Ossi Malmberg, Vice President, Administration:
New full cost model is fair

21.08.2008

Research funding from the Academy of Finland will move to a new full cost system from the beginning of 2009. The pros and cons of the move have long been discussed and even heatedly debated. The purpose is to determine the overall costs of research projects as accurately as possible – including the input of working hours by individual researchers. At the same time, the increment for overhead costs – which too has received criticism over the years – will be discontinued.

“There are those who are ill at ease with the new system, others have no objections. And there are those who are convinced the new system is clearer, more inclusive and consistent and fairer than the current funding system,” says Academy Vice President for Administration, Ossi Malmberg.

Malmberg started in his new position at the beginning of 2008. He moved to the Academy from his previous job at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Department for Development Policy.

Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation, and Helsinki University of Technology both adopted the full cost model at the beginning of 2008. “The system will be incrementally adopted throughout central government in all its shared cost actions,” Malmberg says.

Some professors have been opposed to the new system. For instance, the allocation of working hours between different research projects is considered forced and cumbersome.

The purpose is to allocate, not control working hours

The full cost system is based on calculations of the total overall costs accrued by each project, including salaries and social security charges, travel costs and each project’s share of IT, administrative and facilities costs.

“As such, the new system won’t not bring more money to anyone. Many central government organisations have been using this system since the mid-1990s so as to know exactly how their monies are spent.”

Malmberg does not believe that universities or research institutes want to use the full cost system to monitor the working hours put in by individual researchers. “The system is not about controlling working hours but about the allocation of working hours.”

“As such, the cost of academic work is certainly an important aspect of the full cost model,” he adds. “For instance, 80 per cent of the Academy’s funding goes towards labour costs.”

Academy research funding not affected

The purpose of the full cost system is not to change the Academy’s research funding. “We’ll continue to sift through the 5,000 funding applications we receive each year in order to select the very best.”

Universities have called upon the Academy to clarify its exact share of total research funding in the new full cost system. “I understand the universities’ position. However, for us a fixed standard share isn’t something we want to endorse, because the figures are different in different disciplines. Different fields of research have different sources of external funding,” Malmberg explains.

Towards university partnership

The Academy’s new strategic project portfolio includes the promotion of university partnership. “We share many interests in common with universities. After all, our ultimate objective is the same, that is, to enhance the quality and impact of research.”

The exact content and meaning of university partnership is still under discussion.

“We are in discussions with the Executive Committee of the Finnish Council of University Rectors to establish who would be the most appropriate partners in dialogue. Work is also underway to prepare themes for discussion.”

One major partnership theme, according to Malmberg, could be that of internationalisation.

Will there be any changes to the Academy’s organisation?

Malmberg has experienced some surprises during his first six months at the Academy. “The biggest surprise was how finely tuned our main engine really is: the process of reviewing funding applications really runs very smoothly and effectively.”

The question of whether funding decisions could in some cases be made without a full-blown review process is not one to which the Academy is currently giving any serious thought. “We are convinced that this is how an impartial and high-quality review process should be conducted – by inviting experts from as far afield as necessary to evaluate Finnish research applications,” Malmberg says.

The Academy of Finland is a traditional line organisation characterised by horizontal relationships. “At some point we’ll certainly need to look at whether we are organised as rationally as possible. But before that, we need to review all our funding instruments and consider whether it would be possible to reduce their number. Only then can we redefine the tasks that lie ahead.”

The government productivity programme that is currently underway is also applicable to the Academy of Finland. “From the level of 166 person-years in 2006, we need to cut back to 146 person-years by 2011. This is a tough challenge because our range of tasks is only increasing, particularly with the advance of internationalisation. Internal reform is absolutely essential.”

An administrator through and through, Malmberg admits to being old-fashioned. “It may sound a bit boring, but for me the main thing is to ensure that administration complies with administrative legislation. That is a guarantee of democracy and civil society.”

Malmberg also maintains that a Weberian bureaucratic organisation creates conditions for private sector business and industry.

Text: Tiina Ruulio
 

Do you wish to comment on any issues dealt with in this interview? Please visit our discussion forum and have your say.

Other interviews and news