1. Matter and Technologies
Matter and Technologies on the road to PoF IV:
The program proposal and strategic evaluation
Friederike Januschek (DESY)

2. Five Steps to POF IV Proposal for the POF IV Strategy
Scientific Evaluation of the Centers
Strategic Guidelines/Program Proposal
Strategic Evaluation
Funding Recommendations

3. Our way to POF IV ONGOING NEXT STEP POF IV
Start values for the budget (Helmholtz)
Strategic guidelines from the BMBF
High level guidelines (BMBF program)
Goals (program  BMBF)
Program proposal
Program review
Funding recommendation
Implementation phase
PoF IV
Summer 2018/
January 2019
February 2019
Summer 2019
January 2020
May/ June 2020
until 2021
ONGOING
NEXT STEP
POF IV

4. Program PROPOSAL in a nutshell
The program proposals are due summer 2019
Matter template expected to be finalized in January
Matter report about 300 pages consisting of
Overview (Research field)
Program Proposals
LK II facilities
Outline Program Proposal:
Overview (Program)
Research Program (Overall, Topics)
Program Organization
Resources
List of Publications Related to the Program Proposal
Curricula Vitae of Program Participants

5. Program PROPOSAL Content PAGE NUMBERS PRELIMINARY
Matter report: about 300 pages, i.e. extremely limited, about 50 for overview, about 90 for LK II (including glossary) and about 160 for the programs.
Page numbers:
Volume 2
Cover page and table of contents 3
Per program
Programme overview 8
Explanation per topic (3x)
8-11
Programme Organisation 4
Programme Resources
Programme Publications 2
Programme CVs
Only about 8 pages per MT topic!

6. Program PROPOSAL Content Topics, i.e. research program
About 8 pages per topic
Can be subdivided in subtopics (preliminary)
To be covered:
Strategic goal of the topic
Competences
Objectives and approach (work program)
Expected results (milestones, about 10 per topic, preliminary)
Synergies and collaboration
Infrastructures
Opportunities and risks

7. Program PROPOSAL Timeline PRELIMINARY!
MT internal: First version ready about
Matter internal: First version ready about
Summer: approval by centers, MB matter and FBP Matter (6.9.19)
Digital version of proposal and numbers to Helmholtz
Final version sent to printing center
Printed copies at Helmholtz (8+1 weeks before evaluation)

8. Strategic evaluation
The strategic evaluation for matter: January 2019
Chair for Matter: Ursula Bassler
The four dimensions of the evaluation:
Goals
Work plan
Competences and Resources
Impact & Risks
The smallest evaluated units will be the topics.

9. Strategic evaluation GOALS
Assess the formulated goals (taking into account the strategic guidelines, the strategies of the Helmholtz Association and the research field) in the context of international developments in the area.
How would you rate the objectives of the program/topic with regard to scientific relevance and leadership? Which pressing societal or scientific challenges does it address?
How would you evaluate its strategic focus? Is it innovative and is the approach unique?
How would you evaluate its contribution to the Helmholtz mission, its strategies in transferring knowledge and technologies as well as for the development of talents, and careers, including diversity management?
How would you evaluate its alignment with the strategy of the research field (and with the strategy of the program)?

10. Strategic evaluation work program
Assess the work program to achieve the objectives (plausibility of the work program, alignment with the recommendations of the scientific evaluation, originality and appropriateness of the scientific approaches, feasibility in view of achieving the objectives).
How would you rate the proposed work plan in respect to the objectives? How coherent is the research concept/approach on the respective level? Are important aspects missing?
How are the key competences of the partners integrated with regard to their complementarity? How do they benefit from collaboration?
How would you evaluate the organizational structure and the management? Does it provide tools for ideas, innovation, flexibility and reflectivity?
Optional: To what extend does the program/topic depend and benefit from the associated user facilities?

11. Strategic evaluation Competences and resources
Assess the competences of the participants in the research program and the human and financial resources dedicated to them.
Based on the scientific evaluation, the program proposal and its presentation, how would you rate the overall scientific quality of the planned program/topic and its scientists with regard to (i) potential for international leadership and groundbreaking research; (ii) competences of the partners; (iii) feasibility of the work program?
How would you assess the resource planning with regard to the scope of the program/topic?

12. Strategic evaluation Impact and risks
Assess benefits and risks with regard to the effectiveness of the research.
How would you rate the potential impact of the program with regard to the research field, its technologies and its societal context? Does it contain elements serving as a nucleus for establishing new research areas, enough ground- breaking and long-term research?
What are major strengths and potential weaknesses?
What are the opportunities, risks, and showstoppers?

13. Strategic evaluation user facilities
How would you rate the relevance of the facility on a national, European or international level at this stage and (in view of planed/proposed upgrades, if applicable) at the end of the forthcoming program period?
What role does the facility play for the associated research program and its topics as well as and the research field in the forthcoming program period?
5 pages on IDAF

14. The strategic Review Participants in the actual review:
The panel (10-11 members, including chairs of scientific evaluation)
The Senate member responsible for Matter: R.D.Heuer
A representative of the senate commission
The president of the Helmholtz association
Funding agencies
Program speakers, topic speakers
Scientific directors of the centers
Preliminary agenda exists, but will be changed, most likely about 0.5 days for MT, i.e. very limited time

15. Funding Recommendations
Based on the strategic evaluation there will be funding recommendations
Three categories:
1: outstanding in all four dimensions
2: very good results
3: everything else
The 3. category will get reduced funding, the 2. half of the average increase, and the 1. the remaining increase

16. Summary
We need to start writing the program proposal early next year! It needs to be finished before summer (first MT version May 2019!).
Final template by end of January
Program proposal for MT: around 50 pages total, about 8 pages per topic.
Many things to cover in these pages, must be convincing in all four dimensions: Goals, Work plan, Competences and Resources, Impact & Risks
Strategic evaluation: