Interview about the PoF-Rehearsal: »Our performance as a team was truly impressive«

It took almost a year to prepare for the major evaluation in May 2025. Olaf Schwarzkopf (Matter and Information) and Tobias Sontheimer (Energy) coordinated the entire process on behalf of HZB’s board of Directors. We spoke with them about how it went – and what they took away from it all.

How important were the reviews for HZB?

Schwarzkopf: The reviews in May gave us the chance to present our research and set the stage for the coming years. They form the basis for our funding from 2028 through to 2034.

What exactly did the reviewers assess?

Sontheimer: They assessed our work in the research areas of energy, information, and matter for both scientific excellence and strategic direction, as in, are we pursuing the right topics? Where do we stand in international comparison? Are we making the most of what we've got?

Schwarzkopf: But it wasn’t just about “grading”. It was also a critical look at how HZB is positioned overall. As one example: the way we’re lining up BESSY II to be an operando synchrotron for energy research really resonated with the panel of reviewers. We had their full support. That is perhaps even more valuable than a perfect grade. So, we can also see the evaluation as a kind of business consultation, which is a big plus.

What kind of feedback did the reviewers give for the individual research areas?

Sontheimer: For us in Energy, they confirmed our scientific excellence. We have an inspiring work environment to thank for that. An important takeaway is that, in our core areas, our research is among the world’s best.

Schwarzkopf: If I were to sum up the results for Matter and Information, I would say: it was a strong endorsement of what we have accomplished so far, and a motivator for what comes next. In particular, we got some valuable guidance on how we can continue developing the centre – for example, by identifying areas we should build with pri-ority to better align with HZB’s strategy.

Can you also say something about interdisciplinarity in research?

Schwarzkopf: Yes, we can say that the centre’s alignment is very coherent. Our light source gives us a unique selling point, and we have chosen the right topics to focus on there. Our collaborations are also a major asset.

And what were the most rewarding things for you personally?

Sontheimer: One of the reviewers said at the end that she had come as a guest but now quite liked the idea of staying and becoming a part of the HZB team – a place where happy people love what they do and want to make a difference in the world. That kind of feedback says it all: they saw the culture we have built at HZB, where work is enjoyable, not just for the master's students, doctoral researchers, postdocs, and senior scientists, but also for the colleagues in admin, strategy, and board of Directors.

Schwarzkopf: That’s a very important point. Beyond the science, our performance as a team was truly impressive. The reviewers remarked at how well the HZB team worked together in all areas, with enthusiasm and conviction. Everyone contributed: the speakers, the poster presenters, the tour guides, and all those behind the scenes who made sure transfers ran smoothly, catering was spot on, and that somebody was there to answer the reviewers’ questions right away.

That’s the spirit at HZB; and it couldn’t be forced or faked. Reviewers pick up on things like that immediately. They’re professionals. They know when someone is truly invested in what they’re doing. And that’s where we really shone as a centre.

Did you try anything new in your presentation?

Schwarzkopf: Yes – we added a touch of gamification. The colleagues at the demo stations came up with the idea to install hands-on control tools that the reviewers could try out themselves. It was a real hit with the reviewers, especially as a refreshing change in a full day.

What helped you most during the preparation phase?

Schwarzkopf: We had a lot of support from our scientific advisory board during the re-hearsal sessions. Some joined us on-site, while others followed along online – but they all gave us valuable, practical feedback. A lot of it drew directly from their own experience with evaluations like this. 

Sontheimer: The effort in preparing for the evaluation was huge, on every side. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that it was also an opportunity for everyone to present exactly what it is they are working on. You start to see the broader impact of what you are doing, and how that feeds into the centre’s overall strategy. So the evaluation process doesn’t just matter for external evaluation – it really drives internal development, too.

Were there other key topics, besides scientific excellence?

Sontheimer: Talent development and diversity were both major points of interest for the reviewers. And they gave us a very strong signal that the concepts and programmes we’ve put in place are genuinely excellent.

Schwarzkopf: Some of the highlights were the sessions on collaboration and transfer. Many of our partners came in person to show their support, with statements that repeat-edly showed their trust and confidence in HZB. None of that was planned or scripted; it was genuine. The reviewers also recognised what a strength it is for HZB to be located in Adlershof: with our laboratory infrastructures and our proximity to partners like the Max Planck Society, the National Metrology Institute (PTB), the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM), the Leibniz In-stitutes, and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

If we look ahead now, how will next year’s strategic evaluation be different?

Schwarzkopf: This evaluation focused on HZB and its scientific contributions to the Helmholtz programmes. The strategic evaluation will shift the spotlight onto the programmes and topics as a whole. The centre itself will be more in the background.

Sontheimer: Also, the strategic evaluation will focus more into the future, while the current scientific evaluation in May focussed on the results of the past five to seven years.

What are your personal takeaways from this experience?

Schwarzkopf: That we have fantastic people at HZB – across the board – and it’s thanks to them that I can say with real confidence that we know how to handle an evaluation. That gives me a good feeling going into the next one.

Sontheimer: We learned a lot about how to bring teams together across different units and departments. This only worked because everyone was fully on board and gave it their all. There were some long days, no doubt about it, but the commitment from our
people was the real driving force.

Schwarzkopf: The prep was tough. But the review itself? That was fun. That was showtime.

The interview was conduced by Ina Helms and Antonia Rötger.

What is the Helmholtz evaluation about?

Through Programme-Oriented Funding (PoF), Helmholtz centres work together to devel-op joint research programmes. This collaborative approach ensures that complex scientific questions are tackled by top researchers from a range of disciplines.

All programmes are reviewed by independent international experts, who assess both the scientific quality and the potential for innovation. Funding is only approved if their assessment is positive.

The Programme-Oriented Funding is based on a two-stage evaluation process: In the first stage, each centre and its ongoing research undergoes a scientific evaluation. In the second stage, future programmes are assessed in a strategic evaluation on the broader scale of the research fields.The resulting reports form the basis for the Helmholtz Senate's recommendation on the extent to which the federal government and the federal states should fund the research programmes and how the funding should be apportioned.