Commercial outcomes 
of SME-Research 
collaboration



Citation

Verreynne M., Torres de Oliveira R., (with contributions 
from Mcgillivray H., Nguyen T., Oliveira Silva M., 
Shepherd E. and Feast G.) (2025) Commercial outcomes 
of SME-Research collaboration. CSIRO, Australia.

Copyright

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 2025. To the extent permitted by law, all 
rights are reserved, and no part of this publication covered 
by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or 
by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this 
publication comprises general statements based on desktop 
research, interviews and surveys. The reader is advised 
and needs to be aware that such information may be 
incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. 
No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that 
information without seeking prior expert professional, 
scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted 
by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) 
excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, 
including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, 
expenses and any other compensation, arising directly 
or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in 
whole) and any information or material contained in it. 
CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content 
wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with 
accessing this document, please contact csiro.au/contact.

Acknowledgements

CSIRO acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the 
lands on which we live and work across Australia, 
and we pay our respects to Elders past and present. 
We recognise the enduring contributions of Aboriginal 
and Torres Strait Islander peoples to Australia’s 
culture, economy, and scientific knowledge.

We thank the University of Queensland for leading 
this research as well as the Queensland University of 
Technology for their valued contribution. We also 
acknowledge IPSOS for conducting interviews 
in a professional and collaborative manner.

Our sincere thanks go to the 200+ businesses 
who generously shared their time, perspectives, 
and insights – their input has been central 
to shaping the findings of this report.



Contents

Executive summary..................................................................................................................................iv1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................12 Background............................................................................................................................................23 Research method................................................................................................................................34 Demographics of survey respondents.....................................................................................45 Findings...................................................................................................................................................66 Summary of key findings..............................................................................................................227 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................23References .................................................................................................................................................24Appendix.....................................................................................................................................................25
Glossary

ABBREVIATION

DEFINITION 

ARC 

Australia Research Council

CRCs

Cooperative Research Centres

IGC

Industry Growth Centres

IP

Intellectual Property

iPhD

Industry PhD

R&D

Research and Development 

SMEs

Small and medium enterprises

URIs

Universities or research institutions







CSIRO Executive foreword

Australian industry is navigating increasingly complex 
geopolitical and economic landscapes. And for small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), business success 
can depend on fostering enabling partnerships and 
knowing when and how to invest in innovation.

This report offers a comprehensive analysis of the 
commercial outcomes achieved by SMEs that have engaged 
in research with universities and research institutions (URIs). 
At a macro level, such university and SME collaborations 
are known to build innovation capability, drive product 
development and help to create pathways for new markets. 

This study delivers deeper insights into 
the real-world impacts on Australian 
business. A broader understanding 
of these benefits will ensure that 
investment of time and resources 
delivers impact for SMEs and URIs.

The findings highlight the significant value of innovation 
programs designed to foster industry‑research 
collaboration. Facilitated, dollar‑matched programs 
– such as CSIRO Kick‑Start – play a critical role 
in supporting early-stage innovation. They help 
SMEs de-risk R&D, develop prototypes, and 
build the credibility needed to scale.

We are proud to demonstrate that targeted, accessible 
support initiatives, like those delivered by CSIRO, 
remain a vital pillar of Australia’s innovation ecosystem. 
We also note that there is demand for expansion of 
such programs to better enable SMEs to tap into the 
vast and exciting capabilities of our universities.

For regional SMEs, the benefits of research collaborations 
are particularly prominent. Despite facing greater 
resource constraints and logistical challenges, regional 
businesses reported higher rates of product development, 
independent validation, and market expansion than 
their metropolitan counterparts. These findings 
reinforce the need for tailored strategies to ensure 
businesses, no matter their location, can fully leverage 
research partnerships and unlock new opportunities.

By aligning support mechanisms with the evolving 
needs of businesses and leaning into research 
collaborations we all can strengthen Australia’s 
economic resilience and global competitiveness.

Dr Jen Taylor
Executive Director, 
Future Industries
CSIRO



UQ foreword

Australia’s future prosperity hinges on our ability 
to diversify the economy through innovation and 
collaboration, importantly also with universities. 
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and university 
partnerships are crucial for accelerating firm growth, 
solving business challenges, and bringing novel ideas 
to market. These partnerships not only help researchers 
ask better questions but also enable SMEs to innovate 
and overcome their internal R&D limitations. Despite the 
resource constraints that SMEs frequently encounter, such 
as limited time and financial resources, collaborations 
can provide access to cutting-edge techniques and 
knowledge, and enhance the absorptive capacity 
necessary to benefit from these partnerships.

Recent data underscores the substantial 
contributions of SMEs to Australia’s 
innovation ecosystem. For the fiscal 
year 2021–22, SMEs accounted for 
55 percent of the country’s total R&D 
spending by businesses, surpassing 
larger corporations for the first time. 
This trend emphasises the importance 
of supporting SMEs in their innovation 
efforts and ensuring they have the 
resources and opportunities to 
collaborate effectively with universities.

Over time, governments and other funding bodies 
have invested in programs designed to encourage 
collaboration between businesses, universities, and 
research institutes. These initiatives aim to generate 
new knowledge, ideas, and innovations that drive 
economic, societal, and environmental benefits. 
However, there is a growing recognition of the necessity 
to improve the accessibility, design, and implementation 
of these programs to maximise their impact.

This report delves into the critical role that support 
programs play in fostering university-industry 
collaborations, particularly for SMEs. It systematically 
reviews the outcomes of various support programs 
for SMEs, provided by federal, state, territory, and 
local governments, as well as other key players in the 
innovation ecosystem, such as CSIRO and universities. 
By evaluating the efficacy of these programs and 
identifying areas for improvement, the report provides 
valuable insights into how these initiatives impact 
SME growth and innovation. It offers a comprehensive 
analysis of the outcomes for SMEs participating in 
support programs and examines the characteristics 
of SMEs that derive the most from these programs.

The findings point to the need for tailored programs 
for SMEs of different sizes, ages, industries, regions, 
and capability profiles. Of particular interest is 
the innovation benefits for regional businesses, 
reputational benefits for metro businesses, and the 
differences between outcomes achieved through 
facilitated versus non-facilitated programs. 

This report provides a clear understanding of the 
challenges and opportunities faced by SMEs in Australia 
and offers valuable recommendations for enhancing 
the design and implementation of these programs 
to better support our nation’s economic growth and 
diversification. I firmly believe that this report serves 
as a valuable resource for policymakers, researchers, 
and industry stakeholders, contributing to the ongoing 
efforts to strengthen Australia’s innovation ecosystem.

Professor Paul Bonnington
Deputy Vice-Chancellor 
(Research and Innovation) (Interim)
University of Queensland



Executive summary

Collaborations between small and medium enterprises 
(SMEs) and universities or research institutions (URIs) 
are recognised as critical drivers of innovation, however 
little analysis has been undertaken to understand the 
individual commercial outcomes for SMEs and how 
collaboration influences their future planning and growth.

In partnership with the University of Queensland, 
this report and research, seeks to investigate Australian 
SMEs’ outcomes from collaborations with URIs, 
with a particular focus on those that have taken 
part in three types of collaboration programs: 

i. Facilitated dollar-matched programs 
ii. Competitive grant programs
iii. Student programs.


A survey of 201 businesses across various 
sizes, geographies and sectors, revealed 
insights into the role and effectiveness of these 
collaborations. Performance outcomes were 
analysed across three domains: innovation 
and business capability, organisational impact, 
and additional collaborative outcomes.

Key findings

1. Collaborations with URIs accelerate SMEs’ 
ability to innovate and bring ideas to market
Projects lead to tangible outcomes such 
as new/improved products, prototypes, 
and derisked early-stage R&D.

2. SME-URI collaboration supports businesses 
as they grow
Micro and small businesses focus on early-stage 
innovation; larger firms access external R&D funding 
and tackle more complex innovation challenges.

3. Collaboration helps SMEs address challenges 
and opportunities specific to their industry
Medtech/biotech firms focus on derisking 
early‑stage R&D; manufacturing and digital 
technology SMEs focus on product development; 
energy firms prioritise independent validation.

4. Facilitated dollar-matched programs lead to tangible 
outputs, and competitive grants support more 
sophisticated collaboration 
Different program types achieve certain outcomes, 
aligned to the varying sizes and maturity levels of SMEs.

