opportunities, training opportunities, proposal preparation, budget preparation, submission, financial management of awards, project management and medico-legal services.

Data management - data entry, data audit, statistics and training.

Since its establishment the RSC has made a significant contribution to increase awareness and the appreciation of the importance of research in the College of Medicine. In addition research skills are being developed systematically, the quality of research is improving, data management is done in a sustainable and professional manner, the number of grants awarded to staff has increased due to the improved grants management, research governance has been put in place and consequently incentives were defined and implemented. The establishment of good systems, processes and procedures directly affected the ability of the College to recover indirect costs from research grants. These recovered costs are used to further develop research capacity. Reflecting on the process of establishing the RSC, Dr Phiri shared the following lessons learnt:

Buy-in at all levels is a long-term process and requires lots of effort.

The development of the design and strategy is crucial and should be done at the early stages. This includes aspects such as the terms of reference of the RSC, the institutional positioning (authority versus service driven functionality) and human resourcing.

Sourcing and committing funding is challenging and requires much attention throughout the process.

4.4 Session III: Facilitating research and systems to support R&I management

4.4.1 Session III A: Facilitating research Dr Tembeka Mpako-Ntusi, the Director of Research from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in South Africa focused her presentation on three levels. She discussed research management and administration by looking at the definitions, the historical developments and the current status. She then moved on to the topics of creating a research culture and servant leadership. Research management and administration Dr Mpako-Ntusi defined this as the provision of professional, technical administrative support and/or assistance to staff directly engaged in research and experimental activities. She pointed out that the research enterprise is an integral part of the core business of institutions of higher learning and that as the volume of research increases so does the need for management and support. This is further underlined by the realities facing research institutions such as that institutional excellence is measured by the quality of research


outputs, that research is not a luxury but a survival imperative and that research capacity building is an academic obligation. Group discussion Delegates were asked to identify developments in research management and administration in other SADC countries. The feedback included the following:

Egypt – implementation of incentives to attract researchers working abroad back to the home country.

Zambia – the development of a national framework for research.

Lesotho – development of a national S&T Policy that is currently at parliament. Creating a research culture Dr Mpaku-Ntusi elaborated on the characteristics of a research culture and included the following in the list:

The research enterprise is seen as a shared value;

Academic functions revolve around research activity;

Research practice being a norm that is expected of all academics; and

Research used as a foundation for all scholarship endeavours. Institutions have the obligation to drive research as a core function in the process of establishing and maintaining a vibrant research culture. It must be visible and clearly stated in the institutional vision and mission, it must visibly be promoted and recognised by executive leadership, supported by non-academic structures and personnel, reinforced by policies and practices, through active recruitment and engagement of highly qualified and highly productive researchers, capacity development and support for emerging researchers and recognizing and enhancing the work of active researchers. She included quality assurance and promotion of collaboration as other equally important aspects in building a research culture. Dr Mpaku-Ntusi concluded by emphasising that research management and administration has emerged as a significant role player in the research enterprise. Group discussion Dr Mpaku-Ntusi requested the groups to provide examples of initiatives that are aimed at creating a research culture. The following examples were shared: Mozambique:

Establishment of a national S&T fund.

Establishment of a Ministry of S&T.

Launch of a Research Chairs Programme.

Competitive grants for researchers and students.

Collaboration with international universities on PhD programmes. Swaziland:

The development of a university research agenda through a bottom-up approach. Faculties had to identify areas of strength that they want to develop and this informed the institutional agenda. This resulted in researchers working in groups instead of in isolation.

The establishment of an internal (institutional) research fund. This fund encourages young researchers to collaborate with experienced researchers.


South Africa:

Establishment of bilateral agreements with a number of countries to support inter-regional collaboration.

Servant Leadership Dr Mpaku-Ntusi introduced the concept of servant leadership by arguing that a great leader is first experienced as a servant to others and that true leadership emerges from those whose primary motivation is a deep desire to serve others. She equated this to the characteristics of a good research administrator who takes great pains in serving researchers faithfully, who does whatever it takes to get a proposal out and ensures that an award is managed properly. She shared her rules for the implementation of good research management and administration with the delegates. These are: • Support the research enterprise. • Ensure compliance with rules and regulations. • Protect the integrity of the institution. • Help researchers to adhere to sponsors‟ requirements. • Ensure proper management of grants. She summarised by saying that without research administrators to serve and lead them, our researchers might ignore the admin issues, resulting in the lost trust of sponsors, and in sanctions that might limit or even shut down the research enterprise. Dr Mpaku-Ntusi concluded with reference to work by Krauser, PA (2003) stating that if we want to lead our researchers along the right path, we should also serve them along the way. 4.4.2 Session III B: Examples of systems to support research management There are many examples that could be shared to demonstrate systems to support research management. However, the following two were selected for the workshop based on their relevance to the target audience. 4.4.2.1 A system to support the search for research funding – Research Professional

Africa

Mr Shaun Stuart from Research Africa introduced the Research Professional Africa platform. This is a comprehensive platform offering the latest research funding news and the largest funding opportunities database which can be leveraged to support and strengthen research and development activities across the African continent. The platform is designed for campus/institution-wide access enabling all staff, all faculties, all researchers and all students to search for funding opportunities by discipline and to be notified when new opportunities across the full spectrum of disciplines are published. Research Professional Africa also contains a series of dynamic tools to ensure that news and funding information are effectively shared within institutional research communities. Since 2005, Research Africa has been providing African universities, think-tanks and research institutes with a comprehensive platform of research and development funding opportunities and research funding news, across each entire institution. There are currently up to 5000 open funding opportunities listed which are professionally edited, showing the type of award, potential grant amount and eligibility criteria, with details of application submission. Types of funding on the platform include scholarships, fellowships, directed institutional grants, research project funding, development and capacity development grants, travel and hosting grants


and large calls that necessitate and facilitate collaboration and international networks. There are very many possibilities for African higher education institutions to experience research income growth and expertise development that lie within the Research Professional Africa platform. 4.4.2.2 A system to support research information management - InfoEd Research

