EPSRC reaction to the Supergen Review 2016 and recommendations

Transcription

1 EPSRC reaction to the Supergen Review 2016 and recommendations The review of the Supergen Programme was carried out over the summer of 2016 by an independent panel drawn from the fields covered by Supergen. The review report highlighted the scale of the Programme, which now represents one of the UK Governments largest single investments in fundamental research on low-carbon energy generation and sustainable distribution. The review also recognised that the programme has had high academic, socio-economic, environmental and international impact. The Supergen Programme was initially set up to deliver research on SUstainable PowER GENeration and supply, answering major research challenges which required sustained and coordinated research effort and capacity building. After assessing all the evidence before them, the review panel agreed that the programme was still relevant to today s needs and should continue, but made a number of recommendations to ensure that the programme remains focused and relevant. The panel observed that the hubs may not be communicating with all the right stakeholders at the right levels, despite some innovative communication activities. The panel observed that linking with whole energy systems (UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI), WholeSEM, etc.) and End Use Energy Demand (EUED) activities had value and would fit with the RCUK Energy programme priorities. In addition, the panel identified heat and transport decarbonisation as cross-cutting areas currently absent from the Supergen Programme. The panel also offered recommendations they felt would further improve the programme s profile and impact. These included changes to the structure of the hub model, including clustering some hubs around areas of synergy. For example, EPSRC could cluster the wind and marine hubs, since both areas have some overlapping research challenges, stakeholders and skill sets. Finally, the panel recognised the need for activities to support early career researchers and Equality and Diversity (E&D) in the research community, which must link to the RCUK E&D action plan. EPSRC accepts the findings of the review report and shared these with various advice streams in order to inform this implementation plan: Supergen High Level Group (HLG), options presented and discussed 22 September 2016 Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), modified options presented and discussed 27 September 2016 EPSRC, internal remit and function scoping workshop 13 October 2016 Joint SAC / Supergen HLG meeting, tested the remit and function scoping and discussed 18 October 2016 Advisory stream outcomes: The Advisory Streams endorsed the review process findings and recommendations The SAC instructed EPSRC to be bold about clustering The HLG felt the E&D strategy needed to be co-created by all the hubs and come from the Supergen Programme level. They want the Programme to become a beacon for E&D All agreed heat and transport research areas were currently orphan areas and that leadership of these areas were not apparent. How this is to be addressed will be considered by the SAC All agreed that the future Supergen Programme should provide Visible Research Leadership Page 1 of 7

2 Proposed Supergen function Following advice from the Energy Programme s key advice streams (SAC and Supergen HLG), we agreed that the Supergen Programme should provide visible research leadership including the following elements: A leader A figurehead for a specific Supergen community who has the capability and responsibility to be a thought leader. This role should be more than just research coordination; it requires someone outward facing who can create a compelling narrative for the research area and communicate at the appropriate level (i.e. feeding into the policy cycle). The leader must also be focused on ensuring research in their area achieves maximum impact and will be expected to help their community make effective use of responsive mode and other funding opportunities, such as Fellowships or Programme grants. Engagement and Communication A resourced engagement and communication strategy will form a key part of the work of the hub, ultimately projecting a coordinated voice that represents the research community. This will also involve interaction with existing networks and groups (such as ERP) who can carry their messages to the right stakeholders. Hub management structure This will include co-directors to spread the workload of the director, as well as a hub manager to help deal with communications, plan engagement, perform general administrative duties and to maximise impact. Directors and Co-Directors are permitted to have Post-Doctoral Research Associate (PDRA) to support their own research efforts within the hub. When considering consortium partners, applicants are encouraged to ensure that funding isn t spread too thinly and that all involved have the resource needed to contribute effectively to the programme of research (e.g. each Co-I should have at least 4 years of PDRA time). International The hub, through visible research leadership, must be credible and able to act as the international face of the community, feeding into and helping to respond to as-yet unadopted challenges and strategies such as Mission Innovation and the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF). Leaders development programme The hub should use their resource to nurture, support and help develop early career researchers from PhD level (by coordinating with relevant Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) and strategic use of Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTP)) through postdoc and on to recent lectureship appointees. The hub must also act as a beacon for equality and diversity (E&D) within the research community through a dedicated E&D plan, signposting of wider RCUK activities, mentoring and strategic use of seedcorn funding. The new Supergen hubs will feature core research and flexible funds as well as networking activities, the proportions of which will be determined by the community, as recommended in the Supergen Review 2016 report. Proposed Supergen remit: What is Supergen? The Supergen Programme should carry out and commission research within a coordinated strategic framework and focus on a community led programme of fundamental and applied research of national importance. The Programme should use research to address high impact user, industrial and government inspired problems whilst also encouraging adventurous discovery-led investigations. However, it is recognised that the position a Supergen hub adopts will depend on the area which is covers (for example, wind is in a different adoption space to storage, etc). Page 2 of 7