5. Facilitated dollar-matched programs achieve a 
similar overall impact to higher-value competitive 
grant programs 
Similar impact magnitudes were found in some 
areas including new collaborations, access to 
further grants and improved competitiveness.

6. Regional SMEs gain greater outcomes 
than metro SMEs
Regional SMEs benefit more strongly from 
collaboration, scoring more highly than 
metro in almost all positive categories.

Recommendations

1. Continue to foster collaboration between SMEs 
and URIs by reducing barriers, and increasing awareness 
through targeted outreach and industry initiatives.

2. Align programs to support SMEs as they 
grow and mature by reducing program 
‘gaps’; businesses can maintain relationships 
and maximise innovation outcomes. 

3. Tailor programs to industry-specific needs 
and opportunities aligning programs with 
sector priorities to effectively leverage URI 
partnerships for growth and impact.

4. Broaden the availability of facilitated programs: 
lower-cost programs, particularly focusing on 
micro- and small firms, should be expanded. 

5. Invest in tailored programs for regional 
businesses since the outcomes of SME‑URI 
collaboration are magnified.



1 Introduction

Australia’s economic future depends on diversifying 
industries, which can be accelerated by fostering 
innovation and collaboration between businesses 
and universities and research institutes (URIs). 
Government initiatives, such as funding and grant 
programs, are designed to encourage these partnerships 
to deliver economic, societal, and environmental benefits 
(DISR, 2017; Palangkaraya et al., 2023; Plunket, 2024). 

Some government and research programs specifically 
target small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), 
supporting them to make connections with researchers, 
providing resources to address business challenges, 
bringing new ideas to market, and driving growth. 
These programs can be categorised into three types: 

• Facilitated dollar-matched programs (e.g. Innovation 
Connections, CSIRO Kick-Start and SIEF STEM+ Business) 
provide SMEs with matched funding to access 
expert researchers. These programs help businesses 
connect with R&D to develop new products or 
enhance capabilities by engaging directly with URIs. 
Facilitators in these programs play an active role in 
finding the best expertise for the project, ensuring 
goals are aligned and resources are used effectively. 
• Competitive grant programs (e.g. Australia Research 
Council [ARC] Linkage Program, Cooperative Research 
Centres [CRC], Industry Growth Centres [IGC], etc.) 
usually provide SMEs with financial support for 
research and development projects without the direct 
involvement of a facilitator to connect businesses 
with URIs. Grant values are often much larger 
than for facilitated dollar-matched programs.
• Student programs (Industry PhD [iPhD] and 
APR Intern) empower students to solve real-world 
business problems, fostering innovation and 
providing valuable learning opportunities. 


Each program type offers unique benefits and faces 
distinct challenges, providing varying levels of 
support tailored to the specific needs of SMEs. 

This report investigates the impact of these programs on 
aspects of SMEs’ growth, operations and performance. 
It evaluates how these collaborations influence innovation 
outcomes, such as business growth, export success, and 
environmental or social contributions. Additionally, the 
report explores which business types – considering factors 
such as size and sector – derive the greatest value from 
partnering with research organisations, aiming to identify 
opportunities for improvement and better alignment with 
SME needs, as well as identifying trends in demographics, 
industry sectors and regional vs metro locations.



2 Background

The research translation problem

The seminal model of collaborations between research 
institutions, industry and governments, the Triple 
Helix Model, explains how these three parties come 
together for knowledge creation, research translation 
and development of competitive advantage through 
commercialisation of knowledge and research 
(Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997; Guimón & Paunov, 
2022; Miller et al. 2018). Businesses benefit from such 
collaborations through an increase in the number of 
patents registered and improved performance (Cheng et 
al., 2020), an increase in R&D expenditure per employee, 
and an increased share of R&D employment (Scandura, 
2016). Universities benefit through the translation and 
implementation pathways for their knowledge, with 
academics benefiting from industry collaborations 
through, for example, additional resources and support, 
career advancement and prestige (Harman, 2001). 

Recognising these benefits, governments typically seek to 
encourage collaborations that lead to innovation through 
policy and funding initiatives (Jongbloed, 2015). Globally, 
government mechanisms that support innovation include:

• Intellectual Property (IP) legislation and 
enforceability (Nasiibah Ramli & Zinatul, 2017).
• Development of collaboration spaces, such as 
science parks, innovation hubs, incubators or 
innovation agencies (Bajada et al., 2022).
• Financial support, including grants, subsidies and seed 
funding, and encouragement of venture capital for seed 
and proof of concept funding (Wonglimpiyarat, 2015).
• Competence/capability development (Kochenkova 
et al., 2016), including education and guidance 
around best practices (Harman & Harman, 2004).


However, there are still questions as to whether these 
support mechanisms are effective in Australia. For example, 
Australia is ranked 10th globally for research journal output 
(Scimago, 2023) but remains low on commercialisation. 
Similarly, Australia ranks 23rd of 133 economies in the 
Global Innovation Index but is highlighted as an inefficient 
innovator, finding it more challenging to convert innovation 
investment into tangible innovation output (WIPO, 2024). 

Despite these global rankings, there are positive 
developments from collaborative innovation investment 
in Australia. In 2023, ACIL Allen found that each dollar 
spent on ARC programs delivers $3.32 to the economy and 
that these programs create around 6,570 jobs annually. 
Firms can experience similarly positive outcomes, with 
a review of ARC Linkage program data (Palangkaraya 
et al. 2023), finding that successful applicants’ turnover 
was 20.8 per cent higher than unsuccessful applicants. 

Return on investment

In recent years, there has been an increase in reports 
to understand the return on investment from grant 
programs and their impact (DISR, 2017; Universities 
Australia, 2018; Nicolaou et al., 2019; DISR, 2023; 
ACIL Allen, 2023), with more underway (Punket, 2024).

These reviews identify the positive impact of industry‑URI 
collaboration on innovation and economic output in 
general, but do not focus on the specific role and impact 
on SMEs. This distinction is important, because SMEs 
face unique challenges and opportunities compared to 
larger enterprises (Cao, Verreynne & Torres de Oliveira, 
2024). SMEs often lack the resources and capacity for 
extensive R&D, making external collaborations vital for 
innovation and growth. The emphasis on collaboration 
with URIs can be especially beneficial for SMEs, providing 
them access to cutting-edge research, technologies, 
and expertise that would otherwise be beyond reach – 
all while being more agile, and able to integrate new 
technologies faster than their larger counterparts.

Moreover, SMEs play a crucial role in the economy, 
contributing significantly to employment and regional 
development. By fostering stronger collaborations 
between SMEs and URIs, grant programs can help 
SMEs overcome barriers to innovation, enhance their 
competitiveness, and drive economic growth. 



3 Research method

This project utilised data collected through an 
online survey targeted at SMEs. The survey was 
administered by a third-party provider, IPSOS, to 
ensure optimal data management. It focused on SMEs 
that had previously participated in innovation, R&D 
collaboration, and commercialisation programs. 

The survey questions were developed based on a 
comprehensive review of policy analysis methods, 
prior reports (Verreynne et al., 2021), relevant 
literature, and qualitative data. The CSIRO team 
and external experts rigorously reviewed the 
survey design to ensure validity and relevance.

The survey received responses from 201 businesses. 
Respondents represented a diverse range of 
business sizes, locations and industry sectors. 

The collected data were analysed using Stata software. 
Descriptive statistics, including mean values were 
employed to summarise respondent characteristics. 
To assess the impact of collaboration programs on 
performance, propensity score matching was used to 
pair collaborators with non-collaborators, followed by 
analysis through ordinal least squares regression.

The analysis explored a range of performance 
indicators, including innovation outcomes (e.g., new 
products and processes, product validation, patents/
IP submissions) and organisational performance metrics 
(e.g., capital raised, improved competitiveness, market 
access, revenue growth, market credibility, and job 
creation). Additionally, the potential negative impacts 
of participation in collaboration programs were 
investigated, such as IP control loss, delays in progress 
or market entry, and reduced financial performance.

4 Demographics of 
survey respondents

Of the 201 businesses that responded to the survey, 
one-fifth employed fewer than five employees 
(micro‑businesses), and one-third employed 
between six and 19 people (small businesses). 