Information Management System

Mr Stanley Duncan from InfoEd Global introduced their services. InfoEd‟s products and services include an electronic research administration system that is integrated to enhance collaboration, streamline existing business processes, increase efficiency, and facilitate compliance. The solution delivers flexible implementation and licensing for expansion in other areas of interest. Research funding can come from anywhere – charitable foundations, not-for-profits, and private corporations as well as local, state and federal governments. Regardless of the source, these entities – we call them Sponsors – attach certain requirements to the use of those funds. Regardless of what a Sponsor expects from the research itself, whether it is delivered materials, new technology or a published paper, Sponsors want the research to be managed (administered) and the activities and results of which reported; basically, they want to know what‟s happening with their money. But there‟s more to it than just the money. There are regulations that must be abided, reviews that need to be conducted by individuals and boards, certifications to be acquired, conflicts that must be averted, all of which must be tracked and managed throughout the lifecycle of the research project – something that can go on for years. Directing these different pieces – the money, the certifications, the cooperative agreements, as well as bringing the research to a close, publishing the results and possibly transferring that work to marketing entities for sales or royalties – are all part of the administrative processes occurring behind the scenes, usually performed by administrative staff, while the pure research itself is being carried out by the researcher. Tracking the information that supports a single research project over several years is a complex undertaking. In addition to the mountains of paperwork that can accumulate, there are volumes of constantly changing regulations and requirements with which researchers must stay up-to-date. Getting it wrong can cost a research organization a lot of money and a researcher their reputation, or even their career. Mr Duncan pointed out that based on the above it is clear that research administration has many requirements. The InfoEd system makes provision for various modules including Research Outputs, Grants and Contracts, Research Compliance, Clinical Trials, Animal Facilities and Technology Transfer. In addition the system hosts a funding database called SPIN Africa. 4.5 Session IV: Introduction to Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer 4.5.1 The Intellectual Property Rights Act and the National Intellectual Property

Management Office Dr Mavis Nyatlo the Director of Advisory and Support at the National Intellectual Property Management Office(NIPMO) in South Africa started the session with an introduction to the National Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development (IPR-PFRD) Act and eluded to the structure and function of NIPMO.


The IPR-PFRD Act The purpose of the IPR-PFRD Act is to address the situation where IP, developed by researchers, lies idle at universities or is sold off to private companies, often overseas, with no benefit accruing to the university, the government or the people of South Africa. The over-arching principle at play is that, where state funds have been used to generate IP, the state and the South African public should receive some benefit from that IP. The Act therefore has as its objective that IP emanating from publicly financed research and development is identified, protected, utilised and commercialised for the benefit of the people of the country. The Act deals with disclosure and ownership of IP, institutional arrangements, benefit sharing arrangements, co-financed R&D, government rights, local IP transactions and off-shore IP transactions. NIPMO The IPR-PFRD Act established NIPMO to provide for effective implementation of the Act. It is established as an administrative agency under the Department of Science and Technology with a supporting and a regulatory and compliance role. The Head of NIPMO is appointed by the Minister. NIPMO is guided by an Advisory Board consisting of individuals with experience and expertise in research, research management, the higher education environment, intellectual property protection and management, technology licensing, commercialisation, technology transfer and business. The interim structure of NIPMO makes provision for the Head of NIPMO and three Directors – one for Regulatory and Compliance, one for Advisory Support and Service and one for Operations and Special Projects. Each Director has either two or three staff members supporting their activities. In addition the structure makes provision for a Senior Administrator to the Head as well as a Disclosure Administrator, reporting to the Head. Dr Nyatlo concluded by saying that the IPR-PFRD Act is important for investment into innovation and hence the shift from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-driven economy. 4.5.2 Basics of IP and technology transfer

Dr Michelle Mulder the Manager of Intellectual Property and Business Development at the Medical Research Council in South Africa and the President of SARIMA presented an introduction to IP and technology transfer. She explained what technology transfer is and why it should be done. Next she explained what IP is and its relationship to technology transfer. The final part of her presentation elaborated the basics of commercialisation and setting up a technology transfer office. Technology transfer The definition she provided for technology transfer in a research institution context is the process of transferring research results / intellectual property for implementation in industry and society. Technology transfer is important to ensure societal and economic impact of the research that is done at research institutions. It is in line with international norms that greater emphasis is placed on transferring research results to industry and society.


Intellectual property Dr Mulder described IP as a type of property that results from the creations of the human mind (intellect). Property can be owned, bought, sold, or licensed. There are two broad categories of intellectual property namely tangible IP and intangible IP. Tangible IP includes biological organisms, plant varieties, computer software and engineering drawings while intangible IP includes patents, copyrights, ideas and tacit knowledge. She made the point that IP rights are fundamental to technology transfer, whether protected or not, tangible or intangible since IP is what is transferred / traded. Protected IP has value and is usually a prerequisite for industry partners. Therefore IP management is a vital aspect of technology transfer. Even though IP management and technology transfer are sometimes divided into separate functions / departments at the institutional level they are strongly inter-related. Dr Mulder discussed each of the following examples of IP in more detail:

Patents

Designs

Copyright

Plant Breeders‟ Rights

Trade Marks

Trade Secrets She touched on the topics of confidentiality and public disclosure of information, transfer of materials and IP and contracts. For the latter she emphasized that even if the institution does not have a technology transfer function it must ensure that the institution‟s best interests are protected in the IP clauses of all relevant contracts. All funding, research, collaboration, consortium, and consulting agreements should contain IP clauses that clarify IP ownership issues, and are in compliance with the institution‟s IP policy or strategy. It is also important to ensure that researchers are aware of their obligations, including IP, with respect to contracts relating to their work. Commercialisation Dr Mulder explained that the benefits of commercialisation are to optimize the value of research, to contribute to social and economic development, for the potential financial benefits to inventors and their institutions, to increase the local and international profile of the research, researcher, and the institution and the potential for access to new technologies and capabilities as well as additional research grants, to name a few. Important aspects to consider are the commercialisation process and a commercialisation route. In general the commercialisation process will include the following steps:

Receipt of invention disclosure;

Preliminary evaluation, of novelty and IP ownership, applications and the market;

Provisional protection of IP;

Further development;

Full due diligence, including IP position, detailed market assessment and commercial feasibility

Marketing of the technology to industry;

Commercialization; and

Monitoring and management of income and contracts.


