EARMA - Annual Conference 2017 [Malta]
European Association of Research Managers and Administrators
23rd Annual EARMA Conference Malta, April 24th-26th 2017
Presentations
/
Dr. Sean McCarthy (Hyperion Ltd.), Ms. Christina Miller (Director UK Research Office), Dr. Thomas Estermann (EUA), Dr. James Foden (Malta Council for Science and Technology), Dr. Peter Fisch (Independent expert)
Our expert panel will debate many of the key issues affecting EU research funding in the years leading up to the new Framework Programme and beyond. The session also sets the scene for many of the individual parallel sessions which will focus in more detail on some of these topics. The issues include:
What is the most efficient way to distribute funding for research at European level?
This issue cuts across many key questions for future EU funding, including, what is the correct balance for ground breaking research and more applied research? How to deal with pressures on budgets whilst also addressing widening participation and roles of Associated States? How will Brexit affect future funding? And how to improve the synergy between ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and research funding?
What issues could be the most detrimental for achieving the ‘Best Deal for European Research’?
How should FP9 be negotiated to achieve the best deal for Europe and what potential ‘roadblocks’ will there be to achieving this. Examples of potential road blocks could include funding levels, BREXIT, engagement with EU funding at national level, engagement SMEs, lack of coherent strategy, success rates, and integration of SSH within the programme.
What is the Role of EARMA Members: Influencing or Monitoring?
Leading up to an open debate, we discuss what the role of EARMA should be and the role of research managers.
As a ‘first’ at an EARMA conference, the audience will also have an opportunity to vote on key questions relatedto the debate, in what is sure to be a lively and informative opening session, chaired by Dr Seán McCarthy.
Mr. Isidoros Karatzas (European Commission)
This session aims to help research managers better advise their researchers on how to best deal with ethics
issues. Whilst recognising that there are cultural and legal differences across different countries, it will focus
on helping our researchers understand how to integrate adherence to ethical standards with their normal research practise. It will use case studies to show how others have successfully addressed ethical issues using
one example in the Health field and one in the Social Sciences.
The session will also look forward to the feedback from the research managers community in order to further
improve the ethics processes in the near future. How ethics will be addressed in future EU research
programmes.
The session will assume that participants already understand and have read the processes for addressing ethical approvals /opinions within applications, as detailed in the document “How to complete your ethics self
–assessment” [Annex 4..etc, to add].
At the end of the session, research managers will be better equipped to provide guidance that will help research managers to support and advice on ethics processes and compliance. and alleviate or take away the stress (and even fear) from preparing ethical approvals.
Mr. Yoram Lev-Yehudi (Managing Director)
Financial management is a core pillar in implementing Horizon 2020 projects. During the course of each project many financial issues and questions are raised, some with the ability to substantially impact its future conduct and development, for better or worse.
The rules of financial management are based on well-known and practiced project accounting principles. However, improper handling of financial checkpoints and events could result in monetary losses and far reaching consequences to the beneficiaries involved, let alone the coordinator.
The financial manager decision making process and level of involvement throughout the project’s life span
stand in the center of this session. The goal is to discuss the role of the financial manager of Horizon 2020
projects beyond the known facts and principles, while highlighting the financial course of events that compose
every Horizon 2020 project and the proper reaction needed. The focus is put on presenting a financial-related
“checkpoints” timeline in order to maximise the grant and enjoy its rewarding benefits.
The session is divided into 3 pillars, each containing relevant topics that together compose the essence of a
successful financial management in Horizon 2020:
• Financial Reporting- the new SYGMA interface was introduced, presenting distributed, multi-part and
multi-type inputs. While most comparisons made between H2020 and FP7 refer to the theoretical rules
of the programme, much less attention was paid to its actual implementation. Therefore it is imperative
to Research Managers and Administrators (whether experienced or new, in particular coordinators) to
gain practical know-how of the new financial reporting mechanism, in order to save the adjustment time
and ensure an efficient and smooth operation of the projects involved.
• Financial Checks - periodic checks (a.k.a. FP7 reviews) are important “non-documented” milestones in
the project’s life cycle. The course and results of the checks could impact on the project’s execution, both
of science and of available resources. We will equip Research Managers and Administrators with the
know-how and useful tools to fully prepare for successful periodic checks.
• Financial checkpoints overview – A variety of financially related issues rise during every project’s life
cycle. To name a few: over consumption or underutilisation of the budget, defaulting parties, distribution
of funds, unused (free) budget during the final payment, and more. Out experience shows that
proper financial management could not only maximise the funding, but also contribute to achieving
better scientific results. We will review a variety of relevant financial checkpoints through test cases
based on our hands-on experience, and provide guidelines and recommendations on the best financial
“code-of-conduct”.
Combining the 3 pillars will provide Research Managers and Administrators with a complete mantle for financially supporting Horizon 2020 projects.
Ms. Barbara Gray (East Carolina University)
If youhave worked in the research management field for any length of time, you knowthat an effective office
structure is imperative for providing efficient,quality services. Also, staff whopossess the right knowledge,
skills, and personal attributes are essential tosuccess. If you are a team leader orsupervisor who is responsible
for hiring, how do you ensure that you select theright candidates for your organization and the job? This session
will describe an assessmentstrategy to determine best organizational structure for the office; will presentan
outline to help you develop position descriptions that accurately describejob responsibilities to attract the
most qualified candidates; will illustrateeffective interviewing techniques to uncover candidates’ competencies
andskillsets; and will provide suggestions for reference checking to ensureconsistency of information. With
knowledge gained in this session, youwill augment your management skills by enhancing your ability to identify
theright person for the right job.
Dr. Peter Fisch (Independent expert)
Looking differently at some key features of Horizon 2020
The key features of Horizon 2020 are very familiar to most delegates of the EARMA 2017 Conference – and there is a risk that the common understanding of Horizon 2020 is based on a number of established assumptions.
This presentation – following-up on a very controversial discussion at last year’s EARMA Conference in Lulea
- is putting into question some of the classical arguments about Horizon 2020 – with the aim to stimulate a
broader and deeper public debate on the future of European Research Funding.
The potential of different ways of looking at Horizon 2020 will be demonstrated with three prominent examples:
• Do we need perfect proposals?
In times of low success rates, pressure is mounting on applicants to come up with “perfect” proposals. This
normally includes the involvement of external support and makes the submission process particularly costly.
While this behaviour seems logical from the point of view of individual applicants, the overall effect in terms of
an efficient process to select the best possible teams is questionable. More stringent rules might lead to a fairer evaluation procedure and a massive reduction in proposal costs.
• Does a two-stage evaluation help against low success rates?
The move towards more two-stage evaluations in Horizon 2020 was generally welcomed as one way to limit the negative impact of low success rates. A more detailed analysis shows, however, that the positive effects hoped for will not materialize automatically – and that at the end an important number of applicants might actually be worse off.
• What can we learn from Scoping Papers?
Most people read the current set of Scoping Papers for the next round of Work Programmes as an early indicator for future call topics. At the same time, these documents highlight the problematic development of replacing an open competition for the best ideas by an ever increasing number of “policy” priorities and thematic restrictions.
