SKA Pre-construction Phase Workshop CSIRO Marsfield 4 October 2011 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Topic: What would industry like to see from Australia-New Zealand engagement in the PEP?

John Humphreys Chair, ASKAIC

SKA Pre-construction Phase Workshop CSIRO Marsfield – 4 October 2011

Affiliate

NZSKAIC

INTEL

ALCATEL-LUCENT

Suggested Topics - CSIRO

¡ How should the proto-consortia best engage with

industry?

• perhaps the question should be “how the WPC

(proto-consortia) – which includes the research institutions & industry” can be established & effectively deliver WP’s?” – the former question implies a separation between the ‘proto- consortia’ & industry

¡ Key issues which need attention/Perspectives ¡ An example of ‘good engagement’

(industry case studies to follow on “industrial experience of working in an international research collaboration”)

Revisiting ISKAF 2011 - Banff

Presentation: “The SKA System”

• Peter Dewdney

Introduction to 2 day Engineering/Industry Event

Expected Management Structure

(P.Dewdney)

SKA Organisation Board/Council SPO Director SKA Project Office (SPO)

Work Package Contractor Work Package Contractor Work Package Contractor

Each WPC will be a consortium of astronomical institutions & industry Probably (i) a single lead institution with a significant

• rganisational structure; (ii) WPC’s are likely to be large;

(iii) Risk carried by the WPC? Defining “below the line of the WPC’s”?

Industry Issues/Perspectives

Procurement/Industry Engagement

• Concern with WP5 but understand that the ‘ball’ will

be passed shortly (JH – ‘missed opportunity’)

• Preference for ‘outcome-focussed’ specifications to

encourage innovation/flexibility in meeting performance requirements– not prescriptive in terms

• f solutions except where there is a clear need - can

result in significant cost savings

(refer: Ian Tuohy, BAE Systems et al)

• How to effectively develop sustainable collaborative

research/industry arrangements? – foster spin-offs!

Industry Issues/Perspectives

• Compatibility of the ‘best value for money’

procurement principle with the need to award work to founding nations under a (broad) ‘juste retour’ approach?

• ‘best value for money’ disadvantages

founding nations whose labour rates are higher than other nations that receive government subsidies. (Refer: Noel Wainwright – Lockheed Martin

Australia)

Defining Work Packages

¡ How will the packages be ‘systems

engineered’ to better couple the science requirements, engineering capabilities & cost? Could logical groupings be as follows?

• 1. Sensor Group – antenna, sensors, etc
• 2. Data, Compute, Networking, monitoring/control

group

• 3. Logistics Group – power, trenching, field works

(ref: Peter Elford Cisco)

¡ If logical groupings between WP’s occur (as

suggested) – what implications does this have for a global ‘juste-retour’ approach?

Summary of Industry Opportunities SKA Signal Path (P.Dewdney ISKAF 2011)

Our Collective Challenge

¡ How do we develop “A Cooperative

Mindset” rather than collaborate from a purely technology perspective/or from a ‘what’s in it for us’? Viewpoint

• a Cooperative Mindset is a term emerging
• ut of the need for transport

interoperability/open standards – Europe

Does Australia have a “cooperative mindset”?

¡ Culturally - our

focus is on “individualism” rather than “collectivism” which is the hallmark of some European & Asian societies

Cooperative Mindset/Collaboration – What is our record?

¡ Surprisingly poor! – an overriding

policy need in Australia is to stimulate clusters, consortia-building, & project-specific alliances

¡ Individualism needs to evolve to

collectivism

Refer: OECD Science, Technology & Industry Outlook, 2007

• provided by Dr Chris Nicol, CTO Embedded Systems,

NICTA

Comments on Australian Collaboration

¡

Firms (SMEs & larger

• rganisations) collaborating

in innovation activities by size

¡

Number of Aust. innovative firms collaborating with an external partner as part of the innovation process

¡

Firms collaborating in innovation with higher education institutions –

¡

Firms collaborating in innovation with government institutions

¡

Lowest number (as a % of all firms) of 26 OECD countries

¡

Only 9% of innovative firms

¡

Lowest (as a % of all firms)

• f the 26 countries - 2nd

lowest is Greece

¡

2nd lowest (as a % of all firms) – lowest is Greece

Reference: OECD 2002-2004 figures Results

This all points to

The urgent need to rapidly develop robust, sustainable collaborative frameworks in Australia which bridge cultural gaps & extend beyond the rhetoric SKA can be an exemplar in this regard

Memorandum of Understanding

¡ Australasian SKA lndustry Consortium (ASKAIC) ¡ Affiliate – NZ SKA Industry Consortium ¡ United Kingdom SKA Industry Cluster (SKAUKIC) ¡ Italian SKA Industry Consortium (currently

NASTRO consortium)

¡ Canadian SKA lndustry Consortium (emerging) ¡ The Netherlands SKA Industry Consortium

• Maximising global industry input into Work

Package planning in the SKA Pre-Construction Phase

• Promoting an enhanced level of cooperation

between industry & science

Positioning Australasian Industry

9 Signatories at Govt/Funding Agency Level

¡ Australia ¡ New Zealand ¡ United Kingdom ¡ The Netherlands ¡ Italy ¡ China ¡ France ¡ Germany ¡ South Africa

¡ observers/aspiring (Canada, India,Japan,Korea)

(5 countries and one observer are already encompassed within the MOU)

Industry Support for Process

¡ The Founding Board agreed to include an

industry advisory group into SKA Board structure in its members’ agreement.

¡ Australasia is in a good position to adopt a

lead industry role in crossing international boundaries - via MOU signed in Banff

¡ Industry MOU between all Founding Board

members? – understand capabilities, develop trust between countries

¡ ASKAIC in a good position to catalyse this –

given its multinational spread across founding countries

What are the current tasks?

¡ Finalise Work Package Definition – adopt

‘total systems approach’

¡ Confirm the ANZ ‘prime/s’ – institutional

bidders, or even industry organisation?.

How do they accelerate the level of trust necessary for effective consortia delivery, possibly across stakeholder countries?

¡ Confirm consortia models, IP

arrangements etc. & what happens ‘below the organisational line of the WPC’s?’

¡ Ensure compatibility with approaches of

Founding Countries/Founding Board

Final Questions

¡ What examples demonstrate the outcomes

• f research/industry partnerships, both

from the perspectives of ANZ & international stakeholders? - development

• f a case study register

¡ Are such partnerships driving innovation &

fostering new approaches to procurement & industry engagement? – what are our examples?

¡ How effectively have we leveraged the

ASKAP/SKA investment - by government, research institutions & industry?

Where Are We Heading? What Road-Map are we Following?

Credit: SKA: the road to the Centre of the Universe John Goldsmith, ICRAR/Curtin PhD Student

Contact Details: John Humphreys Chair ASKAIC

Managing Director Global Innovation Centre Pty Ltd

www.askaic.com Email: johnh@globalinnovation.com.au Tel: +61 7 5474 5164 Mobile: 0419 870 009

Thank you