Section I: Introduction –Measures and metrics Section II: FY06 Research Statistics – Section III: Ten Year Analyses: UMN Section IV: Comparative Analyses Section V: Other Research Ranking Systems Section VI: Strategies to Increase Competitiveness Section VII: Conclusions Annual Report: Table of Contents

Research awards increased 7.5% to $619M Expenditures increased 5.7% to $548M Significant award changes: –AHC-shared +47%; Public Health +45%; CLA +21%; –IT -6%; SoN -9%; Pharmacy -10%; CLA -26%; Vet Med -10%; Education -19% 71% of awards were from federal sources Patent & licensing activity increased 12.5%; Gross revenues = $63.5M UMN ranked 6th in terms of revenue generation from university-based technologies FY07 Research Statistics: Highlights

NSF Survey Expenditures (Dollar amounts represented in millions) 2006 Total =$595M 8.4% Increase 2 nd largest increase among top 20 publics Report Figure 3.1

NSF Survey Expenditures 2006 R&D Expenditures (Dollar amounts represented in thousands) UMN ranked 9 th among US public universities in 2006 up from 10 th in 2005 Report Figure 4.1

NSF Survey Expenditures % Increase UMN ranked 15 th among publics on basis of 9 year growth rate; up from 16 th in 2004 Report Figure 4.2

Increase (8.4%) in 2006 expenditures was 2 nd largest among top 20 US universities UMN ranked 9 th among publics; rebounding from a decline to 10 th in 2005 The “gap” between UMN and the #3 public declined from $237M in 2005 to $205M in 2006 Report Table 4.2

Academic S&E Expenditures: 2006 (Dollar amounts represented in thousands) Differences in total expenditures reflect considerable differences in sources of support Report Figure 4.3

Rank in Major Categories

Expenditures of Institutional Funds (Dollar amounts represented in thousands) Most universities are increasing the level of institutional funding available to support research Report Figure 4.4

Expenditures of B&I Funds (Dollar amounts represented in thousands) Dramatic increase in B&I support of research at Ohio State contributed to an increase in rank from 10 th to 7 th in just 2 years, illustrating the potential impact of B&I partnerships Report Figure 4.5

Federal Obligations for FY2005 Science and Engineering (Dollar amounts represented in millions) A Measure of Competitiveness UMN ranks 10 th among public research universities by this metric; proposed as an indicator of “competitiveness” Report Figure 4.6

Federal Obligations Percentage Share UMN’s share of federal obligations to research universities has declined since 1997 Report Figure 4.7

Other Ranking Systems Academic Rankings of World Universities – University Ranking – Broad Field Analysis Bibliometric Indicators – Citation Frequency – “Relative Impact”

Report Table 5.2

Report Table 5.3

Report Table 5.4

Science Watch Highest Impact Universities UMN was among the Top Ten in 4 of the 21 academic fields included in the Science Watch analysis. 4 universities in UMN’s public university comparison group were among the “Highest Impact” universities, ranking Top Ten in 5 or more fields UMN ranked 5 th among public research universities, tied with several others with 4 Top Tens Report Table 5.5

Strategies to Increase Competitiveness Collegiate strategies to enhance productivity Increase support systems and reduce burdens Admin support for large, complex proposals Increase responsiveness to solicitations Advocate for opportunities aligned with strengths Enhance partnerships with Business and Industry Increase institutional support Maintain disciplinary strengths and encourage interdisciplinary approaches

The U posted the second largest increase in research expenditures for 2006 among the top 20 research universities (public or private) This ends a stretch of several years in which the U’s research expenditure growth-rate lagged behind the average for its comparison group The U ranked 9 th among public universities in 2006, rebounding from a slip to 10 th in 2005 The U is “closing the gap” between itself and “Number 3” The U ranks among the elite public universities in several ranking systems based on “outputs”; many research areas rank in the top ten Though early, the data suggest that strategic positioning initiatives are moving the U toward its aspirational goals Conclusions