Thirty-nine per cent were medium-sized 
businesses, employing between 20 and 199 people, 
and seven per cent were large businesses, employing 
200 employees or more (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Surveyed respondents by firm size 

Nineteen per cent of respondent businesses 
operated in manufacturing industries, with med 
tech, biotech and pharmaceutical (15%) and 
digital technology (10%) the next most common 
(Figure 2). Energy and emissions reduction, and 
mineral and mining accounted for eight and nine 
per cent of the sample, respectively (Figure 2). 

Figure 2: Surveyed respondents by industry

Additionally, 42 per cent of respondents were 
based in regional areas, with the remaining 
58 per cent in metropolitan areas (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Surveyed respondents in regional and 
metropolitan areas 

Demographics of firms 
participating in selected programs 

Firms were asked whether they had received financial 
support to engage in collaborative R&D programs with URIs 
over the past five years. A total of 159 respondents answered 
yes, with a split of the programs shown in Figure 4.

When viewed split by business size, larger firms tended 
to engage with CRCs, ARC and iPhD programs (25%, 33%, 
and 17%), whereas micro firms engaged in CSIRO Kick‑Start 
program, aligned with program objectives (Figure 5). 
Small businesses often accessed state/territory grants 
(30%), while 81 per cent of medium-sized firms participated 
in the Innovation Connections program (Figure 5).

Seventy-five per cent of large respondents indicated 
they took part in Innovation Connections (Figure 4). 
Since this program was designed for SMEs, it can be 
assumed these businesses were previously SMEs that 
have recently grown to a larger size. For completeness, 
data from large businesses are included when comparing 
business size. However, due to the low response rate 
(14 large businesses – Figure 1) and the indication that 
many are ‘recent’ SMEs, data from large respondents 
will not be the focus of our investigations.


Figure 4: Surveyed respondents who received financial support for URI collaboration, by selected program 

Figure 5: Surveyed respondents who received financial support for URI collaboration, by selected program and business size


5 Findings

Three categories of outcomes from SME-URI collaborations 
were analysed: (i) Innovation and business capability 
outcomes, (ii) organisational performance outcomes, and (iii) 
additional outcomes. These outcomes are analysed across 
all survey respondents, followed by a comparison of selected 
program type (facilitated dollar-matched versus competitive 
grant), finally by regional versus metropolitan areas. 

Outcomes from collaborating 
with URIs 

Innovation and business capability outcomes

Figure 6 illustrates the broad range of innovation 
outcomes achieved through collaborative efforts, 
with a standout 66 per cent of respondents reporting 
new/improved products. This outcome showcases the high 
likelihood of collaborations driving tangible outcomes. 
Additionally, 40 per cent of participants developed 
prototypes, highlighting the role of partnerships 
in bringing ideas closer to market, and enabling 
businesses to test and refine their innovations.

Figure 6: Innovation and business capability outcomes

Respondents found collaboration led to other critical 
enablers of innovation success. For instance, 31 per cent 
of respondents reported that collaboration derisked 
early-stage R&D, reducing uncertainty and improving the 
likelihood of future success. Similarly, 29 per cent achieved 
independent validation, a crucial step in ensuring quality, 
building credibility, and preparing for market entry.

Additional benefits included advancements in submitted/
granted IP (14%), increased speed to market (12%), and 
licensed technology (12%), showcasing how collaborations 
can open new pathways for commercialisation and growth.

While positive outcomes dominated, project abandonment 
was also observed, providing valuable lessons for 
collaboration improvements. For example, 35 per cent of 
projects led to abandoned results, and 29 per cent cited 
viability as the reason for discontinuation. However, 
the very nature of R&D means that some new ideas will 
not work and discovering that products or services are 
unviable early prevents businesses from wasting further 
valuable resources on that product/service pathway. 

Overall, the data reflect the immense value of collaboration 
in innovation, with significant benefits outweighing hurdles.

Innovation and business capability outcomes 
by business size

When split by firm size (micro, small, medium, large) 
distinct patterns in how different sized companies approach 
and experience innovation are revealed (Figure 7). 

For micro businesses, new/improved products (55%) and 
derisked early-stage R&D (36%) were the most frequently 
reported outcomes, indicating the smallest businesses 
often focus on the early stages of innovation, where 
product development and research are critical in their 
commercialisation pathway. Similarly, small businesses 
achieved an enormous 78 per cent success rate in developing 
new/improved products, far above other outcomes, 
highlighting their agility and focus in turning ideas 
into valuable products and services. Additionally, small 
businesses were able to develop prototypes (42%) and seek 
independent validation (31%). This may indicate that small 
businesses are better positioned than micro businesses to 
move from research to product development but may still 
face hurdles in fully commercialising these innovations, as 
reflected in the reporting of abandoned projects (29%).



Figure 7: Innovation and business capability outcomes by size 

Medium-sized businesses demonstrate capacity for 
innovation, with new/improved products (58%) and 
developed prototypes (41%) being the top outcomes, 
highlighting their ability to turn ideas into tangible results. 
These businesses also show significant alignment with 
independent validation (27%), suggesting a mindful 
approach to ensuring the quality of their innovations. 
While there is some occurrence of abandoned projects – 
abandoned: results (38%) and abandoned: viability (34%), 
this may reflect a natural part of the innovation process 
where businesses refine their focus, reassess priorities, or 
make strategic decisions to pivot. Overall, medium-sized 
businesses actively advance their innovation agendas, 
with a strong foundation for growth and scalability.

Large businesses reported the highest levels of new/
improved products (83%) and exhibited the highest 
frequency of outcomes related to project abandonment, 
particularly in terms of abandoned: results (67%), viability 
(50%) and resources (50%). This may reflect the complexity 
and scale of innovation within larger organisations, 
where projects are often revisited or discarded based 
on evolving business needs or strategic shifts.

Overall, the data reveal that as businesses grow in size, 
their innovation efforts tend to become more diversified 
and complex, with larger firms reporting a broader 
range of outcomes, including both successes and 
setbacks. By contrast, smaller businesses are more likely 
to report outcomes that reflect early-stage innovation 
processes, often focused on product development and 
initial R&D. These patterns provide insights into the 
various innovation opportunities and hurdles faced by 
businesses and provide insights into how programs could 
be specifically targeted at businesses of certain sizes.



Innovation and business capability outcomes 
by key industries 

Figure 8 highlights innovation outcomes across 
various industries. 

Figure 8: Innovation and business capability outcomes by key industries 

Minerals/mining, digital technologies and manufacturing 
stand out with particularly high rates of new/improved 
products (81%, 72% and 71% respectively), reflecting 
strong commercial outcomes in these sectors. 
Digital technologies, in particular, excel in developed 
prototype (61%), alongside medtech/biotech (52%), 
demonstrating successful progressions along the 
commercialisation pathway in these tech-led sectors.

The data also reveal strong early-stage positive 
outcomes in medtech/biotech and food and beverages, 
where at least half of businesses were able to derisk 
early‑stage R&D (55% and 50%, respectively). By contrast, 
independent validation was prominent in energy/emissions 
reduction (43%) and manufacturing (40%) as these 
customer-focussed businesses exploit the competitive 
edge they achieve through URI collaboration.

The fast-paced nature of the food and beverage industry 
is highlighted by the relatively high rate of increased speed 
to market (30%) – showcasing that URI collaboration 
is helping businesses get products onto shelves.

Abandoned projects due to a lack of usable results were 
common across sectors – highlighting the risky nature 
of R&D, but also saving company resources on projects 
that are not commercially viable. More specifically, there 
was noticeably higher abandonment due to resource 
constraints in the minerals/mining sector (44%) – where 
many junior exploration businesses are operating against 
multi-national conglomerates, and higher abandonment 
due to viability concerns in digital technologies (50%) 
where the R&D could be considered higher risk. 

These insights highlight the value these programs 
bring to various industries, helping to pinpoint 
sector‑specific needs and opportunities when designing 
and improving URI-collaboration programs. 

OUTCOME

SECTORS

AGRICULTURE


DIGITAL 
TECHNOLOGIES


ENERGY/ 
EMISSIONS 
REDUCTION

FOOD AND 
BEVERAGES

MANUFACTURING


MEDTECH/ 
BIOTECH

MINERALS/ 
MINING

PROFESSIONAL 
SERVICES

OTHER

New/improved 
products

67%

72%

43%

60%

71%

59%

81%

63%

64%

Developed 
prototype

20%

61%

43%

30%

51%

52%

25%

25%

50%

Abandoned: results

40%

39%

29%

30%

37%

28%

25%

38%

29%

Derisked early-stage 
R&D

27%

28%

21%

50%

29%

55%

44%

0%

29%

Independent 
validation

33%

22%

43%

30%

40%

21%

25%

31%

14%

Abandoned: viability

13%

50%

14%

20%

20%

38%

25%

44%

36%

Abandoned: 
resources

20%

33%

14%

20%

26%

17%

44%

31%

14%

Submitted/ 
granted IP

7%

11%

7%

20%

17%

21%

6%

13%

14%

Licensed technology

27%

11%

0%

10%

9%

21%

19%

0%

14%

Increased speed 
to market

20%

17%

7%

30%

17%

10%

0%

13%

0%

Establish networks

13%

17%

0%

10%

6%

17%

13%

6%

7%

Technology 
unsuitable

0%

17%

0%

10%

9%

17%

13%

6%

14%

Improved staff 
capability

0%

22%

7%

10%

0%

10%

6%

0%

7%

Loss of control of IP

7%

11%

14%

0%

0%

3%

6%

6%

0%

Hired talented 
graduates

7%

11%

7%

0%

6%

3%

0%

0%

0%


Figure 9 highlights the organisational benefits of URI 
collaboration for the businesses surveyed, with over 
half (51%) of firms experiencing improved credibility. 
This outcome bolsters trust among stakeholders 
and serves as a foundation for long-term growth. 
Additionally, 37 per cent of businesses reported improved 
competitiveness, a crucial outcome in maintaining or 
gaining an advantage in dynamic market environments. 
Access to further grants (32%) was another notable outcome, 
reflecting how collaborations can unlock financial 
opportunities to support innovation and expansion.

Figure 9: Organisational outcomes for URI collaborating firms

Beyond these top three outcomes, collaborations also 
contributed to tangible operational and market benefits. 
Job creation (23%) and increased productivity (22%) highlight 
how these partnerships drive economic and workforce 
development. Access to new markets (20%) and cost savings 
(19%) reveal the role of URI collaborations in helping 
businesses expand their reach and operate more efficiently.

Interestingly, the data also shed light on broader impacts. 
While a smaller proportion of businesses reported social 
benefits (16%) and environmental benefits (14%), these 
outcomes demonstrate the potential of URI collaborations 
to contribute to sustainability and community well-being.

In general, organisational outcomes are lower 
scoring than innovation outcomes – highlighting that 
businesses are entering into URI collaborations to 
improve specific products/services or relationships, 
rather than to boost their internal practices.



Figure 10 compares performance outcomes across micro, 
small, medium, and large businesses collaborating with 
URIs. Improved credibility remains the most commonly 
reported benefit for micro (64%), small (52%), and medium 
firms (45%), while large businesses report access further 
grants (58%) as the highest. This suggests that smaller 
firms, particularly micro and small, significantly value 
the reputational boost provided by URI collaborations 
to enhance trust and visibility in the market, while 
larger firms utilise their relationships and standing 
with URIs to access more external R&D funding.

Figure 10: Organisational performance outcomes by business size 

Improved competitiveness was another key outcome, 
particularly for large businesses (50%), followed by medium 
(38%), micro (36%) and small (34%). This indicates that 
while large businesses experienced the most significant 
improvement, the gains in competitiveness for medium, 
micro, and small businesses were not far behind, 
suggesting a broad impact across all business sizes. 

Increased productivity was reported more often from 
medium (26%) and small businesses (22%) rather than 
micro and large firms (both 15%), while access to new 
markets was more common for small firms (27%) and 
large firms (25%), compared to medium (16%) and 
micro businesses (15%). While these numbers are 
relatively small – it highlights that not all outcomes 
are size dependent and can be firm-specific.

Broader impacts, such as social benefits and environmental 
benefits, were also size-dependent. Social benefits were 
most frequently reported by micro businesses (27%), 
followed by small (19%), medium (11%), and large 
firms (8%). Environmental benefits were notably high 
for small firms (20%), compared to medium (10%), 
large (9%), and micro businesses (3%), reflecting a focus on 
sustainability in new businesses – perhaps led by consumer 
demand for new-to-market products and services. 



Organisational performance outcomes 
by key industries

Figure 11 highlights the varied outcomes achieved 
across different sectors.

Figure 11: Organisational performance outcomes by key industries

As expected, most sectors reported improved credibility 
as their highest outcome, however energy/emissions 
reduction (36%) was significantly lower than 
other sectors. Improved competitiveness is particularly 
prominent in the food and beverages sector (60%) 
and manufacturing (54%), while both sectors manage 
to minimise negative financially outcomes (0%), 
signalling that R&D decision-making is well-honed.

Food and beverages (50%) and medtech/biotech (45%) 
lead the way in accessed further grants (in fact it was the 
joint highest score for medtech) with digital technologies 
(33%) and manufacturing (31%) reporting moderate 
success in this area. Conversely, minerals/mining (13%) 
lags behind, indicating potential hurdles in accessing 
the funding necessary to sustain or scale projects – or 
that projects tend to be finite rather than longer term.

Environmental benefits were most notable in food and 
beverages (50%), followed by manufacturing (26%) 
and agriculture (20%), by contrast medtech/biotech 
(3%) reported significantly lower results. Notably, 
energy/emissions reduction recorded no environmental 
benefits (0%), highlighting a potential area for 
improvement in achieving sustainable outcomes.

Digital technologies had the highest success in raising 
capital (44%) and slowed progress (39%), showcasing 
the high risk-reward nature of the industry. Slowed 
progress is also found in energy/emissions reduction 
(29%), which may reflect the complexity of projects 
or reliance on rapidly evolving technologies.

The data highlight improved compliance and environmental 
benefits in the food industry, a highly regulated sector 
facing evolving sustainability expectations, and emphasise 
the tech sector’s focus on raising capital for development. 
While certain outcomes in some sectors are less prominent, 
particularly in financial or workforce outcomes, the 
overall trends reflect significant achievements and 
a strong foundation for further collaboration.

OUTCOME

SECTORS

AGRICULTURE


DIGITAL 
TECHNOLOGIES


ENERGY/ 
EMISSIONS 
REDUCTION

FOOD AND 
BEVERAGES

MANUFACTURING


MEDTECH/ 
BIOTECH

MINERALS/ 
MINING

PROFESSIONAL 
SERVICES

OTHER

Improved 
credibility

60%

56%

36%

60%

43%

45%

50%

69%

50%

Improved 
competitiveness

40%

44%

21%

60%

54%

28%

38%

31%

21%

Social benefits

13%

22%

14%

20%

17%

7%

13%

19%

29%

Accessed further 
grants

20%

33%

21%

50%

31%

45%

13%

31%

21%

Improved 
compliance

7%

17%

14%

30%

11%

7%

25%

19%

14%

Cost savings

33%

28%

14%

20%

17%

28%

19%

6%

14%

Raised capital

0%

44%

14%

30%

17%

24%

6%

0%

21%

Increased 
productivity

40%

28%

7%

20%

34%

17%

6%

6%

29%

Access new 
markets

13%

17%

14%

30%

37%

10%

25%

13%

21%

Slowed progress

7%

39%

29%

20%

3%

24%

0%

6%

7%

Negative 
financially

13%

28%

21%

0%

0%

17%

19%

19%

29%

Job creation

20%

39%

7%

30%

26%

24%

19%

6%

29%

Environmental 
benefits

20%

17%

0%

50%

26%

3%

6%

6%

7%

Positive financially

7%

17%

0%

20%

20%

3%

6%

13%

14%



Additional collaborative outcomes

Figure 12 highlights additional collaborative outcomes 
achieved by respondents when engaging with URIs. 

All firms report continuing relationships with URIs at 
over 60 per cent highlighting the desire and need for 
ongoing collaboration. Large businesses recorded the 
highest percentage across most outcomes, except for 
collaborations in new areas (however, with only 14 large 
respondents (Figure 1), the data are less representative). 
Medium-sized businesses excel in creating new collaborative 
opportunities (60%), likely due to their capacity to scale 
and diversify their partnerships. Micro enterprises show 
comparable performance in new funding applications 
(40%) and building new relationships with different URIs 
(35%), indicating their focus on expanding networks 
to secure financial and collaborative support. 