There are several commercialisation routes to select from and Dr Mulder discussed each of the following options:

Licensing;

Assignment;

Spin-out company;

Technology transfer agency / broker;

Direct sale of products and services;

Open source route; and

Research agreement. She explained that the commercialisation route that is selected will depend on the financial investment required, the availability of funds, potential return on investment, the nature of the technology/product/process itself, the target market and how it can best be reached, the stage of development, the availability of management and the aspirations of the inventor. Setting up a Technology Transfer Office (TTO) Dr Mulder elaborated on the functions of a TTO. These will usually include the following:

Managing the intellectual assets of the institution;

Provide the link between research and industry;

Protect the interests of the institution and researchers in dealings with third parties;

Assist researchers in developing, protecting and commercialising technologies;

Enables institutions to make a contribution to economic and social development and give something back to the taxpayers;

Development and implementation of policies, strategies and procedures for IP management and technology transfer;

Identification, assessment, protection and commercialisation of IP generated by the institution‟s researchers;

Assistance with sourcing funding for commercialisation;

Assistance with establishing partnerships for technology development and transfer;

Negotiation of IP rights;

Marketing and licensing of IP to industry;

Management of income and awards for inventors;

Assistance with material transfer and confidentiality agreements;

Assistance with the formation of spin-out companies;

Assistance to spin-out companies; and

Awareness raising and education of researchers. The broad areas of services that are provided by such an office are IP related, business/market related, research-related, awareness raising and contracts. The TTO has to provide the mechanism, processes, skills and environment to act on ideas that can evolve into profitable innovations. Answers to the following questions can guide institutions to evaluate the need for a TTO.

What are the organisational circumstances, culture, philosophy and policies?

How much research takes place (R&D intensity)?

Have any of your researchers made inventions to date? How have these been dealt with?

Does the institution receive funding from or interact with industry?

Does your institution have legal expertise for dealing with contracts?

Is there funding and capacity for a TTO?


Dr Mulder deliberated on different structures and models for TTOs and considered the related requirements. The requirements that she highlighted were staff, policies, systems and procedures, documents, funding and institutional support. She discussed important relationships such as with government, with funders and with industry. Dr Mulder concluded with advice on getting started to establish a TTO and emphasised the following steps:

Decide whether you need a TT function.

Determine the appropriate structure and model.

Determine the mandate of the TTO.

Get institutional buy-in.

Capacitate staff.

Develop policies.

Set up systems and procedures (international best practice).

Develop documentation – make use of available information resources.

Raise awareness amongst researchers and management. Group discussion Groups had to discuss the following two aspects: (a) The challenges involved in setting up and running a TTO.

The groups identified the following challenges:

Obtaining support from higher levels on an IP Policy that is linked to a national S&T policy.

Policy that make a case for revision of legislation.

Setting it up on the basis of significant commitment – from government, the users of IP and those who will benefit.

Users of IP should be consulted in the process of deciding on the structure of a technology transfer function.

Expertise to develop policy.

The human resources and skills to operate a TTO.

Adequate financial resources to set-up and sustain a TTO.

(b) If IP and technology transfer are necessary activities and to what extend are they being addressed. All the countries indicated that they are necessary. The following comments were made for some countries: Zimbabwe

The National University of Science and Technology has an IP Policy.

Harare Institute of Technology and Chinhoyi University of Technology are both at the drafting stage of their IP Policies.

Nationally there is a ministerial committee on the proposed National IP Policy and ARIPO is assisting with the drafting.

Namibia

There is a legal framework – the Research, Science and Technology Act.

There is a draft innovation policy driven by the Ministry of Education within the S&T Directorate.

There is a draft industrial policy driven by the ministry of Trade and Industry.


Implementation of these policies is driven by the Polytechnik of Namibia and the Namibia Business Innovation Centre.

Annual Innovation Awards are given to business.

Swaziland

There are only sensitisation and awareness programs driven by the University of Swaziland.

An IP office exists within government.

Patent, Trademarks and Design Act of 1936, amended in 1969 are currently being amended.

Botswana

There is a Register of Companies and Intellectual Property within the Ministry of Trade.

Department of Research Science and Technology focuses on IKS and technology transfer.

No IPR Policy yet.

(c) The risks and potential consequences if IP and technology transfer capacity is not built. The responses included the following:

To be exploited.

Lack of commercialisation and hence the lack of a catalyst for industrial development.

No rewards for inventors that can contribute to brain drain.

Patents are used to “rate” institutions.

Becoming consumers of the inventions of others.

4.6 Session V: SADC training and capacity building needs Dr José Jackson-Malete led a discussion on the outcome of the pre-workshop questionnaire to establish SADC R&I management training needs. The responses were added to the responses that were gathered during a survey to SADC institutions in 2011. A total of 60 responses from 11 SADC countries were analysed. Workshop delegates were of the opinion that the sample is too small to be representative and recommended that an effort be made to increase the sample size. This recommendation will be acted upon and the analysis will also consider the priorities linked to a specific country. Nevertheless, the available responses at this point in time highlighted the following priorities. Items were selected if 35% or more of respondents identified that item as a priority. Practical training, exchange programmes and access to mentors were all highly rated by the respondents as a very valuable mode of training and capacity development.

1.1.1 Research management training needs (a) Basic level training (require introduction to topics for individuals with no

previous training and limited exposure to a particular topic):

Policy writing 38%

Intellectual property and commercialisation 35%

(b) Advanced level training (further training for individuals who previously have

been exposed/trained on a particular topic):


Project management 53%

Data analysis and report writing 49%

Writing and publishing skills 47%

Science communication 44%

Event management/planning (e.g. conferences/workshops) 42%

Fundraising Grant proposal writing

40%

1.1.2 Intellectual property training needs (a) Basic level training (introduction topics for individuals with no previous training

and limited exposure to a particular topic):

Evaluating inventions/due diligence Intellectual property audits Working with the current policy/legislation environment Broader innovation and triple helix issues

46%

Intellectual property protection Commercialisation strategies IP and tax issues Exchange control Licensing

42%

Negotiation Corporate governance

38%

(b) Advanced level training (further training for individuals who previously have

been exposed/trained on a particular topic):

Project management 54%

Drafting business plans Raising funding

46%

Intellectual property protection Intellectual property and technology transfer awareness raising amongst researchers

42%

Information management 38%

4.7 Closing remarks

The closing remarks were presented by Dr Castelbranco on behalf of the SADC Chair, Dr Michelle Mulder from SARIMA and Ms Anneline Morgan from DST. It was said that this workshop marked the beginning of a process to build capacity in R&I management in order to facilitate and promote research, development and innovation in the SADC region. The response to the workshop, bringing together senior government officials and senior academics together is proof of the commitment of SADC to advance science, technology and innovation. This workshop created a platform for awareness raising, networking and cooperation that should be kept alive. It is envisaged that a regional programme will be developed as a long-term intervention taking into account the workshop findings.


