Development and Leadership of Research Consortia: Lessons learned and possible road ahead for continued innovation Massoud Amin, D.Sc. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 3412 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1395, USA mamin@epri.com The objective of this presentation is to discuss issues involved in the formation, and successful operation of research consortia. As an example, the Complex Interactive Network and Systems Initiative, CINSI, is a program that aims to develop tools and techniques that will enable national infrastructures to self-heal. EPRI and DOD are jointly funding the project for about $30 million over five years. From the very start, the funding partners appreciated that the research challenges were beyond the scope of any single contractor or university department; thus CINSI was organised on a consortia basis. The kick-off for the program was held in May 1999. There are six consortia, each comprising about three to six universities and, in a few of the consortia, an industrial partner. I shall provide an analysis of the funded consortia and discuss issues involved based on models of (i) creativity and innovation and (ii) successful knowledge management projects. Pertinent issues and some thoughts on successful team formation and continued innovation include: • Why form consortia? Is collaboration and teaming worthwhile? Does it lead to elitist “us vs. them” attitudes instead of open communication leading to creative work? How to identify and prevent such tendencies? Identify potentially divisive issues including allocation of resources among consortia members. • Setting the theme very early on and up front, before the actual work begins, in a clear examination of assumptions, re-visiting groups' vision and re-examining their responsibilities after their selection and at an on-going basis. • Communication: How would the consortia participants share their progress reports inter-/ intra- consortium? How would the consortia participants share their progress reports with funders? How often, in what form? Also… satisfying the associated milestones and time- lines. • Avoid “micro managing”; encourage researchers’ own feeling of excitement for their innovative work and of their control over their activities and contributions. A good opportunity to enhance this, for example, by asking each team to develop its own methods of effectively communicating between the various members of the team. Culture and chief researchers' attitudes could play a key role in success or failure of graduate student interactions both within a university and between them. Charging the members to develop their own communication processes, make it their responsibility/goal to be successful rather than "micro-managing" this process ourselves. They may come up with exciting and effective ways of communicating. There may be other areas where management can enhance their performance by charging them to develop solutions, rather than giving them directives. • Face-to-face meetings with follow-up regular interfacing and creating inter-dependence: Workshops, formal sets of meetings as well as opportunistic forms of interaction among them. • Facilitate mechanisms (and allocate budgets and rewards) for collaboration at "lower levels" including graduate students and faculty working together; developing as much familiarity with each other as possible. E.g. 0-7803-7519-X/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE 1710