Collaborations in new areas is significantly lower for micro 
enterprises (10%), than for small (30%) and medium (25%) 
enterprises. This is understandable since many start-ups 
are focusing on a single path to market, and so do not 
have the interest or resources to explore new areas. 

Figure 12: Additional collaborative outcomes by business size 


Outcomes from participation 
in selected programs 

This section focuses on the outcomes achieved through 
participation in selected collaboration programs. Facilitated 
dollar-matched programs, such as Innovation Connections and 
CSIRO Kick-Start, provide SMEs with matched funding, expert 
research support, and active facilitation to address specific 
challenges and foster innovation. By contrast, competitive 
grant programs, such as ARC Linkage Program, Cooperative 
Research Centres, and Industry Growth Centres, emphasise 
financial support for R&D initiatives, allowing businesses 
greater independence in pursuing innovation projects while 
leveraging resources to achieve high-impact outcomes. 

Student programs (iPhD, APR Intern and Other 
University‑specific programs) were excluded from the selected 
programs comparison due to low response rates (only 14, 
10 and 7 businesses participated, respectively – Figure 4). 
However, data from student programs are included in the 
individual program analysis presented later in this section. 

Innovation and business capability 
outcomes in selected program types

Figure 13 provides a comparison of the innovation and 
business capability outcomes achieved by participants 
in facilitated dollar-matched programs and competitive 
grant programs. Facilitated dollar-matched programs 
demonstrate a stronger emphasis on creating tangible 
outputs, particularly in the development of new or 
improved products (72%) and developed prototypes (46%). 
This higher focus on product innovation aligns with the 
collaborative and incremental approach characteristic 
of dollar-matched initiatives, where shared investment 
between stakeholders encourages a practical orientation 
towards innovation. These programs also excel in 
enabling participants to de-risk early-stage R&D (35%) 
and secure independent validation of their projects 
(30%), reflecting a strategic emphasis on reducing 
uncertainties and ensuring feasibility before scaling. 

Figure 13: Innovation and business capability outcomes by selected programs

In contrast, competitive grant programs tend to deliver 
broader yet less product-focused outcomes. While they 
achieve slightly lower rates for new or improved products 
(67%) and developed prototypes (44%), they outperform 
in areas like increased speed to market (23%), licensed 
technology (20%) and submitted or granted IP (20%). 
This pattern suggests that competitive grants 
are particularly effective for more sophisticated 
engagements, for example intellectual property 
exploitation and sharing, which coincides with the 
goals that facilitated dollar-matched programs are for 
entry‑level engagement and larger grant programs are 
more useful when relationships have been established.

Competitive grants report slightly higher rates of 
abandoned project due to lack of useful results (43%) and 
viability (38%), likely reflecting the ambitious nature of the 
projects they fund. Facilitated dollar-matched programs, 
while slightly lower in these metrics, still face notable 
abandonment rates due to resource constraints (25%). 



Innovation and business capability 
outcomes in individual programs

Figure 14 offers further insights into how specific initiatives 
deliver impact. The outcomes demonstrate considerable 
variation, reflecting the diversity of goals, structures, 
and participant groups involved in each program.

Figure 14: Innovation and business capability outcomes in individual programs

Industry Growth Centre (IGC) grants stand out as leaders in 
fostering product-focused innovation, with 100 per cent of 
participants reporting new or improved products. However, 
with only 12 respondents (Figure 4), the dataset lacks depth 
for broader generalisations. Despite the relatively small 
investment of $50K per project, compared to in CRCs for 
example, CSIRO Kick-Start and Innovation Connections 
both report high success rates, with 73 per cent 
of participants achieving new/improved products. 
These programs have demonstrated their effectiveness 
in supporting SMEs to take innovative ideas from concept 
to commercialisation using minimal financial resources. 

Student programs are particularly successful in 
helping participants de-risk early-stage R&D (iPhD 71%, 
APR intern 70%), but show relatively high rates of viability 
(APR intern 70%), and resource-related project abandonment 
(iPhD 57%) – emphasising that these collaborations are 
often low risk with low financial investment. Additionally, 
IGC grants, APR Intern and CSIRO Kick-Start show strong 
performance in developed prototype (75%, 60% and 59% 
respectively), reflecting their focus on turning research 
ideas into proof-of-concept products that can advance 
to further stages of development and market entry.

Overall, the data show both the successes and hurdles of 
innovation-focused programs. Facilitated dollar‑matched 
programs excel in delivering practical, incremental 
outcomes, such as new products and prototype 
development, while competitive grants help 
de‑risk R&D and develop intellectual property.

PROGRAM

INNOVATION 
CONNECTIONS


SIEF 
STEM+ 
BUSINESS

CSIRO 
KICK-
START

CRCS

IPHD

APR 
INTERN

ARC 
GRANTS

OTHER 
SECTOR 
GRANTS

OTHER 
UNIVERSITY 
PROGRAMS


IGC 
GRANTS

STATE/
TERRITORY 
GRANTS

PROGRAM TYPE

OUTCOME

FACILITATED


FACILITATED


FACILITATED


COMPETITIVE


STUDENT

STUDENT

COMPETITIVE


UNKNOWN


UNKNOWN


COMPETITIVE


UNKNOWN


New/improved 
products

73%

71%

73%

78%

71%

80%

70%

59%

57%

100%

58%

Developed 
prototype

43%

29%

59%

54%

43%

60%

37%

52%

29%

75%

47%

Abandoned: results

38%

29%

34%

46%

57%

40%

52%

52%

57%

75%

49%

Derisked 
early‑stage R&D

33%

29%

56%

62%

71%

70%

48%

56%

57%

75%

56%

Independent 
validation

26%

29%

41%

43%

21%

20%

33%

37%

14%

42%

35%

Abandoned: 
viability

31%

29%

24%

38%

43%

70%

48%

37%

57%

75%

44%

Abandoned: 
resources

23%

14%

34%

38%

57%

20%

37%

33%

29%

58%

33%

Submitted/ 
granted IP

15%

29%

24%

27%

50%

20%

33%

22%

14%

42%

26%

Licensed 
technology

12%

0%

27%

24%

43%

30%

22%

15%

14%

42%

26%

Increased speed 
to market

14%

0%

20%

24%

29%

40%

26%

19%

14%

50%

26%

Establish networks

9%

29%

15%

19%

14%

10%

15%

19%

0%

17%

16%

Technology 
unsuitable

12%

14%

17%

24%

14%

20%

22%

7%

0%

33%

19%

Improved staff 
capability

7%

0%

10%

11%

7%

10%

4%

15%

14%

25%

12%

Loss of control 
of IP

5%

29%

10%

8%

7%

0%

11%

11%

14%

17%

12%

Hired talented 
graduates

5%

0%

5%

11%

7%

10%

11%

22%

0%

8%

12%


Organisational performance outcomes 
in selected program types 

Figures 15 provides an overview of the organisational 
performance outcomes achieved by participants in 
the selected collaboration programs, highlighting 
key distinctions between facilitated dollar‑matched 
programs and competitive grant programs. 

Figure 15: Organisational performance outcomes in selected programs 

Despite smaller investments in facilitated dollar-matched 
programs, these programs’ impacts were comparable, and 
in some cases better, than for higher‑value competitive 
grant programs. Improved credibility was the most 
significant outcome, with 52 per cent of respondents 
reporting this benefit in facilitated dollar-matched 
programs, close to the 64 per cent achieved through 
competitive grants. Similarly, accessing further grants 
saw strong performance, with 36 per cent reporting 
this outcome under facilitated dollar-matched programs 
compared to 48 per cent from competitive grant programs. 
Another notable result was improved competitiveness, where 
40 per cent of respondents from dollar-matched programs 
experienced this outcome, almost on par with 41 per cent 
in competitive grants. Notably, increased productivity 
was higher in facilitated dollar-matched programs (26%) 
compared to competitive grant programs (20%), showcasing 
their ability to deliver operational improvements efficiently.

Additionally, other positive outcomes such as access 
to new markets (23% in dollar-matched programs 
vs. 25% in competitive grants) and job creation 
(23% vs. 26%) showed only small differences 
between the two funding approaches. 