5. WORKSHOP FINDINGS The workshop findings were crystallised from the comments that were made and the discussions that took place during the workshop. It focuses in particular on the challenges that were identified and the related recommendations that were made by the delegates. The challenges and recommendations are listed below in no particular order.

Challenge 1: Lack of financial and infrastructural resources both at national and institutional level. Note: there is a general perception that government support favours teaching compared to research. Recommendations #1:

Governments should demonstrate a firm re-commitment to allocate 1% of the GDP to research. It is recommended that this be discussed at the next SADC Ministers meeting.

Guidelines/framework on how this 1% is calculated should be provided to governments.

To work towards an independent ministry for science and technology in countries where it does not exist.

Milestones should be set to establish what should be produced if 1% of GDP is allocated to research.

SADC wide support for a grant searching platform(s) should be investigated.

Workshops of this kind should be arranged prior to every SADC Ministers meeting to create a channel through which issues can be raised and feedback given.

That sessions on R&I related topics be arranged as part of each SADC Ministerial meeting. These sessions can take place prior to or after the ministers meeting.

Ways to share infrastructure within counties and across SADC should be investigated.

Institutions should develop the skills to identify and obtain research grants.

#1 It should be noted that the African Science Technology and Innovation Indicators (ASTII) Programme was initiated by NEPAD in 2007 and that a first pilot report on the first phase of the project has been published. The overall objective of the programme is to provide means and opportunity in Africa to engage in mutual learning and sharing to improve the measurement of science, technology and innovation. The initiative focuses on the following four specific objectives:

To develop and cause the adoption of internationally comparable STI indicators

To build human and institutional capacities for developing and using STI indicators, as well as conducting related surveys

To enable African countries to participate in international programmes for STI indicators

To inform African countries on the state of STI on the continent. Both the OECD and the Centre of Excellence for Science and Technology Indicators (CESTI), based at the Human Science Research Council in South Africa, are involved in the study.

Recommendation: That discussion be held with the NEPAD coordinator of the ASTII

Programme to establish the extent of SADC participation and how recommendations from the SADC workshop can feed into the further roll-out of the programme.


Challenge 2: Fragmentation and lack of prioritisation and coordination of R&I on national and institutional level. Recommendations:

To work towards an independent ministry for science and technology in countries where it does not exist.

To create platform(s) to share good practise in the establishment of good research support structures and functions.

Challenge 3: Lack of networking and collaboration at various levels including within and between institutions, within and between SADC countries, with industry and with research management and other organisations supporting capacity development in research management. Recommendations:

Ensure that there is a Desk Officer for science, technology and innovation in the SADC secretariat.

Develop a concept for a regional science, technology and innovation fund #2.

Develop programmes to support research collaboration within SADC in particular to focus on problems of the continent and sharing of infrastructure. Programmes should set targets for research output both in terms of publications and postgraduate student graduations.

Establish ways to link International Offices at institutional level across SADC.

Cultivate a culture to recognise, appreciate and take advantage of our own strengths (e.g. indigenous knowledge).

Establish a user-friendly database of SADC institutions, researchers and areas of specialisation to promote interaction, networking and collaboration #3.

Create platform(s) and forums to share experiences, good practice and documents (amongst others IP policies).

Investigate tactics to involve industry as partners and to strengthen collaboration with industry.

#2 It was acknowledged at the SADC workshop that the SADC Ministers took a decision

previously that such a fund needs to be established and apparently the implementation of such a fund is still under discussion in the SADC Secretariat.

Recommendation: That the importance of conceptualising and implementing such a fund

earmarked for research and innovation be stressed at the next SADC ministerial meeting.

#3 It has been acknowledged that the SADC Secretariat has been mandated to develop

a STI Portal for SADC and that initial work has been done in this regard. Recommendation: That the requirements as expressed by the SADC Workshop

delegates be considered by the SADC Secretariat in the further development of the portal.


Challenge 4: Limited capacity at and underperformance of research institutions. This is relevant to the critical mass of researchers, the numbers and throughput of postgraduate students, limited contribution to global output, the numbers of skilled research managers and visionary institutional leadership. Recommendations:

Develop a competency framework and capacity development programme for researchers and R&I managers/administrators and leadership.

Establish mentorship as well as co-supervision programmes.

Re-look at the retirement age of academics.

Investigate means to ensure that research is converted to publications.

Challenge 5: SADC is devolving too many of its skilled R&I capacity to developed countries - brain drain. Recommendations:

Investigate mechanisms on national and institutional level to attract and retain excellent academics.

Challenge 6: Limited skills and tools available for monitoring and evaluation of R&I performance. Recommendations:

Investigate approaches to enable all countries and institutions to collect and measure the outputs of R&I.

Challenge 7: Lack of the following related to intellectual property and technology transfer:

Knowledge and support structures;

Funding;

Human resources;

Policy (or where policies exist it often are outdated); and

Cooperation between all government departments responsible for intellectual property and technology transfer.

Recommendations:

Create ways to learn from best practices and precedent.

Establish approaches to support the formulation/review of policy.

Develop capacity development and awareness raising initiatives.

Establish means to share intellectual property resources.

Facilitate cooperation within the region on all of the above.


Challenge 8: There exists a gap between researchers/institutions and policy makers. Recommendations:

Create opportunities for engagement.

Develop skills at institutional level to communicate research and its contribution (to general population and government).

6. WORKSHOP EVALUATION

Delegate evaluation showed that participants rated the workshop very highly. They indicated that they found it very useful and informative and that similar events should be offered more frequently. They viewed it as an excellent platform for awareness raising, networking and cooperation. In addition it created the opportunity to voice issues that are posing challenges to them, to learn from other delegates and to be trained on highly relevant topics. It furthermore offered an opportunity for government and research institutions to interact on these important issues. The workshop evaluation report is available in Annexure E.

7. FOLLOW-UP ACTION PLAN This workshop marked the beginning of a process to build capacity in R&I management in order to facilitate and promote research, development and innovation in the SADC region. Consequently SARIMA was invited by SADC Member States to develop a proposal for a Regional R&I Management Capacity Development Programme in consultation with the SADC Secretariat, taking into consideration the workshop findings. A proposal for an intervention plan to strengthen R&I management in SADC is attached as Annexure F.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following acknowledgements were made:

SADC Member States for participating in the workshop;

The SADC Secretariat for their guidance;

South Africa for hosting the workshop;

SARIMA for facilitating the workshop; and

International partners / delegates for sharing information.


