From the beginning of the first network, i.e. the Saltfish Forum, both the members and NSF were quite convinced that an important task for the Forum was to chart the industry’s research needs and to communicate needs, priorities and financing with the research institutions and appropriating authorities, particularly with the Research Council of Norway.
It would become apparent that such an "upstream" form of work for generating ideas and the selection of project alternatives for further processing, was successful. Formal project descriptions and applications for finance were normally prepared by the Secretariat of NSF and the researchers, who tentatively would be tied to the project in question. Applications were then based on goals, methods of execution and financial plans that were thoroughly discussed in advance by the network members and behind which they stood united. This form of work and the work efforts expended by the members to realize the projects also helped them to arrive at cost-effective methods of execution. It was made clear at an early stage what kind of internal financing the members were willing to put in, either as their own investments in the form of providing premises, capital equipment and work efforts, or in the form of ordinary monetary "funding".
Those who were going to consider and assess the project recommendations with an eye to granting financial support could thus feel safe with regard to the project’s industrial relevance. When in addition - as a rule - a significant internal financial share was documented and rendered likely a cost-effective method of execution, the network’s project recommendations became extremely competitive in the battle for available research funds. As a result adequate government assistance was generally granted to begin and accomplish the project.
The form of work with "upstream" idea generation and the network’s role as decision-maker gave the network members a kind of "ownership" in the projects. This in turn caused them to follow closely along with how projects developed, and they could therefore make recommendations for adjustments and corrective action during the course of projects. They were, of course, also very motivated and prepared to apply the results from the projects in their commercial activities. In retrospect, the network participants did not judge one single project as not being advantageous for their activities.
The projects that were begun and accomplished under the direction of the networks were largely developmental in character within the framework of familiar and available technology. The members were particularly interested in how, through handling of raw materials and processing, they could achieve higher and more stable quality of the end products. Product development, market adaptation and measures to increase value were generally given high priority as compared with e.g. cost minimization. However, it must be said here that the participants, within the possibilities and limitations that were inherent in the production technology they used, regarded cost efficiency as a matter of course which the individual had responsibility for.