The more fundamental issues raised in this presentation could be a good starting point for a fresh debate on
what changes are needed in FP9.
Mr. Patrick De Boer (ttopstart), Mr. Andree Schram (ttopstart)
Increase your competitiveness in the current funding landscape with the ttopstart academy
The research funding landscape is changing. We experience that large funding bodies such as Horizon
2020 require projects with clear impact for science, industry and society. On the other hand, the competition
for European research funds is growing. The first evaluation report from the European Commission
shows that the success rate of Horizon 2020 is 14%, which is significantly lower than 20% of the FP7 programme.
These challenges require academic research organisations to develop or rethink their (current)
funding strategies to remain competitive.
The funding model canvas In this workshop, you will learn about the best practices and performance indicators for raising subsidies. We have determined these 9 factors based on our experience with high performing research teams and organisations and in our experience in writing over 200 successful grant applications from different countries. This allowed us to compare universities, research teams and proposals and paved the way towards the development of the funding model canvas.
About the ttopstart academy
The ttopstart academy is an initiative of ttopstart to structurally increase the competitiveness of scientists and
entrepreneurs through personal coaching and training. Our game-changing perspectives and experience from
hundreds of cases excellently position us to deliver smarter and more creative science and business strategies.
Dr. Thomas Estermann (EUA)
2017 marks an important milestone for the future of EU Funding as the revision of different funding instruments and conditions are being reshaped by European and national policymakers. Brexit and the lowest
success rates[1] ever are only some of the developments that will have a fundamental impact on universities
and how they will be able to use EU funding instruments. There is a risk that through these developments even fewer institutions will be able to benefit from European funding for excellence.
The strong trend to move towards loan based funding has already reduced past grant based funding in Horizon 2020 and it’s likely that more of these instruments are used for funding research and innovation activities.
Current informal negotiations between EU 13 and EU 15 decision makers show that the growing gap in participation and success in Horizon 2020 between these countries has reached a point that an agreement for the future generation of programmes will require fundamentally different approaches.
The question on impact of research and how it can be evaluated will get an additional dimension through the
push towards a European budget focused on results. This will introduce performance elements in European
Funding and pose difficult questions for universities how this can be applied for their research and innovation
activities.
Another trend is the push of the efficiency agenda onto university funding. EUA has conducted research on this
through the USTREAM project and is able to connect latest data from the Public Funding Observatory as well as its Membership consultation on the midterm review to show connections and the potential impact.
The presentation will briefly outline these trends that shape the future of EU funding and show the potential
impact on universities. It will discuss what they need to do to be prepared to continue to benefit and use European Funding as instruments to engage with other institutions and partners across Europe in the next decade.
A set of thought provoking questions will engage participants in a discussion that should lead to conclusions
and actions to prepare their universities for the next decade of European funding.
[1] EUA has calculated for the first time the costs of unsuccessful proposals in H2020 at European level
Mr. Christian JÄGER (University of Freiberg), Mr. Siegfried HUEMER (Vienna University of Technology)
Negotiating the Best Deal for your Institution!
In this session an update on the legal framework of H2020 will be presented with special focus on the modified DESCA Model Consortium Agreement for Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Innovative (MSCA) Training Networks provided by LERU and the German BAK-AG Recht.
Sharing experiences and discussion with the audience how to negotiate the best deal for the consortium as a
whole and for your Institution.
The session will be an update for experienced H2020 Research Managers and particularly helpful for administrators who are new in the field.
Learning objectives and outcome:
- basics of H2020 legislation especially the MSCA Model Grant Agreement
- legal background of the modified DESCA Consortium Agreement
- LERU template for MSCA Innovative Training Networks
- Experiences, Questions and Discussion with audience
Mr. Joerg Niehoff (European Commission)
The session will focus on Joint Programming, firstly explaining the difference with other schemes and where
they fit within the overall European funding landscape. The session will explain how researchers can best
engage with Joint Programming (Public-Public partnerships) using case studies of successful partnerships.
At the end of the session delegates will have a much clearer idea how to develop a forward strategy for helping
their researchers engage with Joint Programming.
Ms. Margriet Griethuysen (GSBi/Erasmus University Rotterdam), Ms. Esther Philips (Leiden University, Institute of Environmental Sciences), Dr. Zygmunt Krasiński (NCP Poland), Dr. Magda Di Carli (European Commission),
Ms. Nadine Castillo (Malta Council for Science and Technology.)
A Panel of 4 experts will explore challenges of research collaboration in Spreading Excellence and Widening
Participation in Horizon 2020.
In particular we will cover:
1.EU-Commission perspective on future mechanism;
2.The facilitating role of NCP for universities in terms of access and endorsement of collaboration;
3.Thirdly, the regional role of Smart Specialization Strategies in the process.
Panel discussion with the audience.
There is ongoing strategic discussion on how to catalyze the whole potential of ERA and the need for bridging
the innovation divide between EU-13 and EU-15 Member States in Europa. Widening Participation and Excellence mechanism especially those created and developed through the Structural Funds/ Smart Specialization Strategies will be highlighted. Two groups of widening measures are considered – modified widening package and new widening measures integrated into all parts of H2020. However there are major challenges such as regional and local system differences between universities in EU-13 and EU 15 MS which challenges research collaboration. The regional role of Smart Specialization Strategies in the process, a mechanism by which structural funding is allocated, appears to bring about regional differences in collaboration. This session is about strategizing research collaboration by identifying these challenges for the benefit of successful collaboration and on building sustainable relations overtime.
Speakers:
1. Widening Participation and Excellence in Horizon 2020, future outlooks and present challenges.
Magda De Carli , Head of Unit, Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation
DG-Research and Innovation
European Commission
2. The role of National Contact Point in fostering and enhancing university collaboration in the program
Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation, the case of Poland.
Zygmund Krazinski, director of NCP, Poland
Katarzyna Walczyk- Matuszyk, deputy Director Horizon 2020 Poland
3. The role of Smart Specialization Strategy in the process, the case of Malta.
Nadine Catillo, Director Policy and Strategy Unit; Horizon 2020 national contact point Malta Council for Science and Technology.
Dr. Pasi Sihvonen (University of Helsinki), Dr. Matias Partanen (University of Helsinki)
Competitive research funding has remained stagnant or has been cut severely in many countries during the
recent years. Crowdfunded success stories in business have been in headlines, raising the question whether
the approach is applicable in research community also. We will present a real-life case study on crowdfunding,
exploring its possibilities to act as a compensating source of research income. Topics covered in the presentation include comparison of business and research crowdfunding, volume of funding available, terminology, online platforms, administration, legislation, communication and marketing issues, tips for a successful campaign and conclusions. Attendants will get an overview of crowdfunding’s pros and cons, allowing them to evaluate the suitability and prospects of crowdfunding in their organizations.
Appropriate level of audience: all levels.
Quality, level and number of speakers: Both speakers are experienced, senior-level professionals. Dr Pasi Sihvonen has 10+ years of experience in research funding. Lawyer Matias Partanen has 10+ years of experience in legal matters and business collaboration in university context. Both speakers are needed, because the presentation covers wide range of matters including for instance lessons learnt and legislative issues.
