/ Barbara Good, Brigitte Tiefenthaler + více k II. Mezinádorní konferenci IPN Metodika v článku Konference k financování přinesla podnětnou diskuzi: http://metodika.reformy-msmt.cz/2-mezinarodni-konference

1. The proposed institutional
funding principles and their
rationale
Barbara Good, Brigitte
Tiefenthaler
www.metodika.reformy-
msmt.cz

2. Context (1)
• We were mandated to design a multiple-component funding system that
mandatorily uses the results of the New Evaluation Methodology
• This means, the New Evaluation Methodology does not only provide
feedback for learning and institutional development but is also used for
decisions about institutional research funding
• Specific starting point in the Czech Republic
• Lack of good governance in the public sector, on the principals’ side (funding
providers)
• Lack of ownership on both sides
• Lack of trust of citizens in public institutions
2

3. Context (2)
• Institutional funding: a long-term working relationship between two
organisations:
• a funding body or provider (the principal)
• a research organisation (the agent)
• Public institutional funding expresses responsibility by the state
• the state takes an interest and a stake in the research organisations it co-funds
• The most common understanding for institutional funding is to provide
• Continuity
• Stability
• Sustainability
• Resilience
• and incentives for institutional development
3

4. The core funding principles
• Different ‚pots‘ (budgets) for different types of research organisations
(RO)
• Different types of RO fulfill different missions in the research system
• Hence they should not be made to compete for the same budget pot
• Competition will be restricted to groups of RO with comparable mission
• How much money to allocate to different pots is a policy decision
• As a starting point we suggest: take the current expenditure on
institutional research funding per RO (mean values over several years)
• This starting point is based on the coffee mill, but it is predictable, transparent, and
provides stability
• Funding mix at the institutional level (i.e. funding shares of
institutional/targeted/contract research) needs to be taken into account when
deciding on size of pots
4

5. Components of the funding system
• Block grant
• To ensure trust, continuity and stability
• Two performance based components
• Performance based research funding system (PRFS)
• Allocates funding based on the results of the new Evaluation Methodology
• Allocates funding based on past performance
• Performance agreement
• Negotiated and concluded between research organisation and its ministry (or funding
ministry and founding ministry in case the founding ministry has lost its R&D budget)
• Light touch performance agreements, focused on strategic projects to promote
institutional development
• They are future oriented
5

6. 6
Allocation of funding by component
on the basis of the new Evaluation Methodology, and is mainly based on the
judgement of external peers in their respective fields of expertise and types of
research organisations assessing mostly past performance but also future
strategies and
• A (negotiated) performance agreement, mainly based on the negotiation between
the government (a ministry) and the respective research organisation.
Figure 1 Allocation of funding by type of instrument
Source: Technopolis Group
Figure 13 shows on what basis institutional R&D funding is determined and to whom
B l o c k g r a n t P e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d c o m p o n e n t s
P e r f o r m a n c e
a g r e e m e n t
P e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d
r e s e a r c h f u n d i n g
s y s t e m ( P R F S )
F u n d i n g d e t e r m i n e d a t
t h e l e v e l o f t h e l e g a l
e n t i t y
F u n d i n g d e t e r m i n e d a t
t h e l e v e l o f t h e l e g a l
e n t i t y
F u n d i n g d e t e r m i n e d a t
t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l
R U s
F u n d i n g a l l o c a t e d t o t h e
l e g a l e n t i t y
F u n d i n g a l l o c a t e d t o t h e
l e g a l e n t i t y
F u n d i n g a l l o c a t e d t o t h e
l e g a l e n t i t y
Source: Technopolis Group

7. Recommended shares of
components in the funding system
• At the national level, expenditure side – i.e. the pot to be distributed
• Shares the same for all types of research organisations in the 1st
period
• Block grant: 80% of pot
• In order to provide stability
• Performance-based research funding system: 15% of pot
• In line with international practice
• Small PRFS shares effectively steer behaviour – not only through funding
but also measure of esteem
• Performance agreement: 5% of pot
• Relatively new instrument in the Czech Republic
• Opportunity to build up capacity to negotiate, implement, report on and supervise
performance agreements
• In future funding periods shares can be altered
7

8. Composition of institutional
research funding at the level of RO
• At the institutional level, income side – i.e. the institutional research
funding received by an RO
• Block grant: 80% of the amount received in the preceding funding
period
• Performance agreements: 5% top up to the block grant if concluded
• 0% if no performance agreement is reached
• Performance-based research funding system: share depends on the
results of the evaluation – can be smaller or larger than 15%
• Stability: no RO will receive less than 80% of the amount received in the
preceding period
• Competition and incentives for development through performance
agreement and PRFS funding components
8

9. Performance agreement
• Set up individually between a RO and its relevant ministry (or
ministries) for periods of three years
• Focus on well defined strategic project(s) that support institutional
development and are attractive and relevant for both sides, e.g.
• to set up an internal quality assurance system
• to establish an attractive, internationally compatible career path for research staff
• to enter into a new research field or tackle a new set of problems through research
• It is an agreement, not a contract
• Reporting: annual progress reports and annual progress meetings
• Deviations from plan to be dealt with in progress meetings
• The first period of performance agreement is for learning and capacity building
 no sanctions (exception: wilful underachievement)
• From second period on: sanctions will be defined in the performance agreement
9

10. Performance based research
funding system
• The New Evaluation Methodology provides us with scores against five
evaluation criteria at the level of research units (RU)
• Research excellence; Research performance; Societal relevance; Institutional
management and development potential; Membership in the national and global
research community
• PRFS pot gets divided into sub-pots by weighted evaluation criteria
• Setting weights requires a policy decision. Guiding principle:
• Weights must be in line with the RO’s mission and with ministries’ strategies for
their RO
• Separate pots for separate types of RO and different weights attached to
the five evaluation criteria will sufficiently take into account the
differences between different types of RO
• Provided the New Evaluation Methodology does justice to the different types of RO
10

11. Děkujeme za pozornost!
www.metodika.reformy-
msmt.cz