Research Policy
in a Programme Organisation:
Indicators and Accountability
Mark Brocken
Head Financial Department
Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM)
The Netherlands
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter
Programme Organisation
Research Policy
Indicators
Accountability (challenges)
Conclusions
-2-
FOM: introduction
• FOM was established in 1946
• Mission:
► to perform and coordinate fundamental physics research
► to generate new knowledge
► to train PhD students and technicians
– for the benefit of Dutch society, and in particular higher
education and industry
• FOM is combination of
– organisation of research institutes
– research council
-3-
FOM: research
Particle physics at CERN- (ATLAS,
LHCb & ALICE)
4-
FOM: research
Reflective mirrors for EUV- 5radiation
(wafer steppers)
-
FOM: research
Splitting up and separation of DNA in cells
-6-
FOM: research
Graphene in high
magnetic fields
-7-
• Budget
– M€ 90 revenues
(84% from NWO)
– M€ 77 research
activities
FOM: characteristics 2006
• Organisation
– 4 institutes
(531 FTE)
– 173 research
groups at
universities
(370 FTE)
– central office
(47 FTE)
• Output
– 100 PhD theses
– 1158 scientific
publications
• People (FTE)
–
–
–
–
-8-
95 scientific staff
119 postdocs
395 PhD students
339 support staff
FOM: organisational structure
Board of Governors
EB
Works
Council
SAF/NIKHEF
Central
Office
Director
Rijnhuizen
AMOLF
KVI
(with RuG)
University
Groups
UvA
VU
TUD
LEI
TU/e
EUR
WUR
UU
UT
RU
RuG
-9-
FOM: relation with NWO
• Agreement FOM-NWO
(2003):
National Gouvernement
NWO General Council
NWO Council for
Physics (GBN)
FOM
– FOM is approved by NWO
– FOM gets funds from
NWO for institutes and for
research grants
– FOM integrates both
funds
– members Executive Board
FOM and members NWO
Council for Physics are
identical
– FOM is accountable to
NWO
- 10 -
Programme organisation: history
Three periods can be distinguished:
1. Institutional organisation: before 1998
– budgets assigned to organisational units
2. Programme organisation: 1998-2004
– budgets assigned to research programmes
– organisational units financed by means of approved
research programmes
3. Hybrid organisation: after 2004
– FOM institutes receive mission budgets to finance the
infrastructure
– research is financed by means of approved research
programmes
- 11 -
Institutional organisation (<1998)
• Characteristics:
FOM-board
Institutes
Research
communities
– budgets assigned to institutes
and research communities
– each research community
divides budget between
participating university
research groups
University
research
groups
- 12 -
Programme organisation (1998-2004)
• Characteristics:
FOM-board
Research programmes
Institutes
University
research
groups
– budgets assigned to research
programmes
► budget: M€ 0.5 – M€ 84
► duration: 5-19 years
– institutes and university
groups financed by means of
approved programmes
– institutes receive small
discretionary budgets
– budgets programmes:
► institutes: integral costing
► university groups: marginal
costing (universities have to
provide infrastructure)
- 13 -
Hybrid organisation (>2004)
• Characteristics:
FOM-board
Research
programmes
Institutes
University
research
groups
– institutes receive mission
budgets for infrastructure
– research at institutes and
university groups financed by
means of approved
programmes
– budgets of programmes at
institutes and at universities
based upon marginal costs
– programmes are shorter
(average 6 years) and smaller
(average M€ 3) than in the
programme organisation
- 14 -
Programme organisation: comparison
Criterion
Institutional
organisation
Programme
organisation
Hybrid
organisation
+ (institutes)
++
-
-
+
+
n/a
-
+
Openness to new research groups
-
+
+
Flexibility with respect to budget
cuts
-
--
--
Evaluation burden researchers
+
-
-
Workload for central office
+
-
-
Continuity
Competition between institutes
and university groups
Budget programmes at institutes
and universities comparable
- 15 -
- (univ. groups)
Research policy: strategic plans
• Strategic plans:
–
–
–
–
–
1991: FOM towards 2000
1995: Physics for the future = a future for physics
1998: Over the threshold
2000: Research policy FOM 2001→2006
2004: Strategic plan FOM/GBN 2004 → 2010
- 16 -
Research policy: implementation
• Implementation Strategic Plan:
– Institutional organisation: organizational measures
– Programme organisation: new research programmes
– Hybrid organisation: organizational measures and
new research programmes
- 17 -
Indicators: standard