3 The top level themes or dimensions identified by the research communities will set the strategic context and tone of each Supergen hub. However, the leader and consortia will identify the research questions which sit alongside these and build a coherent programme of research. Not all of the research base should sit under the Supergen Hub, and responsive mode projects outside the hub will still be actively sought, but the hub should be open and incorporate the research output beyond the hub to maximise impact for the community. As recommended by the review panel, the Supergen Programme will be encouraged to forge stronger links with RCUK Energy Programme investments, beyond the Supergen Programme, such as UKCCSRC and Nuclear technology investments (both fission and fusion) to break the siloed working mentality. The role of non-academic partners (industry, government agencies, NGOs, other stakeholders) will also be very important in establishing the next phase of the Supergen Programme. Indeed, non-academic stakeholders should be, where appropriate, involved at the design stage, and just not seen as subjects for communication / engagement after the fact. It may also be useful for each hub to expose their specific stakeholders to the diversity of the Supergen Programme as a whole. International The independent review noted the importance of enhancing the international relevance of the Supergen Programme, and made the following recommendation: Elements of the Supergen Programme also need to understand where they fit into the world hierarchy and adapt based on the international context. To address this, the next phase of Supergen hubs will be required to feed into the international landscape where appropriate. For example, the Supergen Programme is well placed to help answer the challenges identified under Mission Innovation and RCUKs Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF). Relevance to HM Government Industrial Strategy At the time this implementation plan was issued, the HM Government consultation on the Industrial Strategy green paper was underway. The work carried out by the Supergen Programme already supports a low carbon UK economy, through strong industrial connections and relevance and has achieved strong impact over the past three phases of the programme. Future iterations will be required to link their research to the UK Government Industrial Strategy, where relevant. The Supergen Programme aligns to several of the pillars which BEIS have used to frame their approach to the Industrial Strategy consultation, for example: Investing in science, research and innovation By its very nature, the Supergen Programme is an investment in UK research capacity in areas of national importance. The Supergen Programme is well placed to use fundamental and applied research to support SME and industrial stakeholders in addressing current challenges. Developing skills The Supergen hubs will continue to link directly to relevant CDTs to enrich the PhD training experience and provide industry relevant skills. Graduates of these CDTs have a high industrial uptake, post- Page 3 of 7

4 graduation. The hubs also support early career researchers, ensuring that the UK maintains or grows capacity in important areas. The Supergen Programme is a five year investment with a leader responsible for establishing a dynamic strategic vision for their area that ensures UK work in the area remains relevant and leading edge. Therefore, the leader must be mindful of changes to the energy landscape such as the Industrial Strategy, and respond accordingly. Delivering affordable energy and clean growth The Supergen Programme will continue to support innovation by providing solutions to current industrial challenges through fundamental and applied research, whilst also generating long term options for UK Government. The Supergen Programme would also be well placed to support areas highlighted by the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, such as: Smart and clean energy technologies (such as storage and demand response grid technologies) Robotics and artificial intelligence (including connected and autonomous vehicles and drones) Manufacturing processes and materials of the future Three tier structure (Programme, hub and spoke) Programme Hub (Coordinating Node) Activity Node Governance High Level Group, Supergen Directors group, Supergen hub managers group Director, Hub Manager, communications staff Co-Directors Resource Central admin Engagement, communications, hub admin, etc. Core research topics, link to grants / fellowships / programme grants outside of the hub (branded as 'part of the Supergen Programme' in some cases) Commissioning Flexible fund between hubs and beyond Seedcorn funding between spokes / hub themes Networking Supergen Directors Group (SuperNet) Research area network and engagement with existing networks broadcast of research outputs (journal papers, articles, conferences) Impact and beneficiaries Communicate specific benefits to identified groups of stakeholders (Programme level national / international) Deliver impact through the uptake of the research outputs from the activity node to specific stakeholders (Technology level) Create high quality user relevant research outcomes Page 4 of 7

5 Strategy delivery High Level Strategy, top level ECR and E&D plan, top level engagement plan Research Vision, ECR and E&D plan, engagement plan, data management plan The two stage call process The Supergen Review 2016 report recommended that the next phase of Supergen should feature an enhanced management structure including a Director and Co-Directors for each hub. These would be responsible for supporting cross-hub activities and engagement outside of the core universities and ensuring a balance of funding distribution that maximises high quality research outputs. In order to identify hub Directors with the right balance of skills, EPSRC will commission the next phase of Supergen using a two stage process. The first of these stages will be a Hub Leader call to identify the best hub Director. The successful applicant will then receive six months of funding to build a consortium, plan a community-led programme of research and prepare a full application for the second stage. The successful grants will be monitored and supported by RCUK staff, the Supergen High Level Group and members of the RCUK Energy Programme Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to ensure the integrity of the subsequent full application and that an appropriate consortium is built. This two stage process means that the unsuccessful applicants from the first stage can still be included in the final consortium and ensures the hub leadership will be more representative of the community as a whole. For the hub Leader proposal, the expert panel will assess applicants based on the following criteria: Ability to be a thought leader, applicant s vision for the thematic area and the Supergen s role in it, track record of coordinating research and translating that for impact to industry / government, profile in the community and understanding of the energy landscape and where their area fits. The full proposal for a Supergen hub will be invitation only and will assess the scientific merits of the hub application using the standard EPSRC peer review criteria. EPSRC would expect these Supergen hubs to be made up of a consortium of multiple universities or research organisations, all on an equal footing no institution should be seen to dominate. Synergic alignments The Supergen Review 2016 report recommended that EPSRC investigate whether some hubs could be clustered under common, aligned areas which share technological challenges. Such clusters could potentially share flexible funding, outreach and networking resource. When this idea was presented to EPSRC s advice streams they stated that, if EPSRC implemented clustering, we should be bold in order to build something meaningful and impactful. Clustering would not be useful for all areas covered by Supergen; rather it will only apply to those that share some common stakeholders, research challenges, skill sets and where there are obvious synergies in technology development. Page 5 of 7