Mr. Rob Johnson (Research Consulting), Mr. Pablo De Castro (University of Strathclyde)
In May 2016 the European Competitiveness Council set out its intention that all scientific papers should be
freely available by 2020. This presentation will share the results of a study, commissioned by the EC’s OpenAIRE project, to look at how European policymakers can achieve this goal, and to develop a roadmap for the transition.
The study findings are due to be published in April 2017, and so the EARMA conference will be one of the first
events at which the results will be publicly shared.
Using the findings of the European Commission’s FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot as a starting point, we will
explain how ever more frequent funder and institutional policies to support APC-based Gold Open Access are
influencing the global OA market. Drawing on case studies from four European countries with significantly
different OA policy landscapes – Hungary, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom – we will consider what
interventions are appropriate in these different national contexts, and share recommendations for the EC and
national policy makers.
We will then consider the implications of these developments for European research managers, both pre- and
post-award. Drawing on a survey of over 300 OpenAIRE-funded researchers, we will share information on
the availability of funds for OA publishing across Europe, and explain how research managers can advise researchers on their options for obtaining external funding for their publication activity. We will discuss the
administrative implications of more onerous compliance and reporting obligations in the area of open access,
and close by summarising the potential reputational benefits to researchers and institutions of adopting open
access.
We propose two speakers for the session as we believe they provide important complementary perspectives on the subject matter:
Rob Johnson was formerly Head of Research Operations at the University of Nottingham, UK, and now works as a consultant in research management. He is leading the OA market analysis study commissioned by OpenAIRE on behalf of the European Commission. A longstanding member of ARMA in the UK, he is a trainer for EARMA’s Certificate in Research Management, and a member of the conference planning committee for ARMA’s annual conference and INORMS 2018.
Pablo de Castro is a Board member of euroCRIS, where he leads the CRIS/IR Interoperability Task Group. He
coordinated the EC FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot on behalf of OpenAIRE and LIBER (Association of European Research Libraries) for most of its running time. He currently works as an Open Access Advocacy Librarian at the University of Strathclyde.
Note: should this submission not be considered appropriate for a presentation, we would be happy to consider a poster as an alternative means of communicating the study results.
Dr. Olaf Svenningsen (DARMA – Danish Association of Research Managers and Administrators), Dr. Helen Korsgaard (University of Southern Denmark), Mr. Torben Durck Johansen (University of Southern Denmark)
What creates value in research management and administration? This question is of growing importance in
the era of rampant KPI’s, the “metrics tide” and growing expectations that the impact of research management and administration (RMA) needs to be assessed and evaluated, too. The value proposition provided by research support offices and services are fundamental to how RMA is perceived and evaluated. But what are the values provided by your Research Support Office (RSO)? Are your value propositions clearly thought through, formulated, and presented to your RSO’s stakeholders? Who are the stakeholders?
When designing a business model, the *value proposition* is a fundamental component. In 2011, Southern
Denmark Research Support (SDRS) developed a General Services Model, presented at the EARMA Annual Conference 2012 in Dublin. Our next step was to develop a model for establishing concrete value propositions
specifically for RMA, the Values Proposition Model for Research Support, or VESPERS model, presented at the
INORMS Conference in Melbourne in September 2016. Our aim was to create a model and procedure to support the development of a value proposition specifically for RMA.
This procedure is intended to aid and direct the service offerings of RMA, and will yield different results depending on the local settings and conditions of the research support office. The SDRS-General Services Model together with the VESPERS tool, allows any research support office to refine its service offerings, optimize its value, and consistently and coherently present its value proposition to its stakeholders.
Based on the feedback from the INORMS presentation, we have developed the VESPERS model further and in this interactive session, we will present the model and its theoretical foundation. This is followed by an interactive exercise, where the audience is invited to test the VESPERS tool on their own services.
Ms. Charlotte Geerdink (European Advisor for Innovation, SwissCore), Mr. Yngve Joseph Foss (Head of Office and IGLO Chair, Research Council of Norway, Brussels Office), Ms. Christina Miller (Director UK Research Office)
H2020 currently is the only funding programme for research and innovation that is open for participation of organizations from all over the globe. This unique feature is of particularly high importance in the ever changing geopolitical landscape nowadays.
Associated countries such as Norway and Switzerland have been active participants of H2020 and preceding
Workprogramme but their status and models for participation in EU funding programmes differ.
The session will examine cases of Switzerland (presented by Charlotte Geerdink from SwissCore) and Norway
(presented by Yngve Joseph Foss from Research Council of Norway ) in terms of access to H2020 programme and access to information, and will provide some recommendations.
Christina Miller from UKRO will provide an overview on the latest developments and shared learning in tackling
uncertainties that have arisen following the outcome of the UK’s referendum on EU membership.
This session will also explore ideas to maximising international collaboration during the second half of Horizon
2020 and forthcoming FP9.
Presentations will be followed by panel discussion and Q&As from the audience.
The theme of the session is very timely and aligns well with the conference theme. The session outcomes will
feed into future strategy of the management of European and international research collaboration.
As the follow up of the session, we plan to submit the article to the EARMA newsletter or to the Link magazine.
Dr. Markus Will (Fraunhofer IPK), Dr. Svetlana Klessova (Inno TSD), Dr. Sara Medina (SPI), Dr. Robert Sanders (EBN)
Following a Horizon 2020 call for proposals, 3 Centres are being setup to foster European cooperation on research and innovation with dynamic and innovative countries – CEBRABIC, in Brazil; ERICENA, in China; and
NearUS in the USA.
CEBRABIC, ERICENA and NearUS represent the next generation instruments to materialize the European Union strategy on international cooperation on research and innovation, succeeding to the traditional so-called “bilat” and “inco” projects.
Acting as financially self-sustainable service providers for European researchers, entrepreneurs and businesses,
CEBRABIC, ERICENA and NearUS intend to strengthen the position of Europe as a world leader in science, technology and innovation (STI).
Why are CEBRABIC, ERICENA and NearUS a step ahead in the cooperation on research and innovation with
Brazil, China and USA?
What are the services provided by CEBRABIC, ERICENA and NearUS?
What are the added value and benefits of the centres for European researchers, entrepreneurs and businesses?
What are the risks and challenges involved in these centres’ implementation?
What is the future of European STI cooperation with Brazil, China and USA after the setup of CEBRABIC, ERICENA and NearUS?
What are the synergies that CEBRABIC, ERICENA and NearUS will take advantage of to improve the European
presence in the innovation and business contexts of Brazil, China and USA?
What is the potential role of EARMA as an associated partner to these Centres? What are the potential benefits for EARMA members resulting from the involvement of the organization as an associated partner of these Centres?
