1 / 9

Introduction to the Programmatic Review

The STFC's Programmatic Review aims to assess the quality, effectiveness, and impact of its scientific programs to ensure alignment with strategic goals. Led by the Science Board, the review comprises four sub-groups focusing on Particle Physics, Astronomy, Large Facilities, and Technology. The review seeks to prioritize research areas, optimize program balance, and provide strategic guidance for future planning. Ongoing discussions are taking place to evaluate current programs, identify future opportunities, and establish roadmaps for different financial scenarios.

dillon-hooper
Télécharger la présentation

Introduction to the Programmatic Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction to the Programmatic Review Jon Butterworth, UCL (Most slides from Victoria Wright, Head of Science Strategy, STFC)

  2. Why Review the Programme? • STFC runs a managed programme of activities • For the UK to remain world-leading, we need to regularly assess quality, effectiveness and impact • We also need to ensure our programme continues to meet our strategic goals

  3. Purpose of the Programmatic Review • To assess the quality of STFC’s programmes in terms of science, operational effectiveness, and impact; • To inform STFC’s future strategic and financial planning; • To define appropriate research areas and recommend a research portfolio and planning timeline for STFC support to those research areas. • To do this we need to • Prioritise projects / science areas • Optimise science and impact for a range of financial scenarios • Ensure there is balance in the programme

  4. Terms of Reference for the Review • To define research areas that are consistent with STFC’s strategic aims • To evaluate whether each of STFC's current programmes is well-matched to the Council’s strategy • To evaluate the recent, current, and likely future scientific excellence, operational effectiveness, and impact of the scientific aspects of each of STFC's programmes • To identify any aspects of STFC's programmes that are less well-matched to the Council's strategy and to make recommendations concerning the future of these activities • To consider future programme opportunities and, if appropriate, to make recommendations on how these could be taken forward • To evaluate the balance of STFC's programmes and to recommend a future research portfolio

  5. Who will do the review? • Science Board is leading the review and has set up four sub-groups to do the detailed assessment • Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics Sub-Group (chair Jon Butterworth) • Large Facilities Sub-Group (chair Olwyn Byron) • Impact Sub-Group (chair Bob Warwick) • Technology Sub-Group (chair Ken Long)

  6. Timescale for the Review

  7. Where we are now • All subgroups have met • PPAN-SG has has two in-person and one phone meeting • In the most recent meeting (Nov 20) we received reports and had discussions with the advisory groups • Particle Physics, Astronomy, Solar System, Nuclear Physics, Astroparticle Physics • We went through the submitted proformas, making preliminary prioritisations, comments, and identifying missing material • We saw, but did not yet discuss in detail, reports from STFC departments, and reports on computing and accelerator science.

  8. Planned outputs • Discuss in PPAN-SG and agreed by Science Board last week: • A few pages “contextual document” with prioritisation statements about general areas, balance of programme etc • Alpha-rankings of funded projects • Strategic guidance to grants panels on “exploitation” activities/projects which are under their review • Future (5-10 year) roadmaps with different financial scenario plans/options • These will come go to Science Board along with the reports from the other SGs to allow construction of an overall programme.

  9. Questions?

More Related