Austrian Research and Technology Report 2020

Key recommendations
Based on the results of the evaluation, the evaluation 
report advises the funding agency to initiate an ap-
pointment procedure according to Section 99a of the 
Universities Act (UG) (i.e. the newly established op-
tion of “headhunting”) in exceptional cases for the 
recruitment of top international researchers as BM-
VIT endowed professors (and in order to reduce un-
certainty regarding the individual appointed) as an 
alternative to the procedure according to Section 98 
of the Universities Act (UG). This option would also 
speed up the required appointment procedures even 
further.
The fact that the universities’ future dealings with 
co-funding partners are secured and that the (poten-
tial) funding recipients reveal their strategies are 
both crucial for the evaluation team. To this end, the 
instrument should include an obligation to develop a 
code of conduct (i.e. the rights and obligations of the 
universities and co-funding companies/companies 
providing the endowment) or to provide this if a code 
is already in place as an integral part of the grant 
application process, as is already the case at various 
universities. This should also contain rules for media-
tion in the event of a conflict.
The relevant rectorate should be involved in each 
application in order to reinforce the commitments 
made in the statements in funding applications re-
garding the funding for endowed professorships 
once existing funding or financial or in-kind contribu-
tions of the universities run out, and to maintain this 
commitment throughout the entire application pro-
cess as well as the appointment process once the 

---

4. RTI Evaluation Culture and Practice
195
funding has been promised. The rectorates should 
also issue a letter of commitment regarding the “in-
kind contributions” to be provided in an explicit and 
comprehensible manner (which should also be made 
transparent to the applicants).
It is hardly possible to shorten the time-consum-
ing processes due to the central autonomy of the 
universities in appointment procedures. One key op-
tion for (at least) condensing the process would in-
volve formal acceptance of the final version of the 
job advertisements for the professorships by the 
funding party. A potential requirement for the fund-
ing recipients to publish the vacancy notice within 12 
months (or less) after the receipt of the funding com-
mitment is a sensible step, and this should even in-
volve a potential suspension of the funding if they 
fail to comply. Universities should be required to pro-
vide status updates to the funding body at regular 
intervals, including during the appointment process, 
and as soon as possible in the event of any delays.
Foundation advisory boards are more or less the 
established standard in connection with endowed 
professorships and should be formed as mandatory 
for the “BMVIT endowed professorship”. In any case, 
the Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, 
Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK) 
should, as the funding party, be a member of the 
foundation’s advisory board.