R e p o r t o n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f A d v a n c e d M a t e r i a l s a n d S t r u c t u r e s A M S a t C R P H e n r i T u d o r

Transcription

1 R e p o r t o n t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f A d v a n c e d M a t e r i a l s a n d S t r u c t u r e s A M S a t C R P H e n r i T u d o r Based on a peer review by the order of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research of Luxembourg Lucerne, June Dr. Stefan Rieder (project management) rieder@interface-politikstudien.ch Prof. Dr. Andreas Balthasar (project assistance) balthasar@interface-politikstudien.ch Mirjam Inauen (project assistance) inauen@interface-politikstudien.ch

2 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N 3 2 R E S U L T S F R O M T H E E V A L U A T I O N Strategy Input Processes and implementation Output 6 3 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 7 C O M P A N Y I N F O R M A T I O N 1 0 E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 2

3 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N The Ministry of Higher Education and Research of Luxembourg (MESR) mandated Interface Policy studies Research Consulting to organise and lead the evaluation of five research units (hereinafter referred to as evaluation units), one of them Advanced Materials and Structures (AMS) at the Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor (CRP- HT). The observations and recommendations presented in this report are based on a peer review by three experts from the field of materials science and technology: - Prof. Mir Wais Hosseini, director of Laboratoire de Chimie de Coordination organique, Institut Le Bel ULP, Strasbourg, France - Prof. Louis Schlapbach, former director of the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Dübendorf, and Prof. em. ETH (physics), Switzerland - Dr. Georges Thielen, Manager External Science and Technology, GoodYear Innovation Center, Colmar-Berg, Luxembourg Additionally, the following external advisors contributed to the peer review by bringing in their knowledge of the Luxembourg research environment and their expertise in the evaluation of strategies and organisational structures: - Dr. Fritz Ohler, Technopolis, Vienna, Austria - Dr. Stefan Rieder and Mirjam Inauen, Interface Policy Studies Research Consulting, Lucerne, Switzerland The peer review consisted of the reading of a self-assessment report written by AMS (see annex) and a hearing at the evaluation unit. The hearing was composed of a presentation, a group discussion of the self-assessment report and several individual interviews with the managing director of CRP-HT as well as researchers working in different sections and at different levels of AMS. The present report is structured in two parts: the first part discusses the experts observations from the evaluation process, concentrating on the unit s weak points. This part will follow the structure of the self-assessment report. The second part presents the experts most important recommendations to overcome the observed weaknesses and aims to increase the learning effect of this evaluation. E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 3

4 2 R E S U L T S F R O M T H E E V A L U A T I O N 2. 1 S T R A T E G Y P r i o r i t i e s a n d a c t i v i t i e s The expert committee sees AMS as a service oriented research unit with a mission in experimental material technologies that includes testing and simulation. The whole CRP-HT distinguishes itself by a close collaboration with the industry that has developed over the last twenty years. AMS main activities remain closely linked to the industry. The experts consider this focus on industrial collaboration important and strategically correct. AMS has also developed scientifically sound and interesting research projects in its main domains of activity: simulation, characterisation and development of polymer based materials. In the experts view, the domain of simulation in particular produces interesting research projects and results with appropriate instruments. AMS has identified six interesting R&D priority topics which were presented at the hearing: Materials for renewable energy production; smart and functional polymeric materials; polymer composites for barrier materials; biomaterials; structural adhesive / joining as well as structural engineering and industrial processes. However, these six priority themes are not reflected in AMS organisational structure. Also, within these topics, the most important scientific and engineering questions are not yet defined. A roadmap for future research is still in development. Consequently, the experts were not able to identify a strategically shaped research agenda and consider the six identified priorities too diverse I N P U T S p a c e a n d i n f r a s t r u c t u r e During the hearing, the experts had the opportunity to visit AMS laboratories and form an impression of its space and infrastructure situation. AMS has made strategically intelligent tool acquisitions and consequently possesses high quality equipment. The experts are convinced that the usage of space and equipment is appropriate. The old steel material in the testing units however is occupying considerable space and should not be transferred when moving to the planned temporary facilities or to the Cité des Sciences. F i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s AMS has a considerable income at its disposal through research contracts which corresponds to its well established relationship with the industry. However, the experts were astonished by the low income from EU framework programmes. H u m a n r e s o u r c e s AMS offers an excellent environment for young scientists as it dedicates considerable attention to the development of its human resources. The evaluation unit fosters the E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 4

