On this page we present and consolidate the main questions we have received from the community, as well as their impact on the strategy (and eventually, roadmap) drafts. The purpose is transparent information about the state of the writing process and the ongoing discussions. Questions brought up or under discussion are sorted chronologically with the latest comments last.
Contribute to the strategy process
Contribute to the strategy work and/or preserve your discussion by sending your feedback to
How is feedback handled?
All feedback is brought up to discussion in the managing group. If the feedback refers to a specific detail, topic, or scientific area, it is passed on to and discussed with the leads of that area.
All general feedback on structure and content will be discussed at least once in the wider core group consisting of the managing group and all leads.
If the feedback is general enough that it deserves scrutiny from our community, we will preserve it on this page in a compact and anonymised form together with a comment on how we are addressing it.
We are grateful for your feedback and it is essential to the process. Even minor corrections on language are valuable.
The first draft of the Strategy document
The first draft was finalised on the 15th of March 2021 and is a preliminary, first version of the science-driven strategy to guide development of MAX IV through 2030. It is a first draft and not the final strategy document. Community input to and critical review of this strategy process from all MAX IV stakeholders over the coming months is essential to its success. We aim with close participation from stakeholders to complete a full strategy document in autumn 2022.
Nothing in the strategy is set in stone and its specification together with a development roadmap is still being conducted. We have sent a broad request for feedback to stakeholders. The process should be open and transparent to everyone who are affected by it.
The first draft for the strategy can be downloaded here
Please note that the first draft was paired with a budget request to the Swedish Science Council (section 7 and appendices).
Frequently asked questions on the structure of the first draft
|Question||There are several sections that are missing and should be added by the second draft, including for example:InternationalisationOther science areas (if needed)OrganisationEducationTrainingCollaborationsID developmentAnd potentially a few others. There is also the question of whether the transformative science areas and cross-cutting topics are comprehensive enough as they are, or whether they should be consolidated or extended.|
|Comment||That is certainly true and a very good point. Some sections are missing due to the time constraints in finishing a first draft and concentrating on the main section needed for the VR report. We will try to have a much more complete lineup for the second draft. Regarding the science areas and cross cutting topics, this is also up for discussion, we expect to do this intensively with our community before and during the User Meeting 2021, possibly in a dedicated workshop before.|
|Question||Regarding the Vision, it is important to work in parallel on developing the vision together with the community, more work needs to be done here.|
|Comment||Also a very good point. In the work on the vision it is absolutely essential to involve the MAX IV user community. We will do our best going forward, again partly in conjunction with the 2021 User Meeting, with MAX IV advisory bodies and in dedicated meetings or workshops. The vision work does not have a deadline this year, like the one expected for contributions to the roadmap, so there is more flexibility with time.|
|Question||On the length of the document: the strategy part is already quite lengthy, even with the other sections added this part should not be more than about 25 pages long.|
|Comment||Many people agree, both inside and outside of MAX IV. We will attempt to address this and compress the current material to accommodate.|
|Question||The sections in general would benefit from a more to-the-point structure, more like the industry part with more concrete goals. The research community should be more instrumental in setting this.|
|Comment||This is also a very good point. We will take this into consideration and see how we can involve the community in setting ambitious but realistic targets.|
|Question||The roadmap components and the time scope as used in the first draft, the division in e.g. long term, short term and how it is presented and discussed can be an issue. In early requests for input the “roadmap” parts were connected to the science areas and presented together. What is the plan on this?|
|Comment||Well spotted. The initial idea to have a more self-contained science sections and specific timelines in close proximity had to be abandoned due to the need of the detailed roadmap to be a living document with yearly revisions, while the strategy is more static and long-term. There are also often multiple connections between specific instruments or capabilities and science areas. Going forward the plan is to work hard on making the connections between the strategy and the roadmap contents very clear in both textual and visual ways. If rough “bins” of time scopes should be used or not is also up for discussion.|
|Question||There is a tension between the need of the document to tell the story about the scientific content of the strategy in an accessible way and using it as a document with detailed scientific and yearly plans for how to reach targets.|
|Comment||Many people agree, both inside and outside of MAX IV. The division into a strategy part and a roadmap part is supposed to partly remedy this. We have to think carefully about how we phrase goals and plans in the strategy part vs the roadmap parts in a way that is useful operationally.|
|Major feedback on the contents of the first draft|
|Question||Where are the statistics, research examples and international benchmarking? You should work more on making the text MAX IV specific in general, and use statistics, research examples and bechmarking to make your points.|
|Comment||Very true. The final document is very much supposed to have this. The Covid-19 pandemic has affected work in unexpected ways, and since a lot of this material would have had to be updated anyway, it was decided to wait with gathering statistics, and examples in large quantitites until the third draft. This material is also typically gathered anyway for late fall as part of the regular reporting of MAX IV. We will for the second draft try to make the texts more MAX IV specific whenever possible, and reflect this need in all processes and requests for submission. Benchmark material is also produced concurrently, this depends a lot on work of MAX IV staff in conjunction with the user community. We also expect benchmarking to be done to some extent in EoI submissions for the roadmap.|
|Question||The industry section reads very well (section 4) and could be used as more of a model.|
|Comment||The team working on the industry section thanks you. The differing format is partly due to the fact that that this work was progressing a bit earlier than the rest, and because it is a topic where clear goals are easier to set consistently. We will take this into serious consideration, and think hard on if it is useful and desirable to model the other sections more like it going forward. The key question is how to do it in a structured and inclusive way.|
|Question||The text can in places be very Swedish-focused on “national” as opposed to “international”. It is important to make the relations and proportions of this clearer.|
|Comment||This is a very good point. We will try to make the text clearer, balanced, inclusive and explicit in terms of how the user community is distributed and how it is expected to be in the future.|
|Question||Teaching, training and collaborations with other Swedish universities and internationally need to be more described. Both in terms of what’s going on and where MAX IV wants to go.|
|Comment||We absolutely agree, the second draft will have a section dedicated to this, and we will go though appropriate references to this in the text in general.|
|Question||You need to think more carefully about the perception due to the ordering of topics in the science areas, etc. You don’t want to give the impression that a specific thing is prioritised.|
|Comment||This is also a very good point, it is essential to not give any impression of favor or ranking unless this has actually been performed in a correct way according to the process, and it is appropriate to do so.|
The second draft of the Strategy document
The current expected date for a second draft is in February 2022. The upcoming second draft will contain changes in response to the first batch of feedback received on the first draft, as well as the feedback and initial material gathered via the working groups working on the Transformative Science topics and the transverse areas. The major change in response to the first batch of feedback. is in division into separate Strategy and Roadmap parts, where the roadmap detailing major coming upgrades and investments is gathered and reviewed via an open submission process.