ANNEXURE A

PRE-WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear workshop delegate, We have made provision in the programme for a discussion on your research and innovation management training and capacity building needs. Your input is very important since it will guide us in the further development of training and other related initiatives. Please complete the questionnaire and send it back as soon as possible to [email protected]. We would like to use your input as basis for the discussion on 15 March 2012 and therefore kindly request that you send us your completed form by 5 March 2012.

SECTION A: PARTICIPANT DETAILS 1. Name of institution: Country: 2. Division: 3. Current Position: 4. Educational qualifications completed: (Please mark the relevant qualifications with a X)

Bachelors degree

Diploma

Postgraduate diploma

Honours

Masters

Doctorate

LLB

MBA

5. Please list any additional work experience which you have that has equipped you for your current

occupation.

6. Please indicate which areas you are currently involved in.

(Please mark with a X)

Research Management

IP management/Technology transfer

Both of the above

THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS SPLIT INTO SECTIONS – respondents should only complete the relevant section(s)

If you are involved in research management only, please fill out Section B.

If you are involved in IP management / technology transfer only then please fill out Section C.

If you are involved in both then please fill out Sections B and C.

mailto:[email protected]


SECTION B. ROLE IN RESEARCH MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING NEEDS

1. Which of the following topics would you like additional training in and at what level?


Basic

/

Beg

inn

ers

Ad

van

ced

Level

Fundraising

Managing internal research funding streams

Managing the post award process of grants

Project management

Corporate governance

Grant Proposal writing

Ethics and Compliance in Research

Policy writing

Policy implementation

Science communication

Financial management (including exchange control and tax issues)

Southern African Research Landscape

Research Contracts management

Information management

Awareness raising & building relations with and between researchers

Awareness raising & building relations with postgraduate students/postdoctoral fellows

Intellectual property and commercialisation

The current policy/legislation environment with regards to research in Southern Africa

MS Office/computer literacy

Web design

Communication skills

Writing and Publishing skills

Data analysis and report writing

General Management skills

Presentation skills

Event management/planning (e.g. conferences/workshops)

Other (Please specify):

2. In terms of training in Research Management, which of the following would be of most value to you?


Very valuable

Of some value Of no value

Theoretical training workshops

Practical training exercises (case studies)


Exchange programmes/experiential training

Access to mentors/experts


SECTION C: ROLE IN IP MANAGEMENT/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND TRAINING NEEDS

1. Which of the following topics relating to your work do you think you need /would like additional

training in and at what level? (Please mark with a X)

Basic

/

Beg

inn

ers

Ad

van

ced

Level

Evaluating inventions / due diligence

Intellectual property audits

Intellectual property protection

Commercialization strategies

Drafting business plans

Negotiation

Raising funding

Marketing of inventions

Establishing and incubating/managing new ventures

Licensing

Corporate governance

Project management

Information management

Awareness raising & building relations with researchers

Intellectual property and tax issues

Exchange control

Working within the current policy/legislation environment

Broader innovation and triple helix issues


2. In terms of training in IP management / technology transfer, which of the following would be of most value?


Very valuable

Of some value Of no value

Theoretical training workshops

Practical training exercises (case studies)

Exchange programmes/experiential


training

Access to mentors/experts


Thank you for your time. We are looking forward to discuss this further at the workshop!


ANNEXURE B

WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

DAY 1 14 MARCH 2012

08:30-09:30 Registration 09:30-10:00 Word of welcome, workshop purpose and introductions

Anneline Morgan, Director: Africa Cooperation, Department of Science and Technology

Remarks from the SADC Chair Dr Emingarda Castelbranco, Ministry of Science and Technology in Angola

Remarks from South Africa Dr Andrew Kaniki, Executive Director: Knowledge Fields Development, National Research Foundation

10:00-11:00 Opening address: A view from the global hill for research and

innovation Dr David Langley, Director Research and Enterprise Development, University of Bristol, United Kingdom

11:00-11:15 Refreshment break Programme Chair: Dr Karin Dyason, Project Manager Capacity Building

and Professionalisation, SARIMA

11:15-12:30 Session I: The state and challenges of research and innovation management in SADC

The SADC context and challenges for research and innovation managers in SADC, group discussion and feedback. Dr José Jackson-Malete, Deputy-Director of Research, University of Botswana, Botswana and Vice-President of SADC and African Partnerships, SARIMA

12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-15:00 Session II A: Prioritising research and innovation at the institutional

level Research and innovation leadership, strategic components of research and innovation, institutional arrangements and structures (practices and trends), group discussion and feedback. Prof Yogeshkumar Naik, Director Research and Innovation Office, National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe

15:00-15:15 Refreshment break 15:15-16:45 Session II B: Case studies

Case study 1: How to introduce a strategic research framework and prioritise research activities Prof Amanda Lourens, Vice-rector: Research and Planning, Potchefstroom campus, North-West University, South Africa

Case study 2: Setting up a research management office as part of an institutional strategy Dr Kamija Phiri, Dean of Postgraduate Studies and Research, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Malawi

16:45-17:00 Summary and closure 19:00 Networking function


DAY 2 15 MARCH 2012 Programme Chair: Dr José Jackson-Malete, Deputy-Director of Research,

University of Botswana, Botswana and Vice-President of SADC and African Partnerships, SARIMA

09:00-10:30 Session III A: Facilitating research Basics of research management and administration, servant- leadership in research management and administration, creating and maintaining a research culture. Dr Tembeka Mpako-Ntusi, Director of Research, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

10:30-11:00 Refreshment break 11:00-11:50 Session III A: Continue

Group discussion and feedback. 11:50-12:30 Session III B: Examples of systems to support research management

(1) Funding - Research Africa.net Mr Shaun Stuart, Research Africa

(2) Information management – InfoEd Research Information Management system Mr Stanley Duncan, InfoEd

12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-15:00 Session IV: Introduction to Intellectual Property and Technology

Transfer (A) The Intellectual Property Rights Act and the National Intellectual

Property Management Office (NIPMO). Dr Mavis Nyatlo, Director: Advisory and Support, National Intellectual Property Management Office, South Africa

(B) Basics of intellectual property, basics of technology transfer, functions of a Technology Transfer Office (TTO), TTO structures and requirements, interaction with scientists and institutional staff.