These are among the top questions to be addressed and discussed by the 3 executive coordinators in charge of the implementation of each of these centres:
• For CEBRABIC - Fraunhofer IPK, from Germany, represented by Markus Will, Head of Project Office Brazil
(www.ipk.fraunhofer.de);
• For ERICENA – SPI, from Portugal, represented by Sara Medina, Member of the Board (www.spi.pt);
• For NearUS - Inno TSD, from France, represented by Svetlana Klessova, Director (http://www.innogroup.
com/).
Each executive coordinator will be presenting its own centre, briefly describing the services provided, the organizational structure and other relevant aspects of the respective business plan.
The session will be chaired by Robert Sanders, Head of International Projects at the European Business and
Innovation Centres Network (EBN), organization which is involved in the design and operation of CEBRABIC,
ERICENA and NearUS.
Mrs. Laura Paternoster (University of Trento), Dr. Mario Roccaro (European Commission), Mr. Epaminondas Christofilopoulos (PRAXI Network)
The framework programme Horizon 2020 plays a central role in the delivery of the Europa 2020 strategy for
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Within Horizon 2020, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA)
aim at supporting researchers during all the stages of their careers and across all disciplines of research and
innovation to ensure the optimum development and dynamic use of Europe’s intellectual capital and to generate new skills, knowledge and innovation. Through grants supporting both pre-doctoral researchers in Europe and experienced researchers worldwide, MSCA seek to promote and enhance transnational, cross-sectorial and cross-thematic mobility, following a bottomup approach to funding. The four main MSCA will be presented by illustrating their modalities and features of participation, their impact to forge new collaborative efforts and to form the future researches.
In addition, a hands-on presentation of the MSC-Individual Fellowship (IF) will be given to guide participants
into the phases of a proposal’s preparation, by an increased awareness of the evaluation process and of key
aspects that need to be carefully taken into consideration when convincing a reviewer of the validity of a proposal (i.e. a “fascinating” abstract, well defined and structured training objectives, clearness and consistency of information provided, expected impact and concreteness of the proposal, etc). The session will then present the view of a higher education institution which is strategically enhancing the efforts to support researchers in applying to MSCA-IF calls.
This session is planned to bring the contributions of a policy officer of the MSCA, a MSC ITN-IF evaluator and
the head of the Research Office of the University of Trento.
Ms. Katrin Reschwamm (EUrelations AG), Mr. Yoram Bar-Zeev (Beacon), Ms. Annika Glauner (EU GrantsAccess), Dr. Mohammed Belhaj (University of Gothenburg), Mr. Bruno Wöran (Merinova)
Many efforts are taken to encourage researchers to apply for EU funds. In spite of this, the researchers are faced with high competition and low success rates. So far, it has been discussed that in order to have an application granted depends on at least three factors i.e., excellence, innovation and luck or a combination of these. Some even refer to the application process as being a lottery.
The low success rates depend among others on:
• oversubscription of submitted proposals;
• call texts are less descriptive, giving freedom to unmonitored interpretation (for applicants and reviewers);
• generic and not constructive evaluation feedback that does not allow improving the project;
• researchers not taking advantage of existing know-how
• and many more.
In general, RMAs are part of the game supporting researchers applying for EU funds. So how can RMA support
researchers to tackle the challenges?
In this session, we will present different examples taking into account:
• capabilities of large vs. small universities,
• various countries among others Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Israel,
• motivation and drive in different research areas,
• enabling researchers to gain a bigger picture and crosslink,
• application of a selection/ screening process within the university,
• needs of other organisations such as hospitals.
Short presentations by four speakers will be complemented by interactions with the audience to gain a clearer
picture about the pains but also to discuss potential remedies.
Speakers:
Dr. Mohammed Belhaj, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Yoram Bar-Zeev, Beacon Tech Ltd., Israel
Dr. Annika Glauner, EUGrantAccss, Switzerland
Bruno Wöran, Merinova, Finland
Chair/ Moderator:
Katrin Reschwamm, EUrelations AG, Switzerland
Ms. Jane Lykke Boll (University of Copenhagen)
What are the European funding schemes all worth if we cannot match the calls with the best researchers and
potential applicants? Fundraising for research grants is generally seen as a profession of hard skills: we monitor funding opportunities, and we develop useful tools, processes and time plans. BUT little is it all worth without trustful relations between research consultants and the researchers. If we rely exclusively on academic force and analytical thinking, it can be a challenge to get the attention of the researchers and our hard effort risks being wasted.
The establishment of trustful relations makes researchers more susceptible to the services, advice and tools
we offer. Likewise, the valuable relations and interactions are our channel to insights in research areas and researchers’ visions and ambitions. It is the positive relations that open up for tailored information and assistance and the strategic, long term true collaboration with specific research groups and individual researchers.
Built on my own experiences and with the inclusion of theory and practice related to communication and nudging, I propose a presentation that highlights where the hard skills fall short and soft matter of research support build bridges and create new paths allowing us to actually make use of all the state-of-the-art hard skills and knowledge we are equipped with.
Communication and nudging skills are my hard kicking soft tools that have proven successful in the numbers
of grants taken home at my department.
Experience level/ target audience:All levels
After the workshop attendees will have gained:
• Knowledge of relationbuilding theory and experience.
• a novel perspective on the successful pre-award research manager who built trustful relations to develop
and use her own position for constructive collaboration and brokerage.
• Concrete tools for establishing, maintaining and improving relationships with researchers in application
processes.
I arranged a workshop at the Inorms 2016 Conference in Melbourne on the same topic – which showed
to be part of a new global trend within research administration:Out of the 145 presentations at the conference, trust, the relational aspects of our trade, the establishment of better collaboration amongst researchers and between researchers and research supporters, emotional intelligence and other softer aspects of our trade popped up rather frequently.
Workshop presenter Jane Lykke Bøll has held research management roles at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) since 2008. She profits from networking and communications strategies needed in the competitive research milieu. Jane holds a Master’s degree in Danish fililogy and business communication, plus another Master’s degree in Communication for Development.
Mr. Epaminondas Christofilopoulos (Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas), Mr. Stavros Mantzanakis (Phemonoe Lab), Mr. Tomas Larsson (KAIROS Future), Ms. Elli B. Tzatzanis-Stepanovic (FFG-Austrian Research Promotion Agency)
This interactive session has a two fold purpose:
- To briefly consider the future of an international research manager and administrator?
- To discuss the future of STI in Europe and China by 2030, mega trends and social challenges
A short brainstorming exercise about the future of internationalisation in higher education, research
and innovation, will take place. Participants will select the main drivers changing their business environment
and will identify the main risks and opportunities.
In addition, the session will provide an overview of an extensive scenario foresight study of the future
for the research and innovation in China, and highlight specific risks and opportunities for RTOs aiming to
establish a long-term collaboration with China.
A combination of desk-study analysis, a delphi study, media scanning, and a crowd-sourcing platform,
have been utilized to analyze sixteen critical drivers that play a substantial role in transforming the R&I
landscape in China.
The study has revealed the correlation between the different factors, and highlighted the strong role of
Governance and of the National Economy on the future developments. Taking into account those drivers, and
some critical uncertainties, and four plausible future scenarios have been composed.
In addition, specific technological areas presenting opportunities for research and technological cooperation,
and emerging business models and markets are presented and discussed.