• Indicators for NWO:
– Input:
► number of scientific personnel (permanent and temporary)
► total expenses for each organisational unit
– Output:
► PhD theses
► publications
• Indicators in Yearbook FOM
- 18 -
Indicators:
promo meter
- 19 -
Indicators: wall of fame
- 20 -
Indicators: programme shares physics subfields
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
subatomic physics
condensed matter physics
physics of processes in living systems
atomic, molecular and optical physics
phenomenological physics
nuclear fusion physics
various topics in physics
- 21 -
2000
2006
Indicators: cash position
70,0
Liquidity Balance (M€)
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
31
-1
219
31
90
-1
219
31
91
-1
219
31
92
-1
219
31
93
-1
219
31
94
-1
219
31
95
-1
219
31
96
-1
219
31
97
-1
219
31
98
-1
219
31
99
-1
220
31
00
-1
220
31
01
-1
220
31
02
-1
220
31
03
-1
220
31
04
-1
220
31
05
-1
220
06
0,0
• Transformation to programme organisation leads to
increase of liquidity balance:
– it takes time to start up research programmes
– insecurity leads to ‘saving behaviour’
• 2000: special action to reduce liquidity position
- 22 -
Indicators: free reserve
Free Reserve
06
231
-1
05
231
-1
04
231
-1
31
-1
2-
03
02
231
-1
01
231
-1
231
-1
99
2-
31
-1
00
Cumulative costs action
reduction liquidity
M€
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
-5,0
-10,0
-15,0
• Strict policy to add all unexpected profits to the free
reserve is successful
- 23 -
Accountability
• FOM follows the Dutch guidelines for non-profit
organisations
• Executive Board: no need for further improvement
• Director: worried about work load board members
• Personal issues:
– to create a financial committee
– to improve the financial evaluation of research
proposals
– to relate costs to the progress of a research programme
- 24 -
Conclusions
• The hybrid organisation is the most appropriate for
FOM
• The liquidity balance and the free reserve are
currently the main indicators for FOM
• Personal accountability challenge: to increase the
involvement of the FOM-board in financial issues
- 25 -
Extra’s: institutional → programme organisation
• From institutional to programme organisation (1997-1998):
– ongoing research at institutes and in research communities is
converted into research programmes
– central budget for new research programmes is created at the
expense of the budgets of the institutes and research communities
– institutes and research communities receive small discretionary
budgets
– integral costing is introduced at the institutes
• 2000: introduction accounting by programme (over 1999)
• 2001: research communities converted into advisory
committees to the Executive Board and their discretionary
budgets abolished
- 26 -
Extra’s: programme → hybrid organisation
• From programme to hybrid organisation
(2004-2005):
– budgets of research programmes at the institutes are
adjusted from integral costing to marginal costing
– basic budgets of the institutes are determined based
upon current infrastructural costs of the institutes
(permanent personnel, workshops, housing)
- 27 -
Extra’s: evaluation programme proposal
Researchers submit idea to Executive Board
EB seeks advice of committee(s) for relevant sub-field(s)
YES, promising idea and budget
available
NO, not a promising idea or no
budget available
FOM-programme in
development (Orange status)
Programme idea rejected
Researchers write and submit a
detailed programme proposal
International scientific
evaluation
YES, evaluation resulted in a
positive advice
NO, evaluation resulted in a
negative advice
FOM-programme approved
(Green status)
Programme proposal rejected
Budget and duration assigned
Start programme
- 28 -
Extra’s: evaluation criteria programme proposal
• Scientific criteria:
–
–
–
–
–
scientific quality proposed research
quality research group(s) involved
research method
availability required infrastructure
adequacy requested budget
• Programmatic criteria (new in 2007):
–
–
–
–
adequacy scale (critical mass)
focus and cohesion
added value programmatic cooperation
programme management
• Politico-scientific criteria:
– contribution to policy objectives
– architecture research landscape
- 29 -
Extra’s: budgets hybrid organisation (2007)
Board of
Governors
EB
Works council
Basic budgets
institutes
(M€ 24)
Director
Central office
Free
programmes
(M€ 23)
Industrial
partnership
programmes
(M€ 7)
Project fund
(M€ 8)
Other
activities
(M€ 18)
Research
projects
Research
projects
Research
projects
Research
projects
- 30 -