Dr Michelle Mulder, Manager: Intellectual Property and Business Development, Medical Research Council, South Africa and President of SARIMA

15:00-15:15 Refreshment break 15:15-16:00 Session IV: Continue 16:00-16:30 Session V: SADC training and capacity building needs

Discussion on training and capacity building needs of research and innovation managers in SADC. Dr José Jackson-Malete, Deputy-Director of Research, University of Botswana, Botswana and Vice-President of SADC and African Partnerships, SARIMA

16:30-16:45 Recommendations and the way forward 16:45-17:00 Closing remarks

SADC Chair, DST and SARIMA

17:00 Departure


ANNEXURE C

LIST OF WORKSHOP DELEGATES

NAME INSTITUTION/DEPARTMENT COUNTRY

1 David Langley University of Bristol United Kingdom 2 Karin Dyason SARIMA South Africa 3 Mavis Nyatlo NIPMO South Africa 4 Stanley Duncan InfoEd Global South Africa 5 Shaun Stuart Research Africa South Africa 6 Amanda Lourens NWU South Africa 7 Anneline Morgan DST South Africa 8 Uzubenathi Nowawa NIPMO South Africa 9 Phumelele Higgins DST South Africa

10 Andrew Kaniki NRF South Africa 11 Michelle Mulder MRC/SARIMA South Africa 12 Tembeka Mpaku-Ntusi CPUT South Africa 13 Funda Mpanza DST South Africa 14 Leopold Mahofa Min of S&T Zimbabwe 15 Willie Ganda Min of S&T Zimbabwe 16 Yogi Naik NUSTU Zimbabwe 17 Jeremia Haipinge DRST Min of Education Namibia 18 Collins Mushe DRST- Ministry of Education Namibia 19 Marieta Perez-Dlamini University of Swaziland Swaziland 20 Moses Zungu MICT Swaziland 21 Mgidi Dlamini University of Swaziland Swaziland 22 Kamija Phiri COM Malawi 23 Patric Mphadzula DST Malawi 24 Alfred Maluwa Kamuzu Centre of Nursing Malawi 25 Mphadzula Patricia DST Malawi 26 Keneuoe Lehloenya Lesotho- MinAgriculture Lesotho 27 Lefa Thamae DST Lesotho 28 Kopano Tsenou ATS, Ministry of Communication Lesotho 29 Niting Gopaul Mauritius Research Council Mauritius 30 M.B.M Sekhwela UB Botswana 31 José Jackson-Malete UB Botswana 32 Tebelelo Tsheko Min of RST Botswana 33 Massuquinini Ines Facility of science Angola 34 Emirgarda Castelfranco NHEST Angola 35 Felicitas Moyo University of Zambia Zambia 36 Henry Njapan NISIR Zambia 37 Benjamin Langa MST Mozambique 38 Roda Novunga Luis MST Mozambique 39 Joao Mutondo UEM - FAEF Mozambique


ANNEXURE D

WORKSHOP PRESENTERS

Dr David Langley Director of Research and Enterprise Development, University of Bristol, United Kingdom Dr David Langley has been Director of Research and Enterprise Development at the University of Bristol for the last 5 years. Prior to this, he was Director of Research Services at Imperial College London, and before that worked at the Medical Research Council. David is an advocate of professionalising research management and is co-author of a 2009 project on research administration in 20 English universities. He is an Associate Editor of „The Journal of Research Administration‟ and was awarded Distinguished Faculty status by the Society of Research Administrators International. He is on the editorial advisory board of „Research Global‟, published by the Association of Commonwealth Universities. David successfully supervised a student through her doctorate in research management in 2011, and has an on-going interest in research and scholarship into the profession, and regularly publishes in the area. He is Key Associate at the UK Leadership Foundation for Higher Education for research management and administration. David is Chair of the Board of Trustees at The British School of Osteopathy and a member of the Science and Research Advisory Board of Diabetes UK. His PhD is in neuropharmacology and he was awarded a Senior Fulbright Scholarship that enabled him to undertake research at the National Institutes of Health, USA, and is a Fellow of the Society of Biology (FSB).

Dr José Jackson-Malete Deputy-Director of Research, University of Botswana, Botswana and Vice-President of SADC and African Partnerships, SARIMA Dr José Jackson-Malete is the Deputy Director of Research at the University of Botswana (UB) and is the Secretary of the University Research Committee. She has responsibility for developing research policies and strategic research issues at UB. Currently she co-ordinates the research capacity building programme for UB, particularly for early career academics including graduate students. She also helps to establish collaborative teams for international projects. José has a MS and PhD in Food Science from Cornell University and Michigan State University and has extensive experience in the management of research and has several internationally funded projects in her role as an Affiliate Scientist (Food


Group) in the Centre for Scientific Research, Indigenous Knowledge and Innovation (CesrIKi) at UB. Previously, she was the Director of Research at a food research institute in Botswana and Lecturer of Food Science at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. She is a member of the Executive Committee of SARIMA and the current Vice President of SADC and African Partnerships. Prof Yogeshkumar Naik Director Research and Innovation Office, National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe Yogeshkumar (Yogi) Naik was born in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe and obtained his PhD from The University of Zimbabwe (in Biochemistry) in 1989. From 1989 to 1998 he focused on biomedical research. In 1998 he joined the newly established National University of Science & Technology in Bulawayo and pursued research on aspects of environmental toxicology and chemistry. Over the years he was able to secure funding from International Foundation for Science (Sweden), and International Science Programs (Sweden) as well as the Department for International Development- DfID (UK) to fund the research activities related to environmental pollution. The research lab continues to be active under his „remote‟ supervision. In 2008 Yogi took up a contract position as Director, Research & innovation Office -RIO (in the Office of the Vice Chancellor). The RIO is involved in the following:

Designing, developing and reviewing institutional research and innovation strategic plans, policies, procedures and systems in line with the NUST Strategic Plan, international best practice and national imperatives;

Identifying and exploiting alternative sources of research funding;

Developing a university wide and focused research culture and agenda;

Providing research skills training;

Introducing research-mentoring programmes for junior academic staff; and

Managing the NUST Research Board (funds) activities.

