Output 2.3 Innovation Program Implementation and Management

Contribution to Outcome 2
Priorities
Performance information

Performance information

Summary of overall performance

The performance of Output 2.3 in making its contribution to Outcome 2 was monitored at monthly intervals throughout the year, against quantity, quality and cost performance indicators. The quality of services delivered under Output 2.3 was maintained at a high level, achieving 80 per cent satisfaction with the quality of staff service, and satisfaction with overall service delivery at about 77 per cent.

The quantity of services delivered, as measured by the number of customers assisted, increased by about 26 per cent in comparison to the previous year. Increases were across all programs, and increased take-up of the R&D Tax Concession was significant, as shown below.

AusIndustry’s overall service delivery cost per customer for Output 2.3 was on a par with the previous year’s.

Some case study examples of the benefits arising from assistance under this Output are provided below.

Quality

Key processes completed within time target

Approximately 5,700 key processes, or 83 per cent, were completed within time targets for Output 2.3; see figure 5 for a breakdown by the Output’s two main types of service.

Figure 5: Proportion of key processes of completed within time targets, 2001–02

The timeliness reached by the whole Output 2.3 was similar to the previous year. The primary explanation for the lower performance in relation to innovation programs was the occurrence of delays in the agreement processes in the BIF and COMET programs.

Customer satisfaction

Qualitative and quantitative information about customer satisfaction was obtained using structured telephone interviews. Results are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Results of customer satisfaction surveys, 2001–02

Note: Data from AusIndustry customer satisfaction surveys conducted to date.

Results of the customer surveys revealed a high level of customer satisfaction with staff service and compared favourably with available benchmarks for public sector service delivery. Customers consistently rated staff service more highly than overall service delivery. The surveys indicated that customers valued staff professionalism, responsiveness and comprehensive advice making clear what is expected from customers. In addition, customers were generally more satisfied with venture capital programs than innovation programs. Detailed examination of the survey results explains these differences, which arose from areas for improvement in processes and information products.

Quantity

Table 18: Customers assisted by each program, 2001–02 (a)

1. The composition of the Output has changed since 2000–01.
2. No Pre-Seed Fund capital was drawn down.
3. The number of registrations for the R&D Tax Concession refers to the number of companies registered in 2001–02 in respect of any applicable year of income.

Overall there was a 26 per cent increase in the estimated number of customers assisted from the estimated 4,600 customers assisted in the 2000–01 year.

The increase in the demand for the Output’s services was mainly due to increasing numbers of customers accessing the R&D Tax Concession. At the end of 2001–02 the R&D Tax Concession recorded 4,054 customers (as measured by companies registered in the year), representing a 31 per cent increase compared with the previous year.

All other programs recorded increases in their numbers of customers in comparison with the previous year.

Table 19: Dollar values of program funds administered and estimated dollar values of concessions delivered, 2001–02

1. The value for the Innovation Access Program does not include $331,000 funds for strategic activities under the program.
2. The value represents R&D Tax Concession estimated revenue forgone, from the 2001 Tax Expenditures Statement.
3. No Pre-Seed Fund capital was drawn down.

The value of funds administered and value of benefits delivered are estimated to be $746 million combined. This represents a decrease of 11 per cent below the estimated value of funds and benefits delivered in 2000–01. The primary reason for the decrease in funds administered was the transfer of science programs to DEST during the year.

All remaining programs increased their amounts of funds and benefits delivered, with the exception of REEF and the R&D Tax Concession estimate.

Price

The prices per firm assisted for delivering Output 2.3 programs through AusIndustry are set out in Table 20 below.

Table 20: Price of service delivery, 2001–02

The implementation of BIF, the industry grants elements of the Innovation Access Program and the new R&D Tax Concession premium and offset arrangements contributed to an increase in the cost per customer for the innovation programs. There was a sharp decrease in the cost per venture capital customer due to there being no further selection rounds for the IIF and reduced activity in the PDF program.

Another factor in the overall decrease in the cost per firm assisted was the transfer of science programs to DEST. The figures above do not include running costs (of about $1.5 million) expended on the science programs before their transfer to DEST.