The aim of the session is to “future-proof” decisions taken with regards to the EU-China S&T&I collaboration
and to rethink the research manager’s profession within a long-term perspective.
Mr. Nicolas Schulthess (ETH Zurich), Ms. Jennifer Ponting (Harvard University, Office for sponsored Programs), Mr. Robert Andresen (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Ms. Annika Glauner (ETH Zürich | University of Zürich)
The expansion of researcher’s global networks has incentivized and encouraged international research collaborations.
The USA’s and EU’s large funding schemes like NIH and the H2020 (Health) program respond to this
globalizing development by making funds available to international participants. Thus, Research Managers
and Administrators must become familiar with counterpart funding conditions and regulations. With the implementation of the Uniform Guidance in the U.S. in late 2014, grant recipients have been closely monitoring their collaborators’ management of grants and contracts and conducting risk assessments. For better or worse, international collaborators are commonly being characterized as “high-risk” resulting in additional terms and conditions that increase monitoring and reporting and complicate reimbursement. Hence, Europe’s Research Managers need to be prepared to work with US federal funding agencies and universities.
This interactive session targets an audience which has US funds as part of their portfolio and will address crucial questions on how to best manage compliance issues that arise from the use of such funds. The session will examine criteria from the Uniform Guidance and from universities themselves to determine the risk level of
collaborators and it will address questions on what European Research Managers must be aware of when receiving US Grants and Contracts:
• How to distinguish grants from contracts? Is the difference even relevant during project implementation?
What are cooperative agreements?
• What are possible methods to monitor compliance? What should be monitored?
• How to introduce researchers to regulations and how they differ from European regulations?
• Where can I find policies such as the NIH grants policy statement, IARPA U. S. Army Research Office general
terms and conditions for grant awards to foreign educational and nonprofit institutions, and the DARPA grant
terms and conditions? What terms are similar and what are some of the differences? What are some real-world examples of risk assessments and audit findings?
• Is there a culturally unusual relationship with a European main award containing a European sub award?
The session will address these and/or similar questions that are of importance for European Research Managers engaged at institutions holding US-federal awards. We will discuss common concerns and possible solutions.
An introduction will be given in order to start an intensive discussion and sharing of experience as well as suggested tools and best practices. We also welcome suggestions from attendees on how to improve the process.
The session will be chaired by Jennifer Ponting, Director Pre-Award Services at the Office for Sponsored Programs, Harvard University, Robert Andresen , Director of Research Financial Services at the Office for Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Nicolas Schulthess, Research Manager at EU GrantsAccess, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich.
Dr. Olaf Svenningsen (DARMA – Danish Association of Research Managers and Administrators), Dr. Karam Sidaros (Hvidovre Hospital), Mrs. Lone Varn Johannsen (Aalborg University), Dr. Karen Slej (Copenhagen Business School), Mrs. Marianne Gauffrau (University of Copenhagen), Mr. Jakob Feldtfos Christensen (Aarhus University), Dr. Stine Bjorholm (VIA University College)
Research Management Associations (RMA’s) have grown in numbers and size over the past decades. Just in
the Nordic countries, societies have been founded in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway since 2007. In
countries where formal RMA’s do not exist, like Sweden, informal networks are very likely to be present. The
establishment of the Leiden Group, an informal network of European RMA’s and networks, and the growth of
INORMS, the International Organization of Research Management Societies, confirm that this is a global trend.
This trend reflects the growing recognition of the profession of research managers and administrators, but also the need for further professional development and recognition. In 2016, INORMS produced a webinar; “INORMS Research Management Association (RMA) and Board Effectiveness”, in which the typical development of an RMA is divided into four phases:
• Initial, small, voluntary
• Structured, some resource
• Strategic, more resource
• Comprehensive, fully staffed
This course of development will apply to RMA’s in big countries with a substantial research sector, where research management is recognized, or at least established. In smaller countries the development will be constrained by a.o. the size of the national research management community, as well as relations with larger,
international organizations such as EARMA. For example, a full-time director may not be a viable option, and a
fully developed national training programme with accreditation for research managers may not be sustainable.
In this presentation by DARMA’s Board, the history and development of DARMA, the Danish Association for
Research Managers and Administrators, founded in 2008, will be used as an example of an alternative course
of development. What types of activities are relevant for an RMA in a small country? How do those activities
create value for members? What are the benefits – and drawbacks – of a formal organization vs. an informal
network?
Some information acquired through the Leiden Group and EARMA will be used to put RMA development into
perspective, and the session will conclude with an open discussion based on the questions outlined above,
also the relations between smaller national RMA’s and other organizations and stakeholders, particularly
EARMA, and finally how organizing as research managers and administrators can benefit both the profession
and the research that we support.
Mr. William Cullerne Bown (*Research)
The Commission has set out a course for Framework 9 that is “business as usual”. Horizon 2020 was a big enough change, it says. What it wants to do now is consolidate. The hole in the budget created by Brexit will be dealt with. With the Brits gone, defence research can be added to the mix. “Co-creation” of the new agenda will make the whole process more democratic.
EARMA’s usual business is important. The budget, funding models, failures of participation, success rates, and
the details of administration discussed in other conference sessions matter. But we have been cursed to live in
interesting times and the Commission’s approach cannot be seen as merely pragmatic management.
The business as usual attitude should be seen as three things at once: genuine satisfaction with Horizon 2020;
a valid response to the geopolitical turbulence; and a holding position while the EU’s leaders figure out what to
do next. What it can’t be seen as is settling the shape of Framework 9. The turbulence is too big for that.
I will look at how the turbulence could impact on Framework 9 through the prism of five problems: Brexit,
defence, Europe’s economic weakness, populism and ‘Newspeak’.
It becomes clear that the political foundations on which the Framework programme - and academic research
itself - have rested are shifting. What is at stake now for universities is not just money, it is also autonomy and their role in society. If we do enter a post-truth era, then the consequences for the institutions of truth - not a bad definition of a university - will be profound.
To respond adequately to these deep changes, academia needs to understand its own history better. Universities catalysed the birth of the West and have been integral to its development for 1000 years. As institutions, they have benefitted massively from the success of the West. I will argue that they cannot stand by while the West threatens to disappear.
Having surveyed the issues facing Framework 9, I will suggest some possible responses, highlighting those areas where the interests of the Commission and the universities coincide or diverge. I will conclude by arguing that the most effective response to the times for universities in Europe (as well as Britain and the US) may require them to become in one respect bad citizens.
IN SHORT
The evolutionary course charted by the Commission for Framework 9 may not be able to survive the geopolitical turbulence engulfing the West. This talk will examine the depth of the threats and make suggestions about how universities and the Commission should respond.
Ms. Yasmin Wachs (Beacon Tech Ltd.), Mr. Yoram Bar-Zeev (Beacon Tech Ltd.)
The ERC is the most prestigious grant within the H2020 Programme and it is different than most other research funding sources. As RAs supporting excellent scientists in applying for ERC grants, it is crucial to provide them with a comprehensive, specialized support system.