6 The benefits for this approach include: Bringing together of shared skills and expertise Transfer of fundamental knowledge Shared learning on similar problems Shared resource for interdisciplinary research Reduced bureaucracy (i.e. clustering together could release more funds, through a savings in management approach) Enhanced engagement with key stakeholders Easier access to the knowledge base for users / stakeholders Reduced meeting fatigue (and reduced stakeholder gaps in advisory board meetings, etc) One area where the Review Panel felt clustering makes sense is wind, wave and tidal energy which collectively fall within the offshore renewable energy (ORE) category. There are currently two hubs working in this area, the Supergen Wind and Supergen Marine hubs, and these both share common stakeholders (HM Government, Innovation Hub, ORE Catapult, Developers, Operators, manufacturers, health & safety, etc.) and challenges. It is also worth noting that there are currently two EPSRC supported Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) which work across the offshore wind and marine energy research space (IDCORE ETI / Edinburgh lead and the Wind & Marine Energy Systems CDT Strathclyde lead). As a result, EPSRC will create a new Supergen ORE hub and will consult the research community on how best to put this together and identify a coordinated programme of multidisciplinary research. It is recognised that the specific research challenges facing offshore wind, tidal and wave technologies are quite distinct and that the work in synergic areas would be in addition to existing research and expertise. Another possible cluster, or clusters, could emerge from exploring the synergies within the energy storage, fuel cells, heat / cooling technology areas (linking to existing and other coordinating activities, see later) and energy networks (assuming broader energy networks hub will be funded separately). It is less obvious how this cluster would come together and it will require open consultation across a number of research communities to ensure any clustering adds value and makes academic / industrial sense. However, there is a need for strong links between groups working in these areas and possibly the need to consider multiple energy vectors. Specifically, the 'storage' community should be encouraged to work on storage of energy in all its forms and not just storage of electricity. In particular, new approaches to upstream storage prior to conversion, to replace the coal stockpiles that the UK has historically depended on, and new approaches to domestic storage of heat are likely to provide important contributions to the future resilience of the UK's energy system. Areas for Future Supergen Hubs EPSRC will undertake a programme of investment in Supergen hubs where it is felt that this funding mechanism is appropriate for the area. As such during the financial year 2017/18 we propose to issue calls for Supergen hubs in Networks, Offshore Renewable Energy and Bioenergy (across the EPSRC-BBSRC remit). Topics for further Supergen hubs to be formed in 2018/19 would be determined following the consultation around the energy storage, energy networks, fuel cells and heat / cooling research themes. Page 6 of 7

7 Supergen is just one specific funding mechanism employed by EPSRC. Depending on the nature of the skills of the community and the direction to be taken, other funding mechanisms may be more appropriate. We expect to see churn of the area, particularly when the specific mechanism of building communities has been successful and answered user-led challenges, and is now moving into the innovation space and beyond RCUKs remit. Areas of note, absent from the Supergen Programme It was recommended in the Supergen Review 2016 report that EPSRC should consider whether the diffuse research activities in decarbonising heat and existing activities in transport, relating to energy, should be integrated into any new phase of the Supergen Programme. This would form a focus for those areas and provide coherent, evidence-based options for stakeholders such as HM Government. For the EPSRC Energy Theme to cover heat decarbonisation makes sense as a number of activities are already funded via End Use Energy Demand (EUED) and UKERC. In addition, a strengthened academic capability / focal point in the UK could play a crucial role in supporting the development of an energy system that will be able to meet 2050 GHG emission targets. Heat could also fit into one of the synergic alignments in the previous section. We will consult with the research communities and investigate this further and find a suitable place for this area, whether within Supergen or the EUED centres. The energy aspects of Transport are a small part of a larger area and the EPSRC Energy Theme will explore the possibilities from a wider EPSRC perspective. Next steps In, EPSRC will publish the Supergen Review 2016 report to coincide with the launch of BEIS new industrial strategy. Soon after, EPSRC will publish the implementation plan which will detail how the recommendations from the review report will be carried-out as well as the communities Supergen Programme Strategy. EPSRC will also carry out a number of research community consultation activities to continue to shape the next phase of the Supergen Programme. Finally, EPSRC will launch a series of calls to commission the next round of Supergen hubs. EPSRC expects that the changes suggested as a result of this review coupled with the increased emphasis on community led, responsive mode funding will at least maintain the level of funding flowing into energy research in the UK. Page 7 of 7