School Manager's Update

Published in the RSAA Lunations
Vol1 Issue41 1–30 June 2023

Hello RSAA,

This month we revisit the HERDC Higher Education Research Data Collection topic again. 
It was only in April that I covered this topic in some detail.

In the last few weeks, we completed the 2022 return. Similar to every year, it was a manual and convoluted task, where we reviewed 1000+ income transactions to determine which meet HERDC eligibility.

The requirements can be quite complicated, and on the margin quite subjective, which is why it is important for us to consider eligibility from the very inception of any project or grant. The wording and definitions used in contacts take precedence over the actual research taking place.

How did RSAA look in 2022?

On face value, not very well, as our combined income amounted to just under 6 million, which compares to 8 or 9 million over the last few years. There is more to the figures then meets the eye.  

RSAA Historical HERDC return
Category 1 

• Due to recently awarded ARC grants, our CAT 1  figures were higher than in the last two years. This is despite a general downward trend in funding opportunities. Congratulations to those who have won grants recently.

Category 2-4

• Much of the decline observed is due to the timing of payment on some large AITC projects. AITC is in a growth phase with an ever-expanding pipeline of innovative projects, as such we should see this figure rebound and grow in the next year.
• There is a ~500k lesson here. This year one of our projects was deemed ineligible due to the nature of the paperwork. Ironically, last year, we just managed to convince the assessors. This highlights the subjectiveness of the determination at the margin and proves the need for robust documentation. The good news is that we intend to straighten out the paperwork over the next year, and we should then be able to claim the missed 2022 income in 2023. 

How to ensure HERDC Eligibility for your research?

In general, this is a complicated topic, and each project needs to be assessed case by case, but here are a few pointers below:

• Start thinking about this at the very inception. Initial discussions with the funder and partners should consider the research nature and HERDC eligibility from the start. The contract/agreement/letter of offer must clearly state “research” and in some way suggest that we are conducting creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge – including knowledge of humankind, culture and society – and to devise new applications of available knowledge. 

For an activity to be an R&D activity it must satisfy all five core criteria:

1.       be aimed at new findings (novel)

2.       be based on original, not obvious, concepts and hypotheses (creative)

3.       be uncertain about the final outcomes (uncertain)

4.       be planned and budgeted (systematic)

 

• If we are not a direct, first-line recipient of the funding, and we are acting via a ‘lead' organisation, we must have ANU/RSAA  be deemed a ‘partner’ in the original research project, substantiated by an MIA (multi-institutional agreement) 
• The following terminology suggests that we are not a partner, but instead an ineligible service provider: Subcontractor; Fee for service/service provider; Scientific services; Memorandum of understanding
• Proceeding through the COS Research Management team and ANU Costing and Pricing tool is also a requirement.
• Some funding sources are by definition ineligible: Cash contributions from ANU or another Higher Education Provider, such as other Universities; Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage-Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities; NCRIS (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy)

I will be covering this topic again in the All-School meeting on 30 June, so please consider if you have any questions. 

Mat Malzacher