In this session, we will discuss the framework and various components of an ultimate support system for ERC
candidates.
Specifically:
• The ERC timeline for the RA and the researcher
• Screening for candidates: Who is ‘ERC material’ within your University/Research center?
• When to say “no” – saving time, work and frustration on non-competitive proposals
• Tactics of preparing the application
• “Red flags” throughout the proposal
• Recycling is good for the environment, but not necessarily for ERC – reusing ideas from previous applications
• Selection of the ERC review panel(s)
• Dealing with ethical issues
• Administrative and technical issues
• Building the Budget
• Supporting documents
• Quality Assurance and avoiding last minute problems
• StG/CoG interview – How to “seal the deal”?
• Black box – uncertainties in the evaluation process
• The Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) – reading between the lines
• Resubmission – how to?
• Urban legends – which are true and which are false?
Ms. Sussi Mikaelsson (Umeå University), Mrs. Malin Ceder (University of Gothenburg), Mrs. Carina Forsberg (Umeå University), Ms. Dorothea Kapitza (Helmholtz Association)
Important scientific infrastructure are mostly organized as Core facilities (centralized infrastructure) providing
service for example animal housing, printing and bioanalyses but also invoiced costs from an internal storage
of chemicals etc. All subject to an internal cost allocation with internally invoiced costs.Allocation keys and
average costs are the foundation of almost all internal invoiced costs. The challenge is to allocate the correct costs for each specific service that is invoiced.
In the first version of H2020 MGAH2020 Internally invoiced costswere more or less ineligible. They were eligible only if one could specify the use for the action of specific resources and work of personnel had to be supported by time records with correctly calculated hourly rate and the use of the equipment had to be recorded in order to allow direct measurement of the use for the action. The rules were very difficult or even impossible to follow and massively criticized.
So, in spring 2016 a Joint Statement was sent to the European Commission, trying to convince them to change the rules. The process was initiated by Helmholtz Association and was supported by many academic and noncommercial research organizations. One year later and many meetings this resulted in the new draft annotated MGA (Art 6.2.D.5) in March 2017. According to the new version of MGA the internally invoiced costs must be calculated in accordance with the usual cost accounting practice of the beneficiary to calculate unit costs. Then unit costs must exclude any costs of items which are not directly linked to the production of the invoiced good and service.
So, how do we calculate the unit costs the best possible way and does all organization define indirect costs the same way? The challenge is to allocate the correct costs for each specific service that is invoiced. So far, the draft annotations do not provide sufficient details the beneficiary, it remains vague.
In addition, we are facing difficulties to handle the internal rules and national law in handling the internal invoicing costs. For example: Chemicals - The internal rule of the organization say that we should buy the Chemicals at the internal Chemical store and also since according to our national law we need to have information about what chemical that the whole University has in their possession. That together with rules of procurement makes it impossible to buy chemicals outside the internal store. How do we make the internal store calculate unit costs that is applicable to not only for EU-projects…
In this session, we will share examples from our Universities and we wish that you in the audience will contribute by sharing your experience of problems and solutions within the area of internal invoiced costs.
Dr. Simon Kerridge (University of Kent), Ms. Stephanie Scott (Columbia University)
The session will describe the NCURA Research Program funded RAAAP project - a worldwide survey of the profession that was undertaken in 2016. The survey provided both a snapshot of the profession across a number of countries and also looked at the skills needed to become a research administration leader. Over 2,500 responses (of which nearly 800 from Europe) were received. Various analyses will be presented including differences by country and type of person.
There will be time to delve deeper into the dataset with the aim of demonstrating how others can conduct their
own analyses with confidence. The possibility of a, smaller in scope, biennial survey to produce a longitudinal
dataset will also be debated, with the aim of determining those question areas deemed to be most pertinent and
interesting.
Dr. Sean McCarthy (Hyperion Ltd.)
Seán McCarthy delivers training courses in 74 of the top 100 research organisation in Horizon 2020. He delivers
training courses to 58 or the top 100 ranked European Universities (Times Higher Education Ranking). In this
analysis there are a number of Universities that are not in the top 100 ranking but are in the top 10 research
funding. There are also Universities in the top 20 ranking but not in the top 100 for research funding.
This presentation looks at the top 74 organisations where Hyperion delivers courses. He examines the design of
the research offices, the support that is provided to researchers, the attitude of senior management to European
funding and how researchers view European programmes as part of their individual career plans.
Dr. Olaf Svenningsen (DARMA – Danish Association of Research Managers and Administrators), Dr. Susi Poli (University of Bologna), Mrs. Paula Wennb erg (Luleå University of Technology), Dr. Olga Gritsai (University of Amsterdam), Dr. Sheila Vidal(Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia), Mrs. Andreja Zulim de Swarte (University Medical Center Utrecht), Dr. Frank Heemskerk (Research & Innovation Management Services bvba), Mrs. Marjolein Van Griethuysen (Erasmus University Rotterdam), Mrs.
Marinela Popa-babay (Sciences Po)
Diversity in terms of culture, gender, language and tradition is a fundamental property of EARMA. This diversity
translates into practical and often significant differences in e.g. traditions, practices, laws and rules, but also
“tribes”, stereotypes, and expectations.
Any research manager or administrator needs to deal with this diversity in international collaborations, but also at her or his own workplace where differences between groups – for example researchers and administrators, or pre-award and post-award – can be a significant factor. For EARMA as an association, diversity is a fundamental determining factor for attracting members with activities that are relevant to the broadest possible community of stakeholders.
To address these and related challenges, EARMA established the Working Group on Cultures and Diversity in
Research Management and Administration (CD-WG) in November 2015. At EARMA’s Strategy Workshop in Tarragona in March 2016, five priority areas were defined for the CD-WG:
• Cultural diversity as astrategic priority for EARMA. How does the association use the inherent diversity
in both the profession and its international community to its advantage?
• Developdiversity toolboxes: What are the practical tools that research managers and administrators
can use to deal with diversity issues? A sometimes-overlooked challenge is “How do we greet each other
when we meet and communicate?”. EARMA needs a “Meet-and-greet guide” (also known as the “EARMA
kissing guide”), as well as a Diversity in Research Management and Administration (DRAMA) Toolbox.
• Inspiring and enabling members to participate and contribute: What are the barriers and incentives
for engaging in the Association?
• New growth areas for EARMA: Where are EARMA’s members today, and how does diversity affect the
Association’s ability to play a significant role for research managers all over Europe? The CD-WG made
the membership maps presented at the Annual Conference 2016 in Luleå, and further thematic mapping
is ongoing.
• Developcultural diversity training: How could diversity become a theme in EARMA’s professional
development activities?
At this session, the CD-WG will be presented and an overview of the status of working group and the strategic
themes will be provided. The audience is invited to discuss the general and specific topics, and provide
suggestions for future activities and themes.
Ms. Leena Köppä (Tampere University of Technology), Ms. Stina Boedeker (University of Tampere), Dr. Jörg Langwaldt (Tampere University of Technology)
The developers of the Impact Canvas (IC) will manage the Interactive Session of a proposed duration of two
hours.