Prof Amanda Lourens Vice-Rector: Research and Planning, Potchefstroom campus, North-West University, South Africa Current position

Vice-Rector: Research and Planning, Potchefstroom campus, North-West University

Appointed Extraordinary Associate Professor in the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Potchefstroom campus of North West University

Previous positions

Director: Research Support, Institutional Office, North-West University, Potchefstroom (2006 – 2009)


Appointed as Assistant Project Director (2006 to 2007) of the SA Higher Education Retention Data Project (HERD-SA) funded by the Kellogg Foundation in the USA.

Director: Research and Development (2001 – 2006), Directorate: Research and Development, Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa

Appointed Extraordinary Professor in the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa (2004 – 2007)

Head of Statistical Support and Strategic Research, Strategic Information and Planning (1996 – 2000), Technikon Pretoria, SA

Lecturer in the Department of Statistics (1987 – 1996),University of Pretoria, SA

Qualifications

PhD Applied Statistics, University of Pretoria, SA, 1999

BSc, BSc (Hons) Mathematical Statistics (CUM LAUDE), MSC Mathematical Statistics (CUM LAUDE) University of Pretoria

Executive Committee/National roles

Member of the Board of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) (2009-2013)

Member of the North-West University Council (2009)

President of the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) for 2005/6 and 2006/7 (served on the Executive Committee from 2004 to 2008)

President of the South African Statistical Association (SASA) in 2002 (served on the Executive Committee from 1999 – 2003)

Chairperson of the Southern African Association for Institutional Research (SAAIR) in 1999 and 2000 (served on the Executive Committee from 1998 – 2003)

Member of the Higher Education South Africa (HESA) Research Strategy Group (2008 – current)

Appointed as HESA champion of the SA Japan Universities Forum (SAJU) (2008 -)

Board Member of the DST/NRF Centre of Excellence in Strong Materials at Witwatersrand University (2004 - 2010)

Executive Committee (and founding member) of the national Research Information Management System (RIMS) Consortium (Chairperson 2008 - 2009)

Appointed on the Ministerial Task Team on Research Development Grants of the Department of Education (2007- 2008)

Deputy-Chairperson of the North-West Research Coordinating Committee in the Office of the Premier (2006 - 2009)

Member of the Steering Committee on the “Project on Evaluation and Rating Data” of the National Research Foundation (2006 – 2010)

Executive Committee of the “Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns”, Mathematics division in 2004 and 2005

Board member of the “Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns”, 2011 - Research output

External examiner for various Masters degrees at South African


Higher Education Institutions

Supervised nine Masters and Doctoral students

Received research grants from the National Research Foundation, Association for Institutional Research (USA) and the W.F. Kellogg Foundation (USA)

Acted as reviewer for various research journals

Published 23 papers in accredited an non-accredited research journals

Presented 21 papers nationally and internationally at conferences

Presented 31 invited papers nationally and internationally Awards

Honorary Golden Key member award in 2010

The National Student Development Practitioners (NASDEV) Student Affairs and Support Services Excellence Honorary award for the Advancement of the Student Affairs and Support Services Agenda in Further and Higher Education South Africa in relation to the Higher Education Retention Data (HERD-SA) project in 2009.

Appeared on SABC 2 “Women in Science” Actuarial and Mathematical Science programme (2008)

Participated in various radio interviews

Won the best SAAIR paper award (2002 and 2003) Received the Technikon Pretoria Rector's Pin in 2003 and Rector‟s achievement award for valuable development contributions in 1998. Dr Kamija Phiri Associate Professor, Postgraduate Dean, Director of Tropical Haematology Research Unit, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Malawi Current position

Dean, Postgraduate Studies and Research, College of Medicine, University of Malawi (July 2010 – present)

Associate Professor, Community Health Department, College of Medicine, University of Malawi (July 2011 – present)

Director, Tropical Haematology Research Unit (THRU), College of Medicine, Univ. of Malawi (Nov 2009 – present)

Honorary Lecturer, School of Clinical Science, University of Liverpool (October 2009 – present)

Previous positions

Medical Officer, Ministry of Health, Malawi Government at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, Blantyre (August 1999 – January 2001)

Associate Clinical Lecturer, Medicine Department, College of Medicine, Univ. of Malawi (February 2001 – July 2006)

Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Community Health Department, College of Medicine, Univ. of Malawi (July 2006 – 2011)

Clinical Epidemiologist, Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust (MLW) Clinical Research Programme, College of Medicine, Univ. of Malawi(July 2006 – present)

Deputy Dean, Postgraduate Studies and Research, College of Medicine, Univ. of Malawi (March 2009 – July 2010)


Qualifications

MBBS (Medicine), University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi, 1999

MSc, DLSHTM (Epidemiology), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, UK, 2002

PhD (Epidemiology), Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, 2006

Honors

Dahlenburg‟s Award for Best First Year Medical Student (1995)

National Bank Achievement Award for the Best Medical Student (1996)

First Prize in the 1998 THET/Reuter Foundation International Student Project Competition (1998)

Old Mutual Prize for Best Research Project (1999)

Ciba-Geiggy Prize for the overall top student in the final exams (1999)

National Bank Achievement Award for the Best Medical Student (2000)

Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Medical Student Elective Prize 2000 (2000)

Beit Trust MSc Fellowship at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (2001)

Gates Malaria Partnership PhD Fellowship at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (2002)

Malaria Capacity Development Consortium Senior Research Fellowship (2009)

EDCTP Senior Research Fellowship (2009) Research grants

Wellcome Trust Career Development Grant (2001-2006)

NACCAP, Gates Malaria Partnership Re-entry grant (2006-2009)

NACCAP (2007-2010)

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2008-2012)

EDCTP Senior Fellowship, IAEA & MCDC (2009-2011)

HRSCI (DFID & Wellcome Trust) (2011-2014)

Pfizer Pharmaceutical (2011-2013) Research output Dr Phiri published 16 papers in international journals between 2000 and 2012 (including the British Journal of Haematology, Journal of Research Administration, Journal of Infectious Disease, Journal of Clinical Pathology and Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene).

Dr Tembeka Mpaku-Ntusi Director of Research at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in Cape Town, South Africa Dr Tembeka Mpako-Ntusi obtained a PhD at Bryn Mawr College, PA in the United States of America after completing an MSc in Social Work at the University of Wales in Cardiff. She also holds a BA (Social Work) and BA (Hons) Social Sciences degrees from the University of


Fort Hare and University of South Africa. She was awarded a British Council scholarship for the Masters degree and a Fulbright scholarship for her doctoral studies. She started her career as a social worker in the Transkei Government in South Africa, followed by an academic career at the University Fort Hare in 1979, and the University of Transkei in 1987. In 1991 she was Visiting Professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. She is the author of numerous book chapters and books, conference papers and journal articles, chiefly on social work issues. Since 2000 she has worked in research management, and has served as a member of the Southern African Research & Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) executive committee as VP for Capacity Development and became National President from 2007 to 2009. Her current position, since April 2008, is Director of Research at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology in Cape Town, South Africa, after holding similar positions at the Rural Research and Development Institute; Border Technikon; and Walter Sisulu University. She continues to make a contribution to research development and research capacity building.

Dr Mavis Nyatlo Director: Advisory and Support services, National Intellectual Property Management Office, South Africa Mavis Nyatlo is the Director: Advisory and Support services within the National Intellectual Property Management Office since May 2011. Her duties include:

Managing NIPMO‟s Advisory and Support Services

Managing the implementation of establishment and support of technology transfer activities at publicly financed research and development institutions.

Promotion of NIPMO‟s Advocacy and Awareness Initiatives

Managing NIPMO‟s capacity development strategies She has experience in government ranging from working as an Assistant Director at the Department of Trade and Industry‟s Innovation and Technology – Policy Unit as well as working as a Deputy Director – Innovation Enabling Skills within the Technical Skills Unit of the Department of Science and Technology. She had further training in Policy Development and Management, Advanced Course on IP, WIPO Certificate on IP, Technology Transfer Training. She has also worked as a biomedical technologist for a period of 7 years in the fields of Medical Microbiology, Human Genetics and Immunology.


Dr Michelle Mulder Manager: Intellectual Property and Business Development, Medical Research Council Innovation Centre, South Africa and President of the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association

Michelle is a Manager of Intellectual Property and Business Development at the Medical Research Council‟s Innovation Centre. Her position involves the strategic management and commercialization of IP developed in the MRC‟s research units. She has a doctorate in Medical Microbiology from the University of Cape Town and has post-doctoral experience in a start-up biotechnology company emanating from the University of Cambridge, UK. She is also a founder member of Idea to Industry (I2I), an innovation consulting company, and played an active role in the Cape Biotechnology Initiative. Since 2002, through I2I, she has been involved in a number of consulting activities in the technology innovation arena and is currently project managing a company which is developing plant-based medicines for GIT disorders. Through her various activities, Michelle has gained more than 10 years‟ hands-on experience in the development of new technologies from proof of concept to product, IP management and technology transfer. Michelle has served as a member of the Executive Committee of the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA) since 2005, including 3 years as Vice President: Innovation and Technology Transfer, and, in June 2011, began a 2-year spell as President of SARIMA. She served previously as Chair of the Board of Acorn Technologies, a life sciences incubator, a director of the Licensing Executive‟s Society South Africa, the South Africa Liaison for the Life Sciences Committee of LESI, and a member of the Higher Education South Africa (HESA) Strategy Group for Innovation and Technology Transfer. Michelle plays an active role in capacity building in the areas of IP management and technology transfer in Southern and East Africa through SARIMA and other partnerships. She also participates extensively in the national innovation agenda.


ANNEXURE E

WORKSHOP EVALUATION Twenty two (22) delegates completed the feedback form that was provided in hard copy at the workshop. Participants were asked to rate each aspect/session using a 5-point scale where 1= poor, 2= below average, 3= average, 4= good, 5= excellent. The graphs below summarises the responses. Comments are shown as provided by the respondents. 1. General comments on the workshop

The workshop was very useful and informative. The workshop pack was good.

Encouragement of more than two STI workshops per year before the next SADC ministerial meeting. Also suggested that at one such event each country present a country paper on their priorities and indicators for STI. These papers can be sent to SARIMA before the workshop.

The presentations were very informative.

It was a very good workshop.

This was a very important workshop which must be offered frequently. 2. Comment on the discussion session

The level of discussion was excellent.

The discussion was good.

A great summary at the end of the workshop.

The sample of the needs analysis has to be increased.

This session was well done and necessary.

3. Workshop registration

Average score for workshop registration = 4.60

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Rating


4. Venue and Catering

Average score for venue and catering = 4.61 Comments:

Excellent venue.

The air conditioning was not working optimally and the lightning was poor.

The walking distance from the hotel was too far especially in rain.

Service was very slow at times. 5. Opening Address: From the global hill for research and innovation

(Dr David Langley)

Average score for the session = 4.60 Comments:

The speaker is very knowledgeable. He also showed passion. Great presenter indeed.

Excellent

1

2

3

4

5

Suitability of venue

Comfort of venue

Catering at teas

Catering at luch

Catering at function

Rating

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained Quality of content Quality of speaker

Rating


6. The state and challenges of research and innovation management in SADC (Dr José Jackson-Malete)


Time was too short for this very relevant presentation.

Good and necessary but too much information for this session that also included group work.

The presenter did a great job. The presentation was clear and to the point. 7. Prioritising research and innovation at the institutional level

(Prof Yogi Naik)


The information was very good.

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time

Presented at expected

level

Rating

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating


8. How to introduce a strategic research framework and prioritise research activities (Prof Amanda Lourens)


The presenter had so much to offer but the time was limited.

The presenter did a good job. There were so much information and the time was just too short.

9. Setting up a research management office as part of an institutional strategy

(Dr Kamija Phiri)


The information was good but I needed more time to understand the details.

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating


10. Facilitating research (Dr Tembeka Mpaku-Ntusi)


There is a need to train participants to what they need to do to publish in journals.

The slides contained lots of information and time was too short to take it all in.

This was a very stimulating presentation. 11. Research Africa.net

(Mr Shaun Stuart)

Average score for the session = 4.02

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating


12. InfoEd Global

(Mr Stanley Duncan)


The font sixe used in the slides made it difficult to read at times.

The presenters‟ voice was low and I could not hear well.

The information was very useful. 13. IPR Act and the National IP Management Office

(Dr Mavis Nyatlo)


Went too fast through the slides.

Simple and easy to follow.

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating


14. Basics of technology transfer (Dr Michelle Mulder)


The presentation was fast. We needed more time.

Lots of information but well presented.

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge gained

Quality of content

Quality of speaker

Manage content in

time


level

Rating

sadc research and innovation management workshop report · sadc research and innovation management...

Documents