5 creativity of young researchers and trains them by organising group meetings and seminars and by inviting external speakers for lectures. In addition, they can access senior researchers easily. Almost half of AMS staff has a PhD degree, two senior scientists with an HDR (Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches) have been hired recently and the director of AMS as well as the leader of one of its units also obtained an HDR. Even so, the number of publications of young researchers as well as the overall scientific profile of the staff, according to the ISI knowledge database, is rather low. During the hearing, the experts observed a lack of coordinated response which seems to be the result of a young and somewhat over-motivated team with no clearly assigned leader. Even if it is difficult for the experts to draw conclusions from this situation about the leadership qualities of AMS director, his lack of interference during the hearing is very questionable. On the one hand, a good team spirit seems to exist and it is possible that strategic decisions are taken by the director together with the unit managers. On the other hand, the decision process within AMS does not seem to be effective at this stage, looking at the high diversity of topics and the current lack of a research roadmap. In the experts view, a more demarked leader will therefore be required in the short-term. O r g a n i s a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e The director of CRP-HT presented a convincing and interesting roadmap for the whole research centre and demonstrated strong leadership abilities. In the experts view, his reorganisation of the CRP is heading in the right direction. The current structure of AMS is the result of a recent fusion of two different units. In the experts view, this reorganisation process is not finished yet. The fact that the organisational diagram given in the self-assessment report did not correspond to the one presented at the hearing shows that there is a lot of confusion about AMS current organisation. The following shortcomings in AMS organisation attracted the experts attention: - First, the current structure does not reflect the defined research priorities. - Second, the two units are too separate and do not form an integrated department. For example, the Unité des Matériaux is structured as a matrix organisation while the Unité MODSI follows a linear model. Also, AMS has no real management board that would include its director and its unit leaders and meet regularly and frequently. 1 The experts did not notice any overarching research projects either. - Third, AMS has too many hierarchy levels, a fact that causes a confusion of roles, responsibilities and authorities of several of those involved. - Fourth, the experts consider the metrological unit as a foreign element in the structure of AMS. Given the fact that this particular unit requires its own strategy and valorisation concept, it should rather stand separately in the organisation of the whole CRP-HT. 1 A steering committee including the director of CRP-GL, the director of AMS, its administration and the leaders of its units meets quarterly. E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 5

6 2. 3 P R O C E S S E S A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I O N C a p a c i t y u t i l i s a t i o n As mentioned before, the experts were under the impression that AMS makes reasonable use of its instruments and space. C o o p e r a t i o n w i t h C R P - G L a n d t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f L u x e m b o u r g In the past, AMS achieved a reasonable complementarity to the activities of Science et Analyse des Matériaux (SAM) at the Centre de Recherche Public - Gabriel Lippman (CRP-GL). However, recent developments in both institutions led to a more competitive situation. Therefore, the experts were pleased to find an open attitude at the level of AMS researchers as well as the management of CRP-HT to collaborate with CRP- GL in general and SAM in particular. In contrast, the experts consider the strategy of AMS management too passive, protective and inwards oriented with respect to possible collaborations with SAM but also with the University of Luxembourg, especially given the numerous opportunities for synergies. The expert committee places great importance on cooperation with universities in general and the University of Luxembourg in particular. However, the search for a closer relationship with the University was not mentioned as a priority by AMS leaders O U T P U T The self-assessment report revealed that AMS researchers are not used to being published in high ranked journals. Correspondingly, the evaluation unit has little international visibility as well as a low scientific profile. This is not surprising, given AMS background as a service oriented research unit; however, it sets quality limits in the formation of PhD students. In view of its close collaboration with the industry, the experts were astonished by the low number of patents and the non existence of licenses and spin-offs. AMS seems to have a severe problem valorising its strengths in the form of convincing outputs. Given that situation, it has not become clear to the experts what the outcome of the basic funding from the MESR is. The question has to be asked whether the Ministry s block grant is used to support service driven R&D projects that are not fully covered by third party means. E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 6

7 3 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Based on the above stated observations the experts formulate the following recommendations. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 1 : F o r m u l a t e a r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n d a b y c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n a s m a l l e r n u m b e r o f k e y t o p i c s The experts assume that AMS poor valorisation by way of publications, patents, licenses and spin-offs might be due to the too high diversification of its research themes. Consequently, the experts recommend formulating a strategic research agenda and reducing AMS priorities by concentrating on a maximum of three key research topics. The research agenda should include a clear time and resource plan and define the responsibilities for the implementation of the research and development priorities. Also, within these key topics, the most important scientific and engineering questions need to be defined precisely. It must be clarified how research on the defined questions contributes to the fulfilment of the evaluation unit s overall goals. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 2 : E v a l u a t e p a s t p r o j e c t s It should be considered that not all new priorities need additional means. A careful evaluation of past projects and the eventual reduction or cancellation of activities in areas that lost importance can also contribute to the reengineering of the evaluation unit. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 3 : R e o r g a n i s e t h e s t r u c t u r e o f A M S The reorganisation of the whole CRP-HT being already under way, it should be clearly accelerated with respect to AMS. The following two recommendations should be taken into consideration when reorganising AMS: - First, roles, responsibilities and authorities should be defined more clearly and unnecessary intermediate positions should be eliminated. The experts propose a model of one leader for each of the three units (simulation, characterisation and application) with the double hierarchy above each unit being eliminated. The three unit-managers would then directly report to the director of AMS. - Second, the experts suggest integrating the whole structure into a linear model and dividing it, for example, into the three domains: simulation, characterization and applications. If nevertheless opting for a matrix type structure, all units, including engineering and simulation, should be integrated in this type of organisation. The reorganisation of AMS will also offer the opportunity to reflect on the role and position of the metrological unit which according to the experts should not be part of AMS. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 4 : A d a p t t h e p r o f i l e o f t h e d i r e c t o r o f A M S As mentioned above, the profile of the director of AMS needs to be adapted to future needs. The management of CRP-HT should therefore take internal or external actions E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 7