Despite smaller funding levels, facilitated dollar‑matched 
programs still delivered meaningful financial benefits, 
including cost savings (21%) and raised capital (21%), 
demonstrating their ability to support businesses 
effectively. Interestingly, the facilitated dollar-matched 
program percentages for environmental benefits (16%) 
and social benefits (16%) were close to competitive 
programs, which stood at 18 per cent and 19 per cent, 
respectively. Notably, negative financial outcomes were 
reported less frequently in dollar-matched programs 
(13%) compared to competitive grants (16%). Overall, the 
data highlight that facilitated dollar-matched programs 
can yield impactful outcomes, even with relatively 
lower investment levels, particularly in areas such 
as credibility, competitiveness, and grant access.



Organisational performance outcomes 
in individual programs 

Figure 16 examines organisational performance 
outcomes across individual programs, offering 
insights into their strengths and challenges. 

Figure 16: Organisational performance outcomes in individual programs

Improved credibility is consistently high across all programs 
with a very high score from IGC grants (92%), and was 
also the highest for improved competitiveness (83%), 
raising capital (58%) and job creation (67%), while iPhD 
and CSIRO Kick-Start also deliver strong raising capital 
results (43% and 44%, respectively). Student programs 
were also strong in accessed further grants (iPhD 71%, 
APR Intern 80%) which demonstrates their use as 
light-touch, low-commitment engagements that can 
build trust and lead to long-term collaborations.

Other university programs report lower performance 
across multiple metrics (albeit from a small number 
of responses – 7 [Figure 4]), including improved 
competitiveness (29%) and job creation (14%) – perhaps 
highlighting the focus of these programs on university‑push 
rather than industry‑pull. Furthermore, slowed progress 
was a notable issue for participants (43%).

Overall, the organisational performance outcomes 
highlight the multifaceted benefits of collaboration 
programs. Facilitated dollar-matched programs 
deliver immediate and practical improvements, such 
as cost savings and capital‑raising, while competitive 
grants foster strategic growth in competitiveness, 
job creation, and market expansion.

PROGRAM

INNOVATION 
CONNECTIONS


SIEF 
STEM+ 
BUSINESS

CSIRO 
KICK-
START

CRCS

IPHD

APR 
INTERN

ARC 
GRANTS

OTHER 
SECTOR 
GRANTS

OTHER 
UNIVERSITY 
PROGRAMS


IGC 
GRANTS

STATE/
TERRITORY 
GRANTS

PROGRAM TYPE

OUTCOME

FACILITATED


FACILITATED


FACILITATED


COMPETITIVE


STUDENT

STUDENT

COMPETITIVE


UNKNOWN


UNKNOWN


COMPETITIVE


UNKNOWN


Improved 
credibility

52%

57%

59%

65%

64%

60%

56%

67%

57%

92%

67%

Improved 
competitiveness

41%

43%

44%

46%

43%

40%

37%

44%

29%

83%

40%

Accessed 
further grants

33%

57%

54%

57%

71%

80%

63%

59%

43%

58%

51%

Increased 
productivity

28%

14%

24%

27%

29%

40%

22%

22%

14%

58%

26%

Job creation

25%

29%

27%

27%

36%

30%

30%

15%

14%

67%

26%

Access new 
markets

25%

29%

27%

27%

21%

20%

19%

22%

14%

42%

33%

Cost savings

22%

29%

20%

30%

43%

40%

22%

15%

43%

33%

28%

Raised capital

17%

14%

44%

38%

43%

40%

19%

15%

14%

58%

33%

Environmental 
benefits

19%

14%

17%

22%

14%

10%

15%

11%

0%

33%

19%

Social benefits

17%

0%

17%

16%

14%

0%

7%

15%

29%

50%

26%

Slowed progress

15%

29%

22%

19%

21%

20%

19%

30%

43%

33%

30%

Improved 
compliance

12%

14%

24%

35%

29%

30%

30%

22%

0%

25%

14%

Positive financially

16%

29%

10%

14%

0%

20%

7%

15%

0%

25%

14%

Negative 
financially

12%

29%

22%

11%

14%

10%

11%

22%

43%

25%

23%


Additional collaborative outcomes 
in selected program types

Figure 17 provides insights into the broader impact of 
collaboration programs. The comparison reveals distinct 
patterns in how each model contributes to long-term 
benefits beyond immediate project outcomes.

Figure 17: Additional collaborative outcomes by selected programs

Competitive grant programs outperform facilitated 
dollar‑matched programs across all outcomes, 
particularly in new relationships with different URIs 
(49% vs. 33%) and new funding applications (59% vs. 48%). 
However, facilitated dollar-matched programs achieve 
comparative outcomes in certain topics, such as 
collaborations in new areas (32% vs. 34%) and new 
collaborative opportunities (54% vs. 60%), indicating 
that despite differences in investment, they can deliver 
significant results to participants. Notably, both program 
types report strong outcomes in continuing relationships 
with URIs (71% for facilitated dollar-matched and 82% 
for competitive grant programs), underscoring their 
shared ability to foster ongoing collaborations.



Additional collaborative outcomes 
in individual programs

Figure 18 provides a closer look at individual 
programs, showcasing how specific initiatives 
deliver on additional outcomes. 

Figure 18: Additional collaboration outcomes by individual programs

Almost all programs showed very high rates of continuing 
relationships with URIs, showcasing that programs lead to 
long-term collaborations that benefit both the businesses 
and the URIs. IGC grants were particularly strong in 
collaboration in new areas (50%), while iPhD and CRC grants 
opened up new relationships with different URIs (64% and 
62% respectively). By contrast, University-led programs had 
much lower scores in new collaborative opportunities (14%) 
and collaborations in new areas (14%) as well as scoring 
relatively low in continuing relationships (57%). These results 
suggest a need for greater alignment between academic 
and industry priorities to maximise mutual benefits.

While most outcomes (innovation and business 
capability, organisational performance, and additional) 
from competitive grant programs were slightly higher 
than those from facilitated dollar-matched programs, 
the close-comparison highlights the exceptional value 
delivered by facilitated programs, despite typically 
involving smaller investments than in competitive grants. 
Key achievements across these programs include 
the development of new or improved products, 
strengthened organisational competitiveness, and the 
establishment of long-term collaborative networks. 

PROGRAM

INNOVATION 
CONNECTIONS


SIEF 
STEM+ 
BUSINESS

CSIRO 
KICK-
START

CRCS

IPHD

APR 
INTERN

ARC 
GRANTS

OTHER 
SECTOR 
GRANTS

OTHER 
UNIVERSITY 
PROGRAMS


IGC 
GRANTS

STATE/
TERRITORY 
GRANTS

PROGRAM TYPE

OUTCOME

FACILITATED


FACILITATED


FACILITATED


COMPETITIVE


STUDENT

STUDENT

COMPETITIVE


UNKNOWN


UNKNOWN


COMPETITIVE


UNKNOWN


Continuing 
relationships 
with URIs

78%

57%

78%

89%

86%

90%

89%

93%

57%

83%

79%

New collaborative 
opportunities

52%

43%

56%

70%

79%

50%

74%

59%

14%

92%

49%

New funding 
applications

42%

43%

59%

65%

64%

70%

59%

67%

29%

75%

60%

New relationships 
with different 
URIs

35%

29%

37%

62%

64%

40%

52%

48%

43%

50%

42%

Collaborations 
in new areas

26%

43%

27%

32%

36%

20%

33%

37%

14%

50%

40%



Comparing outcomes in regional 
and metropolitan areas

This section offers a comparative analysis of the outcomes 
achieved by businesses in regional and metropolitan areas. 
The focus is exclusively on data from respondents in 
facilitated dollar-matched grant programs, which our data 
have shown to be effective in creating tangible outcomes. 
Regional businesses, in particular, benefit from the 
help of facilitators offered in these programs due to 
geographical constraints in engaging directly with URIs.

Innovation and business capability outcomes 

Figure 19 presents a comparative analysis of innovation 
outcomes for facilitated dollar-matched grant recipients 
in regional and metro areas.

Figure 19: Innovation outcomes for facilitated grant recipients by regional vs metro areas

One of the most significant results for regional businesses 
is in the development of tangible outcomes. For example, 
new/improved products is a standout category, with 
88 per cent of regional businesses reporting this outcome, 
compared to 69 per cent in metro areas. This trend is similar 
for developed prototype (52% regional versus 45% metro). 