Target audience: Pre-award advisors on proposal writing and innovation coaches for pre-start-ups.
Gain to participants:
Get-to-know a new tool to develop and communicate the Impact of research projects. Shared understanding how and when to apply the IC as a facilitating tool.
Abstract:
Research funders increasingly assess and fund proposals based on the impact of foreseen results. Furthermore, Horizon 2020 calls for joint and often multi-disciplinary efforts of academia and stakeholders during the entire research and innovation process to better address the expectations, needs and values of society. However, there is a shortage of tools that serve the need of university-based applicants to develop and communicate their innovative ideas to others. Especially university-based researchers might have limited background in innovation business and many existing tools, such as the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), are designed for business planning.
The IC, a new tool jointly developed by a group of academia-based practitioners, aims to enhance early idea
testing and development with the focus of the impact on the society and/or the customer need. The development of the IC has been described (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2016). The IC can be considered a “boundary objects” that facilitate interaction between the involved parties (see Akkerman & Bakker 2011). Boundary objects help people from different communities to build a shared understanding and have their role in the meaning-making process and in communication across social groups.
Interactive Session management:
In the beginning of the Interactive Session, the authors will describe the IC to the participants and the authors
will answer immediate questions from the audience. Thereafter, the brainstorming session will be introduced.
In this session we will use the GPS for Enterprises tools developed by Flanders District of Creativity. GPS for
Enterprises has been successfully applied in a broad range of sectors and in large events. Participants will form
groups (8 to 12 people) and start formulating the Impact facilitated by the IC on different Horizon 2020 calls for multi-disciplinary research. The groups will receive Flashcards as a motivation to the H2020 call. The groups’ discussions will be facilitated by the authors. The groups’ suggestions and ideas on the IC will be documented, i.e. in writing and photographs, and made available to participants after the event. At the end of the brainstorming session, the groups will briefly present the summary of their findings to the other group. All participants are invited to ask and reply to the summaries. The authors will inform the participants on the schedule for sending out the documented feedback and close the session.
Dr. Poul Petersen (University of Copenhagen)
A number of H2020 projects have now submitted their first Financial Statements. Compared to FP7, the H2020 Model Grant agreement has introduced a new “Last closed financial year” model for the calculation of the hourly rate.
In the first version of the H2020 Model Grant Agreement (MGA) it was compulsory to use the “Last closed financial year” model.
However, in July 2016 the Commission published a new version of the MGA. This new MGA introduced an
alternative method for the calculation of the hourly rate based on “Monthly hourly rate”.
This presentation will focus on the two alternative methods and compare their pros and cons.
Additionally, the presentation will focus on “Internal invoices”, e.g. lab mice, DNA sequencing, data storage etc.
In FP7, such costs were widely accepted as eligible if they were in line with the beneficiaries’ normal internal accounting procedures. However, in H2020 such costs are no longer accepted unless they are completely accurate, quantifiable and measureable.
The issue of internal invoicing has been discussed in detail with the Commission. It is expected that the Commission will publish a new version of the MGA early 2017 to address this issue.
The presentation will include the latest updates of the MGA on this issue.
Mr. Liam Cleere (University College Dublin), Dr. Anna Augustyniak (University College Dublin), Ms. Emma Fadden (University College Dublin), Ms. Helen Lewis (yea)
Overview
The research impact agenda has been gaining momentum in recent years as policymakers worldwide grapple
with the need to prove the value of university research.
The idea of measuring the impact of research in a serious and systematic way originated in Australia, with
the abandoned Research Quality Framework (RQF) in the mid-2000s. RQF looked at the use of case studies to describe the impact of completed research – a system eventually adopted in the UK’s 2014 Research Excellence
Framework (REF).
Different countries and regions within Europe have taken various approaches to measuring impact and, as
yet, there appears to be no common taxonomy or consistent way of measuring it. This session will explore
definitions of impact, with a particular emphasis on societal impact and approaches to measuring it from the
perspective of Ireland (University College Dublin), and members of the AURORA Network: UK (University of
East Anglia), Sweden (University of Gothenburg) and Belgium (University of Antwerp).
We will then hold a questions and answers session with attendees asking for how their countries encourage and measure societal impact, where there are examples of effective support for the issue in their university etc. The findings of the session will then be written up and made available to attendees via the AURORA website and of course via EARMA’s own channels.
Ms. Christina Miller (UKRO)
The European Funding Landscape has become increasingly complex during a period when the European Commission has successfully introduced some simplifications to the H2020 programme. At this session you will learn how to better navigate the funding landscape and understand the reasons underlying the increasing number of actions at European level and how they interact with each other and with H2020. Finally, there will be a discussion on how the European landscape might further evolve in the future and the potential the implications for European funding strategy.
Dr. Olga Gritsai (University of Amsterdam), Ms. Yoshie KAWAHITO (Osaka University), Prof. Nobuo Ueno (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) London), Ms. Kumiko NAKAYAMA (Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) Paris Office)
The aim of this session is to introduce the research funding landscape in Japan from a wide perspective and to
explore further possibilities of Europe-Japan collaboration.
Until now possibilities of funding for such collaboration are hardly known to European researchers and Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs). The Japanese funding organizations, such as Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), provide several funding schemes for Europe-Japan collaboration: fellowships for researcher mobility and matching-funds with funding agencies in European countries. But the real palette of choices for collaboration is much bigger.
The session will a) provide up-to-date in-depth information about the more familiar funding sources, like JSPS,
b) present sources of funding for research projects jointly supported by JST and their strategic partners in Europe,
c) engage EARMA participants and Japanese professionals in Research Management and Administration
in developing a constructive dialogue and share experiences about existing forms of collaboration.
The format will be a panel session: invited presentations will be followed by a moderated interactive discussion
with the audience. The outcome of this session will be a deeper knowledge of the Japanese funding landscape.
It will also contribute to more and better links between European and Japanese professionals in Research Management and Administration.
Dr. Olaf Svenningsen (DARMA – Danish Association of Research Managers and Administrators), Ms. Therese Claffey (Research Professional)
In this practical session we will demonstrate how Research Professional has been implemented at one successful European university to great satisfaction. Olaf Svenningsen of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the
University of Southern Denmarkwill share his experience of using this resourceful tool to raise awareness of
available funding opportunities amongst their researchers and ultimately to help increase external research
income.
Olaf’s session will be followed by a practical demonstration of the platform showing how it can save time and
effort for everyone at your institution. We’re very aware that research administrators are faced with an overwhelming flood of information from endless sources all over the world – grants, awards, public tenders, prizes, funding of all kinds. And then programme changes, deadline updates, policy development – too much for most people to manage. At Research Professional we collate all of that, organise it, index it, personalise it and distil it into a manageable flow of news and funding opportunities that are delivered it to your inbox every day. Our funding database covers all scholarly disciplines, from medicine to the humanities. From the largest research council to the smallest private charity. From big multi-centre collaborative grants to little travel grants and consultancy. From your national sponsors, the EU and all pan-European sponsors to the thousands of funders in dozens of countries that are make funding available globally.
