I might be off the mark here, but I think the best way would be to have some researchers with industry experience in the group, and some people within the industry that have research experience. That way, researchers would be more knowledgable about industry needs, and the industry would have more understanding for the academic process and a better capability to absorb any produced results. However, that state may be diffcult to create, especially in the short term.

One practical example of industry-induced research that you may get inspired from is the Swedish research school FIRST at SLU:

http://www.slu.se/en/departments/forest-biomaterials-technology/education/postgraduate-education/first/

Feel free to send me a mail if you have any questions on FIRST.

Industry is only interested in profit, mostly near term. Most of industry does not even care about science, regardless of what they portray - it's all about business.

It's a bit of a catch 22, because as researchers, we would research anything that will further our understanding of science, regardless of whether it brings immediate of long term profit.

Let's assume you have a clear view of what it is that you would like to achieve in research. A way to get to the funding is to shape your research efforts around the industries' core business and short term business goals. Once one has the funding, it is possible to divert small amounts into your real passion, almost as a coincidental add-on benefit to the client's requirements.

There is a real danger that industry could try and determine the outcome, before the research is done and depends solely on the researcher's integrity. The business should be made aware of the risks, which they have to agree to.

It's frustrating and restrictive, but one can keep up doing research.

Having been involved in industry collaborative research my entire career I agree you both raise valid points. Getting crossovers from research and industry is a great way to facilitate the interaction for a period but both worlds move on quickly and unless they are moving back and forth with some regularity the value diminishes, the research groups I have managed consistently had the best progress when there was a good mix of strong academic background people working well with strong industry background people in the group with a functioning connection to industry.

There is no doubt industry is driven by profit but I have always found that good industry leaders recognise the role of good research and/or science in driving profitable research. In some cases that is short term focussed research, bordering on development, and some times it can be longer term projects well aligned at chipping away at issues seen to limit progress. That said I have seen good research and researches fall into the pitfalls you note David, can often be a slippery slope.

Our group has good collaborations with FIRST at SLU and they do excellent industry relevant research. I would also point to FPInnovations as a strong model. Our AFORA group does well though we do not have the history of and FPInnovations, SLU or Skogforsk to have developed the same depth of relationship which keeps me in the hunt for all the tips and tricks folks have in strengthening the research/industry relationship.

cheers,

Dear Mark, This may be done in the form of public-private partnership. When it come to research collaboration between industry and academic, this is challenging issue. Because we need to integrate insights or strength of both sectors into either new process, product or innovation.As a result we can adopt industry- demand driven approach to carry out the research work based on particular specialization of a researcher. Then get people in the industry involved in all research processes. Once finished give back the result to the industry for further implementation.

Primary data directly collected from industries on current issues can help researchers to determine the needs of industry and planning of research.

As far as industry needs mean the needs of a specific sector in forest based industries I experienced that SWOT analysis based on interviews with managers of all levels and involved companies across a specific supply chain (e.g. from the forest to a pulp mill) can provide valuable hints for research topics with impact. If you then develop and prioritize also strategies in a participative process together with shareholders you could end up with some very specific future research issues. Also process orientated analysis of the supply chain using business process management methods can be helpful.

My firm took the perspective that since funding is tied to the economic opportunity, we needed to look where better than average profits were made.  We developed a curve that looks like an inverted normal distribution.  On the vertical axis is profitability.  On the horizontal axis is the measure of economic pain or pleasure.  For most businesses they reside in the middle of the curve with average to low or negative profitability.  At the far right and left where high pain or pleasure occur the are where the funding opportunities arise. As an example, the drug industry works in both the high pain and pleasure realm.  We have approached the problem from the perspective that if you have a chronic migraine headache, you will pay anything for the aspirin.  Researchers need to be able to explain just how this research can improve the profitability of the business to get funded.

At Patagonia, we made a very simple questionary. Which are the main causes for your company to be more profitable?, then, which are the main lack of knowledge for your company?. It is amazing, that they can identify the main weakness of their economic activities, but they can not linked with the science. So, in this way, we define the main scientific task for our projects.

Is part of the problem the 'old' Research or Development divide? Or maybe Blue Sky versus Applied research? Mark's original question focused on ways to plan and implement research (development). In the 1900's, when for example CSIRO was in its research peak, they were about to undertake 'pure' or 'blue sky' research using Government money - the Government was risking their funding against the 'lottery' or a break through (like WiFi) which would be a game changer and produce literally un-calculable financial/economic gains for the country. Outreach activities and 'applied' research were conducted over much shorter time scale and with much more easily cost:benefit and risk analyses. As many respondents above note, industry is much more attracted to development/applied research where cost:benefit and risk analyse can be completed - and maybe this is where Mark's original question may be leading us. Unfortunately, when the Government also moves into this area of activity where cost:benefit and risk analyses are possible, then they move away from 'blue sky' or 'pure research' because no one can put a non-controversial probability/risk estimate on the truly new (e.g. what is the probability that astrophysics research would result in WiFi and, before WiFi was conceived, how much benefit could you estimate a novel new could produce). Industry should be able to justify applied research / development itself, although it might be useful to have some 'outreach' help to let them know what new things are now out there and possibly able to be applied. But who is funding and prioritising the 'pure research' - and why would 'industry' volunteer to participate in that given our inability to predict the probability of that pure research making a difference to them?

Technology Roadmap is a powerfull tool to promote the alignment between research and company goals. It is very common multinacional companies use this tool for establish their research programs, projects and resource allocation.

 http://www.vgu.edu.vn/fileadmin/pictures/studies/MBA/Handbook_Roadmapping.pdf

https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/Professional-Learning-Guidelines-section-4-with-cover.pdf