Reflections on the

comments

www.metodika.reformy-msmt.cz

Is the description of the proposed method for allocation of PRFS clear?

• Overall picture

• Yes: 55

• No: 10

• Comments

• „Yes, but too complicated“

• „No, because too complicated and / or far too long for busy people“

• Specific issues

• Role of funding and founding ministries

• Inclusion of PhD-students (no) and non-PhD-researchers (yes)

• Budgetary issues (starting point, inflation, calculation through the funding period)

• Questions regarding the New Evaluation Methodology

2

Which of the two proposed methods of allocations of PRFS do you prefer?• Two options:

• based on size (person scores)

• based on relative scores

• Overall picture

• based on size: 26

• based on relative scores: 29

• undecided or none of both: 10 (+)

• Issues

• definition of FTE

• possibly different consequences for different types of RO different solutions for

different RO type?

3

Do you consider leaving part of the funding for future development of institutions suitable (PA)? Is the proposed share of 5% optimal? • Overall picture

• Yes: 47

• No: 14

• Undecided: 3

• Issues

• Empty promises?! Opens doors to corruption and clientelism.

• Too burdensome for 5%

• Capacities of providers?!

• Higher share (10%) – or no PA at all

• Different shares for different types of RO

4

Do you consider the proposed division of the total budget of institutional funding into „pots“ for different types of RO suitable? Why?• Overall picture

• Yes: 49

• No: 16

• Issues

• Agreement with proposal to differentiate RO by mission

• Disagreement with categorisation of ROs

• Which type of RO is my RO?

• What is an eligible RO at all?

5

What is important for your RO?

• Three options

• budget volume

• stability of funding system and rules

• dynamics of funding system

• Overall picture: Extremely important

• budget volume: 30

• stability of funding system and rules: 33

• dynamics of funding system: 1

• undecided: 1

• Issues

• Many comments: volume AND stability are both extremely important

6

Do you consider the proposed share of PRFS (15%) in the institutional funding to be the right proportion? Why (not)?• Overall picture

• yes: 44

• no: 19

• undecided: 1

• Issues

• Strongly depends on fairness of the New Evaluation Methodology

• Share should be lower because of issues with the New Evaluation Methodolgy

• peer review cannot be trusted

• foreign reviewers do not understand the Czech situation and system

• the evaluation criteria are not objective

• Share should be higher

• to overturn „current rotten coffee mill“

• because performance is most important

• because Technoplis would not be credible if they suggested a lower share7

Are the proposed weights for evaluation criteria appropriate to your RO? If not, explain.• Overall picture

• yes: 38

• no: 21

• unspecified: 6

• Issues:

• Various suggestions for different weights

• Voices for each of the different scenarios (default, medium, radical)

• RO are not homogeneous internally (faculties)

• Some issues with the evaluation criteria

• management is contested most, considered too important

• criteria are not completely independent

8

9

Sammeln

• Counting researchers

• Only PhD-holders? Why not PhD-students or holders of Ing. and Mgr. degrees that

do research?

• Disputed issue, not equally relevant to all RO

• Trade of: size-gaming vs. poor productivity ratings in the Evaluation

• Gaming only possible if person scores are used

• To be reconsidered

• Tři

• čtyři

10

What ratio of institutional funding to competitive funding do you consider optimal in your RO?

11

12

Místo pro vložení tabulek, grafů atp.

Děkujeme za pozornost!

www.metodika.reformy-msmt.cz