'Living labs' to tackle emissions
Living labs that bring together expertise at locations around New Zealand are among potential solutions identified by researchers to help the country move towards a more climate resilient future.
What is required is a national call for a re-examination of AgResearch’s FFP. The country is being affected by the FFP – not just Invermay.
The fundamental problem for AgResearch (and the other research institutions in New Zealand, including universities) is funding. Financial pressure means that business as usual is not an option. Restructuring is a common activity to achieve change – but is not always successful in achieving positive outcomes: the cost (human and financial) of the disruption is often greater than the benefits achieved.
In its 2011 annual report, AgResearch stated that “the senior management team was restructured from eight to four members (plus the chief executive). The science groups were reorganised from three into a new matrix style structure with six groups aligned with five portfolio leaders. The matrix system had been implemented at Scion (which the current AgResearch chief executive had led before being appointed to his current role, but was removed by his replacement Dr Warren Parker).
The point is that matrix systems are difficult to operate and for knowledge management are doomed.
Their best chance of success is when one campus and one sector are involved – at Scion, for example. In contrast, AgResearch serves a diverse sector (dairy, deer, beef and sheep, with soils, pasture, pest and animals to consider) from four main campuses. In order to make a matrix system work for AgResearch, consolidation was necessary – hence the relocation of ‘positions’.
Although AgResearch has asserted that staff turnover is no greater than usual, staff numbers have reduced by 13 since 2011. Of greater concern is that between those years research positions have gone down from 564 to 494, and ‘management and support’ has gone up from 216 to 271. In 2010, the total number of FTEs was 824 (with 592 researchers). This means that between 2011 and 2014 there was a 14% decrease in science and 25% increase in management and support.
In addition, staff morale has plummeted. Staff engagement for New Zealand in general is 23% (similar to the global average) but the latest internal survey of AgResearch staff indicates only 9% engaged.
The question for the AgResearch management team should not have been: what do we need to do to make the matrix system work? But, what do we need to do to enable our people to do great science?
It comes back to the funding system and the amount of money distributed – not just for science, but around the whole country. Better financial support is a necessary step for improving recruitment into science and creating a scientifically literate society.
In time we will know the effects of the AgResearch reorganisation; history suggests that the architects will have moved to some other position by then. Sadly the signals to the young about the value New Zealand places on science have already been sent and are negative.
AgResearch should be in the driving position for the underpinning research to step-change New Zealand pastoral agriculture into the future. The success of the activities of AgResearch scientists is critical for the economy, but the scientists and their teams are in turmoil.
This is more than an Invermay problem – it is a problem for New Zealand. A national call for re-examination of the FFP is vital.
• Jacqueline Rowarth is professor of agribusiness, The University of Waikato.