8 to address the point of a demarked leadership. In the current organisation, the unit and assistant unit leaders have a very high managerial task engagement. The experts suggest considering if these levels should have more demarked scientific roles with less managerial task interference. In case of a new, external leader being recruited, the reassignment of the current director to the position of a unit manager with scientific guidance responsibilities should be considered. The search for a new leader of AMS would offer various opportunities and could be used to strengthen AMS relationship with the University as well as with other research institutions such as SAM at CRP-GL. It is absolutely crucial to intensify the relationship between AMS, SAM and the University in order to clarify their profiles and enhance their respective strengths. To find a qualified successor, AMS should commit to an active and competitive search by setting up a search committee. The committee should be composed of at least three external experts as well as representatives of CRP-HT and the MESR. In view of the forthcoming retirement of SAM s director and as an ongoing option to bring AMS and SAM closer together, the experts recommend that either one or two future leaders for AMS and SAM be recruited together in a joint recruitment process. A new leader of AMS or a common leader of AMS and SAM together would be a high profile researcher with strong links to the University of Luxembourg. This profile may be found in a current or future professor in materials science at the University of Luxembourg. This also means that the new director would need a scientific distinction in materials science without neglecting the importance of successful experience in collaboration with the industry. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 5 : C r e a t e s y n e r g i e s w i t h S A M a t C R P - G L The experts observed parallels between AMS and SAM that offer ideal ground for synergies. They would like to suggest some ideas from which both institutions could benefit: A common technology transfer office could be implemented and their library services consolidated. Also, the setting up of a joined educational programme including lectures and seminars would allow the establishment of further interaction between AMS and SAM s researchers. Of course, further ideas should be generated to exploit existing opportunities for synergies between AMS and SAM. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 6 : A c t i v e l y s e e k t o i n t e n s i f y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f L u x e m b o u r g AMS needs to be respected and recognised by the international scientific community as well as by the national industry. Furthermore, AMS needs to contribute to the important task of higher education. Although AMS has a satisfactory number of publications, the standard of publications should be higher in order to allow better visibility within the scientific world. Therefore, common projects with the University of Luxembourg are indispensable. In the experts view, AMS should take an active role in promoting materials science at the University of Luxembourg in order to consolidate the education of new researchers in this field. The experts consequently recommend a much higher exchange of staff between AMS and the University. AMS should contrib- E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 8

9 ute to higher education by acquiring educational roles at the University and on the other hand increase the number of professors working at AMS. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 7 : F o s t e r t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n b e t w e e n i n s t i t u t i o n s e n g a g e d i n m a t e r i a l s r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t b y c r e a t i n g a c o m m o n s c i e n t i f i c c o u n c i l In order to gain high international visibility in science and industry, the experts recommend bringing all the institutions engaged in materials research and development, i.e. a University team to be created, AMS, SAM and Luxinnovation closer together. One way to do so is by carefully checking the option to concentrate these institutions under one organisational roof at the Cité des Sciences. Additionally, the experts recommend the creation of a common external scientific council to advise the three institutions engaged in materials science in Luxembourg. The council should be composed of representatives of the Luxembourgish and foreign industry as well as national and international high calibre scientists. The advisors should be carefully selected and assigned for the period of a performance contract with the possibility to renew their mandates. The setting up of such a council will also facilitate the development of a national roadmap for materials science. Additionally, the existing 4C&U, a conference of the directors of the four CRP s and the University, can play an important role. E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 9

10 C O M P A N Y I N F O R M A T I O N I N T E R F A C E Policy Studies Research Consulting Seidenhofstrasse 12 CH-6003 Lucerne Tel. +41 (0) P R O J E C T R E F E R E N C E Lucerne, June Project number: P10-05 E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T A M S 1 0