Sustainability of Research Centres - Advisory Science Council

It is assumed that for most of the centres currently in Groups 1, 2 and 3 that the majority of the
overhead contribution paid by funders is allocated to the host institution and that the host institution
may, at their discretion, allocate it back to the centres. For Group 4 it is assumed that they retain all
overhead contributions (for standalone centres).
The distribution of funding between the HEI (block grant etc.) and competitive funding would change
if the overall balance of funding between the two were to change at national level e.g. if full
economic costs (FEC) were agreed by funding agencies.
The models recognise the relatively low capacity for industry funding of RDI in Ireland but,
nevertheless, assume that at least some of the industry contributions are cash rather than in-kind for
Group 2 (of the order of 10-20% of the industry contributions in cash) and a greater proportion of cash
for Groups 3 (at least 50% of the industry contributions in cash in the earlier phase of operation, and
targeting 80% in the longer term).
Figure 6 illustrates the minimum expectation of funding levels in each group. The expected minimum
proportions of funding from each source are based on the size of the annual base-centre-fund. For
example based on the archetypal diversification model for Group 2, if €X is provided as a base-centre-
fund to a centre, and the private sector income is expected to be 20% of the funding, then at a
minimum € (X/40)*20 should be leveraged through private income. This does not prohibit centres from
leveraging greater amounts of funding from the various sources of income (which will ultimately
change the proportions of funding from each source reported). However, these levels should be
monitored closely by funders; for centres to deliver on their expected outputs in a sustainable manner
requires that an appropriate level of strategic planning, management and activity is in place that is in
proportion with the level and type of the ongoing research activity. If centres actively have
opportunity to increase their sources of non-base-centre-funds significantly above the targets set out,
then funders should give due consideration to an increase of the base-centre-funds as deemed
appropriate to ensure the strategic intent of the centre stays intact.
For any group, new centres would require higher proportions of public funding to support them for
several years while they become established (this does not mean necessarily greater amounts of public
funding, but that the income from other sources may be small at first). This is particularly relevant to
Group 3 if a limited number of new RTO centres are to be created to fill the identified gap in the
research centre landscape.
Furthermore, while the models have a focus on the public:private funding ratios, it is recognised also that
public competitive funding can be further categorised into exchequer and non-exchequer funding.
The EU Framework 7 Programme (FP7) currently has a growing annual budget and is a source of non-
exchequer funding 86 . Engagement in this programme offers multiple benefits for researchers and research
centres, apart from the funding associated with a particular project. Whilst a number of Irish research
centres have been very successful in winning funds from this source, there is significant growth potential
for Irish centres in terms of winning European funds. Centres should be encouraged to engage at a
86 The total budget for FP7 was €50 billion from 2007-2013. The budget for the follow on programme European Programme Horizon 2020-The
programme for Research and Innovation 2014-2020, is anticipated to be €80 billion.
Sustainability of Research Centres 37 June 2012