These results suggest that regional areas have a 
stronger focus or capability in progressing new or 
improved offerings for their customers. Similarly, 
independent validation is significantly higher for 
regional recipients, (40% versus 28%), indicating 
that regional businesses prioritise rigorous 
testing and validation of their innovations.

It is also observed that regional businesses are more 
likely to take risks on projects that may not work, 
with a higher percentage of project abandonment 
(52% versus 33%). However, regional stakeholders face 
more difficulties related to resource constraints with 
higher instances of projects being abandoned due 
to lack of resources (44% regional vs. 21% metro). 

Overall, regional businesses generally demonstrate 
stronger performance in developing and improving 
innovations through URI collaboration than metro 
firms, with a consistent emphasis on creating practical, 
market-ready solutions. This may reflect underlying 
differences in resources and project goals, that impact 
the innovation landscape between the two areas.



Organisational performance outcomes 

Figure 20 summarises the organisational outcomes 
for business recipients in dollar-matched grant 
programs, comparing regional and metro firms. 

Figure 20: Organisational outcomes for facilitated grant recipients by regional vs metro areas 

Notably, regional businesses reported higher positive 
outcomes across almost all categories compared to their 
metro counterparts, and they are less likely to experience 
negative outcomes. Improved credibility emerged as 
the top outcome for both areas (56% regional, 52% 
metro) with improved competitiveness following closely; 
regional businesses leading 52 per cent to 38 per cent. 
This suggests that regional businesses are seeing 
more substantial gains in their market positioning and 
reputation from URI collaboration than metro firms.

There are also some very large discrepancies, including 
44 per cent of regional businesses reported accessed new 
markets compared to only 19 per cent in metro areas, and 
regional businesses also reported much higher outcomes 
in job creation (36% vs. 21%). When it comes to financial 
outcomes, regional businesses experienced significantly 
more positive financial results (24%) than metro businesses 
(11%) and reported greater cost savings (24% vs. 20%). 
However, metro businesses raised capital at 22 per cent, 
compared to 16 per cent in regional areas – likely due to the 
geographical access to funding firms and their networks.

Overall, the data highlight a compelling trend: regional 
businesses generally experience stronger organisational 
benefits from URI collaboration across financial, social, 
and operational metrics compared to their metro 
counterparts. This suggests that regional businesses 
may be better positioned to leverage opportunities 
for growth, funding, and impact, when they have 
access to facilitated dollar‑matched grant programs.


Additional collaborative outcomes

Figure 21 highlights the additional collaborative 
outcomes achieved by facilitated grant recipients. 

Figure 21: Additional collaborative outcomes for facilitated grant recipients by regional vs metro areas 

Continuing relationships with URIs stand out as 
the most significant outcome, with regional and 
metro businesses achieving 76 per cent each. 
This suggests that geographical constraints are lost 
once a relationship between the regional business 
and the URI has been established. New collaborative 
opportunities are also notable, with regional businesses 
(60%) slightly outperforming metro businesses (51%), 
indicating their ability to leverage these programs to 
build new connections and expand their networks.

Regional areas also demonstrate positive outcomes 
in new relationships with different URIs (40% vs 33%), 
further highlighting that regional businesses overcome 
geographic limitations and access broader innovation 
ecosystems through facilitated dollar-matched programs. 

Overall, the findings highlight that regional businesses 
often outperform their metro counterparts in key 
areas such as product development, collaboration 
with research institutions, and the establishment of 
lasting partnerships. Across all categories, regional 
businesses demonstrate a strong ability to leverage 
facilitated grants to build networks, develop new 
products, and enhance their competitive position.



6 Summary of key findings

Overall, the data shows that collaboration with URIs offers substantial 
benefits to SMEs, and targeted support can enhance the efficacy 
and impact of R&D activities. Key findings include:

1. Collaborations with URIs accelerate SMEs’ ability 
to innovate and bring ideas to market
SME-URI collaborations yield multiple tangible outcomes 
for SMEs, with a large portion of respondents reporting 
new/improved products, developed prototypes and 
derisked early-stage R&D. This highlights the role of 
partnerships in bringing ideas closer to market, enabling 
businesses to test and refine their innovations, and 
improving the likelihood of future market growth.

2. SME-URI collaboration supports businesses as they 
grow, and their innovation efforts become more 
diversified and complex 
SME collaboration with URIs grows in complexity 
as the size and needs of SMEs grow. Both micro 
and small businesses achieved success in developing 
new/improved products, indicating their focus 
on the early stages of innovation, where product 
development and research are critical in their 
commercialisation pathway. Smaller firms also 
significantly benefited from the reputational boost 
provided by URI collaborations that enhance trust 
and visibility in the market. By contrast, larger firms 
utilised partnerships with URIs to access more external 
R&D funding and to improve their competitiveness.

3. Collaboration with URIs helps SMEs to identify 
and address challenges, needs and opportunities 
specific to their industry
SMEs across different sectors were able to achieve 
distinct outcomes from collaboration with URIs, aligned 
to their unique industry challenges and opportunities. 
For example, medtech/biotech businesses reported 
derisking early-stage R&D, aligned to the high 
regulatory and capital investment requirements in 
these industries. Similarly, manufacturing and digital 
technology businesses reported the highest rates 
of new or improved products, while energy and 
emissions reduction businesses reported high rates 
of independent validation, key to strengthening the 
customer-driven approaches required in these sectors. 

4. Entry-level, facilitated dollar-matched programs lead 
to tangible outputs, while competitive grants support 
more sophisticated collaboration
Different program types achieve different outcomes, 
aligned to the varying sizes and maturity levels 
of SMEs. Facilitated dollar-matched programs, targeted 
at entry-level collaboration, exceeded competitive 
grants in tangible outcomes such as the development 
of new products/services and building prototypes. 
By contrast, competitive grant programs enabled larger 
firms with established R&D relationships to engage in 
more sophisticated activities. For example, outscoring 
facilitated dollar‑matched programs in speed to market, 
licensing technology, and access to further grants. 

5. Facilitated dollar-matched programs achieve similar 
impact to higher-value competitive grant programs 
Despite smaller financial investments, facilitated 
dollar‑matched programs yielded similar impact 
magnitudes to those gained via high-value 
competitive grant programs. For example, 
the number of businesses reporting improved 
credibility, new collaborative opportunities, access 
to further grants and improved competitiveness 
were comparable across both program types.

6. Regional SMEs gain more impactful
outcomes than metro SMEs
Regional businesses benefit more significantly 
from collaboration with URIs than their metro 
counterparts. For example, regional businesses 
reported much higher percentages of developing 
new or improved products, independent validation 
and improved credibility than for collaborating 
metro SMEs. However, regional firms experienced 
higher abandonment rates due to a lack of resources 
than metro firms, highlighting the difficulties regional 
SMEs face in capitalising on these opportunities.



7 Recommendations

Five recommendations emerge from these key findings, 
relevant to both program and policy design:

1. Continue to foster collaboration between SMEs 
and URIs: Given the positive outcomes associated 
with collaborations between SMEs and URIs, 
policies should focus on increasing the volume 
of participants. Efforts could include improving 
accessibility and engagement by reducing 
administrative barriers, facilitating more direct 
connections between SMEs and URIs, and promoting 
awareness of collaboration opportunities through 
targeted outreach and industry-led initiatives.

2. Align programs to support SMEs as they grow 
and mature: To maximise impact, program types should 
be targeted to business needs at different stages of 
growth. Facilitated programs, such as CSIRO Kick-Start, 
are well‑suited for small firms, helping them derisk 
early‑stage innovation and develop new products. 
These entry-level programs build trust and establish 
research partnerships, making them a strong feeder 
into more sophisticated, higher-value programs 
like CRCs and other competitive grants. By aligning 
programs to flow seamlessly into one another and 
addressing gaps in program availability, businesses 
can maintain continuous collaboration, access further 
funding, and maximise innovation outcomes.

3. Tailor programs to industry-specific needs and 
opportunities: To maximise the impact of SME‑URI 
collaborations, programs should be designed 
with industry-specific challenges and priorities 
in mind. Businesses in highly regulated sectors 
benefit most from early-stage R&D support, while 
those focused on product development or market 
validation require different forms of engagement. 
Aligning program structures with sector needs 
ensures that SMEs can effectively leverage URI 
partnerships to drive growth and impact.

4. Broaden the availability of facilitated programs: 
As SMEs face unique challenges, such as limited 
capacity to allocate staff to collaborations, 
facilitation can maximise collaboration outcomes. 
Facilitated‑programs could be expanded to include 
targeted training and mentorship opportunities, 
application processes could be streamlined across 
programs to reduce the resource burden on SMEs 
and facilitators, and eligibility criteria broadened to 
maximise the number of SMEs that can benefit.

5. Invest in tailored programs for regional businesses: 
The data showed that regional businesses often 
achieve outstanding outcomes from URI collaborations, 
despite a lack of resources, which can affect their 
ability to sustain projects. Therefore, it is essential that 
regional obstacles are considered when designing 
and implementing new programs. By focusing on 
these specific needs – such as improving access 
to funding, infrastructure, and support networks 
– regional SMEs can be better supported and 
the outcomes identified will be magnified.



References 

ACIL Allen (2023). Impact assessment of ARC-funded 
research summary report. A report for the Australian 
Research Council. Retrieved 28 January 2025 from: 
https://acilallen.com.au/projects/research-development/
impact-assessment-of-arc-funded-research

Bajada, C., Agarwal, R., Skellern, K., Luff, S., Soco, S., 
& Green, R. (2022). Enablers of successful innovation 
precincts. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 9(1), 732–756.

Cao, Z., Verreynne, M.-L. & de Oliveira, R.T. (2024) Reflecting 
back and looking forward: A systematic literature 
review of SME–university collaborations. International 
Journal of Management Reviews, 1–28.

Cheng, H., Zhang, Z., Huang, Q., & Liao, Z. (2020). 
The effect of university-industry collaboration 
policy on universities’ knowledge innovation and 
achievements transformation based on innovation chain. 
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(2), 522–543.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR). (2017). 
Australia 2030: Prosperity through innovation. Industry.gov.au. 
Retrieved 13 December 2023 from: https://www.industry.gov.
au/publications/australia-2030-prosperity-through-innovation.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources 
(DISR). (2023). Annual report 2022–23. Canberra, 
Australia. Retrieved from: https://www.industry.
gov.au/publications/annual-report-2022-23.

Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction 
to special issue on science policy dimensions of 
the Triple Helix of university-industry-government 
relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 2–5.

Guimón, J., & Paunov, C. (2022). The policy mix to 
promote university-industry knowledge transfer: 
A conceptual framework. In University-Industry 
Knowledge Interactions: People, Tensions and Impact 
(pp. 67–88). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Harman, G. (2001). University-industry research partnerships 
in Australia: Extent, benefits and risks. Higher Education 
Research and Development, 20(3), 245–264.

Harman, G., & Harman, K. (2004). Governments and 
universities as the main drivers of enhanced Australian 
university research commercialisation capability. Journal of 
Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 153–169.

Joesoef, B. (2020). Social sciences research 
commercialisation: The case of one Australian University. 
The University of Queensland, School of Education.

Jongbloed, B. (2015). Universities as hybrid organizations: 
Trends, drivers, and challenges for the European university. 
International Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 207–225.

Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2016). 
Public policy measures in support of knowledge 
transfer activities: A review of academic literature. 
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 407–429.

Miller, K., McAdam, R. & McAdam, M. (2018). A 
systematic literature review of university technology 
transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a 
research agenda. R & D Management, 48(1), 7–24.

Nasiibah Ramli, Zinatul A. (2017). Zainol, Malaysian 
university intellectual property policies in an era of 
open innovation: Time for some uniformity?, Journal of 
Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 12(9), 761–767

Nicolaou, J., Buckland, R., & Roberts, M. (2019). 
The economic impact of the Minerals Research Institute 
of Western Australia. ACIL Allen Consulting Pty Ltd.

Palangkaraya, A., Jensen, P. H., Thomson, R., & Webster, 
E. (2023). The effects of university-industry collaboration 
subsidies on firm performance. Available at SSRN 4650054.

Palangkaraya, A., Jensen, P.H., Thomson, R. & 
Webster, E. (2023). The effects of university-industry 
collaboration subsidies on firm performance. 
Working paper from the Centre for Transformative 
Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology.

Plunket, S. (2024). Money for nothing: Australia’s dismal 
R&D performance. InnovationAus. Retrieved 7 February 
from: https://www.innovationaus.com/money-for-nothing-
australias-dismal-rd-performance/?utm_medium=email&utm_
campaign=Newsletter%201252%20-%205%20February%202024&utm_content=Newsletter%201252%20-%205%20February%202024+CID_03468edf43e99c1af1f89f3318d2b159&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_
term=Money%20for%20nothing%20Australias%20dismal%20RD%20performance&utm_term=Money%20for%20nothing%20Australias%20dismal%20RD%20performance.

Scandura, A. (2016). University-industry collaboration and 
firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy, 45(9), 1907–1922.

Scimago. (2023). Scimago journal & country rank. 
Retrieved 13 May 2024 from: https://www.scimagojr.com/
countryrank.php?order=itp&ord=desc&year=2022

Universities Australia. (2018). Clever collaborations: 
The strong business case for partnering with universities, 
Canberra, Australia. Retrieved 13 May 2024 from: https://
universitiesaustralia.edu.au/publication/clever-collaborations

Verreynne M., Torres de Oliveira R., Mention A.-L. 
(with contributions from Lay J., Nguyen T., Ferraro 
S. and Machirori, T.L.) (2021) Enablers and barriers to 
industry-research collaboration: A small and medium 
sized enterprise perspective. CSIRO, Australia

Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2015). Challenges of SMEs innovation and 
entrepreneurial financing. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, 
Management and Sustainable Development, 11(4), 295–311.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 
(2024). Global Innovation Index 2024: Unlocking 
the Promise of Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved 
28 January 2025 from: https://www.wipo.int/web-
publications/global-innovation-index-2024/en



Appendix

This appendix provides the complete definitions of outcomes from SME-URI collaborations as used in the survey. 

Innovation and business capability outcomes

ABBREVIATION

DEFINITION 

Abandoned: resources

Project abandoned due to lack of time/resources in business or the university

Abandoned: results

Project abandoned due to lack of useful/usable results

Abandoned: viability

Product/service abandoned due to project viability

Derisked early-stage R&D

Derisked early-stage R&D project

Developed prototype

Developed a prototype or minimum viable product (MVP)

Establish networks

Establishment of networks and relationships with the research community

Hired talented graduates

Hired talented graduates

Improved staff capability

Improved innovative ability and capacity of staff

Increased speed to market

Increased speed to market

Independent validation

Independent validation/testing of a product or service

Licensed technology

Licensed technology

Loss of control of IP

Loss of control of IP

New/improved products

New or improved products/services and processes

New/improved products

New or improved products/services and processes

Submitted/granted IP

Submitted/granted patents or other forms of intellectual property

Technology unsuitable

Technology developed was unsuitable





Organisational performance outcomes

ABBREVIATION

DEFINITION 

Improved credibility

Improved market credibility/business reputation

Improved competitiveness

Improved competitiveness

Accessed further grants

Accessed further grants

Raised capital

Raised capital (e.g., venture or angel capital)

Cost savings

Cost savings

Improved compliance

Improved project evaluation (e.g., government quality and regulatory approval)

Access new markets

Gained access to new markets/exports

Increased productivity

Increased productivity

Job creation

Job creation (e.g., number of jobs created or new employees hired)

Negative financially

Experienced negative financial impact

Slowed progress

Slowed progress, impacting time to market

Positive financially

Improved revenue/financial performance

Social benefits 

Social benefits (e.g., more community engagement)

Environmental benefits 

Environmental benefits (e.g., reduced energy consumption)





Additional collaborative outcomes

ABBREVIATION

DEFINITION 

Collaborations in new areas

Collaborations in other areas not known before

Continuing relationships with URIs

Continuing relationships/engagements with Research Organisations

New collaborative opportunities

New collaborative opportunities/projects

New funding applications

Applications to new funding programs/grants

New relationships with different URIs

New relationships/ engagements with different Research Organisations







For further information

Dr George Feast
Director SME Connect Programs
+61 3 9545 2617
george.feast@csiro.au

Contact us

1300 363 400
csiro.au/contact
csiro.au


As Australia’s national science agency, 
CSIRO is solving the greatest 
challenges through innovative 
science and technology.

CSIRO. Creating a better future 
for everyone.