Our news is focused on research policy, research funding and research politics. We cover government departments, funding agencies like research councils and the activity of universities themselves. It’s everything from new innovation policies, to new grant schemes, to open access. Our coverage includes the emerging global research policy nexus at the G7 level, activity at the EU and Africa level and national services across Europe, the US & Canada and Australasia. Invaluable insight, delivered through flexible technology, to everyone in your institution. That all adds up to sharper awareness of the global policy and funding environment in which you and your researchers are operating, and informs good decisions on what to apply for an when.
At the end of the session you can sign up for a free three-week of Research Professional.We look forward to
meeting you!
Mr. Yoram Bar-Zeev (Beacon Tech Ltd.), Ms. Yasmin Wachs (Beacon Tech Ltd.)
Horizon 2020 has opened its gates to Clinical Trials. Clinical Trials are funded in Horizon 2020 via the Research
and Innovation Actions (RIA). However, the typical Clinical Trial structure (mostly Industry-Sponsored) does
not naturally comply with the RIA structure and funding scheme. This means that establishing and planning a
Clinical Trial-focused RIA is a challenge. There are several inherent discrepancies:
• Differences between the H2020 funding cycles and payment structure of Industry-Sponsored Clinical
Trials;
• Fixed Consortium structure in H2020 vs. dynamic recruitment of patients via medical centers and its
associated payment paths;
• Typical and strict RIA project duration vs. variable and sometimes flexible Clinical Trials’ timeframes;
• Ethical and regulatory issues and conflicts and more.
In this session we will discuss and demonstrate the following:
• Correlation between Clinical Trial “phase” and timing to the Horizon 2020 call text (e.g. pre-clinical,
first-in-man, Phase II, etc.)
• Building the ‘Essential Information’ document – Protocol-based vs. “Concept and Approach”
• Sample size / Power calculation and recruitment rate vs. fixed Gantt charts
• Possible consortium structures (fixed vs. dynamic)
• Clinical Trial Sponsor – When and How to best define the sponsor? How to mitigate the typical hierarchy
between sponsor and clinical sites with the ‘horizontal’ RIA consortium structure? Does this mean that
Sponsor = Coordinator?
• Clinical Research Organisation (CRO): for and against
• Per-patient payment models vs. RIA budget
• Sub-contracting privileges in Clinical Trials
• Unit costs: when, where and how to use it, and recent modifications made by the EC
• Unique ethics and legal aspects:
– Communication with Competent authorities / Ethics committees (e.g. IRBs, EMA Orphan Drug Designation)
– Geography – Non-EU sponsor
– Liability (Insurance)
– Indemnity conflicts
The session will equip the RA personnel with a set of tools for:
• Assisting researchers interested in applying to Clinical Trial topics
• Constructing Clinical Trial budgets (under the H2020 limitations)
• Tackling Clinical Trials-H2020 inherent conflicts (ethical, operational, budget, etc.)
Session’s time frame: 60 minutes (including Q&As).
Mrs. Esther Hoorn (University of Groningen), Mrs. Astrid van der Veen-Mooij (University of Groningen), Mrs. Camilla Schaafsma (University of Groningen)
Compliance with the new General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR) challenges existing research practices,
especially in research involving human subjects. It also challenges existing checks and balances in universities.
Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to integrate awareness about the rights of participants and the
instruments for risk assessment in the GDPR into support of data management.
Innovations in big data and requirements of funders on open science urgently require facilitating researchers
to address privacy issues. Although many argue that the full implications of the new GDPR for research are
still less than clear, the GDPR is clear about the use of instruments to assess the risks involved in processing
data. An early assessment of risks enables strategies to integrate technical and organizational measures into
the research design. These instruments (Privacy Impact Assessment, Privacy by Design) also help to develop
services aligned with the infrastructure to support researchers in the whole data life cycle. More in general, a
Privacy Impact Assessment helps researchers to ask the right questions, when they have to decide whether or not to participate in the EU open data pilot.
In the Netherlands coordination takes place about legal aspects of research data management that transcend
individual research institutions. Here the rule of thumb advice for compliance with the GDPR for research data
is: Don’t wait, use the instruments and stimulate the debate.
Support staff on data management at the University of Groningen is using the Privacy Impact Assessment to
help researchers to integrate privacy protecting measures in the data management plan. Also, the University
developed a plan for re-usable open learning materials on privacy in research. The instruments in the GDPR
are well equipped to engage all stakeholders in responsible research in an early stage. We would like to explore how we can include research managers.
Ms. Jennifer Ponting (Harvard University), Ms. Tiffany Blackman (Harvard University)
Due to ever increasing global funding constraints, the field of research administration has evolved. From identification of funding opportunities, marketing the principal investigators to finding new potential sponsors – a research development function has become an essential first step in maintaining research funding. Although
development activity has become more mainstream, there remains a serious gap in the identification of funding and proposal success rates. As a result, it has become more important for research offices to provide even more services to bridge the gap from the identification of funding to proposal submission as part of their “Pre-Award” function to the research community.
In addition to greater involvement in identifying funding opportunities, administrators are being involved more
increasingly in helping researchers shape the relationships between multiple parties who are participating
in research projects. From identifying funding relationships to steering discussions about contract structure
and budgets, research managers are being tasked with crafting complex relationships with non-profits, foreign
governments and for-profit entities new to traditional grant-making. Developing new workflow and internal
processes between technology transfer offices, international support services groups and other staff across the university is key to continued success.
Senior US Research Administrators will talk about current research development functions in their institutions,
the impact of such functions on the global research community and the pros and cons of these different strategies in various institutional environments. This session will touch on the importance of research development as the first step of research administration, highlighting services and strategies to support researchers applying for funding that is identified. This session will also address how new administrative support models – like crossdisciplinary concierge research services– is effective in handing guiding the increasingly complex and multiparty relationships that comprise modern research. Examples that may be covered include the facilitation of internal and/or external expert review prior to proposal submission, concierge services for industry-heavy research portfolios, and building sponsored proposal development “tool kits” for your website.
Mr. Yoram Lev-Yehudi (Managing Director)
The US National Institute of Health is open to applicants residing outside of the US. Setting up for the submission may take some time for US-based applicants, and for non-US applicants it might take even longer. For first time applicants, the submission process might appear complex and include potential hurdles, obstacles and last minute issues that are hard to predict. Even the smallest technical mistake could geoparadise the entire submission, and could easily be missed, only to be discovered after the submission deadline.
The purpose of this session is to share our gained experience and lessons learnt in submitting NIH grant applications as a non-US principal investigator (PI) and coordinator of three US collaborating sites.
We will illustrate a typical NIH grant structure, describe the various components of the application, the multiple
systems involved and how they interlink with each other. We will highlight related technical issues throughout
the submission process, how to avoid errors and solve emerging problems.
We will share tips on how to plan the submission process ahead, dos and donts, and provide insights and practical advice to future applicants.
Ms. Tania Tambiah (RMIT University)
“Research” is a continuously evolving enterprise. It needs to be team based, interdisciplinary, international and address real world (wicked) problems in order to achieve long-term traction, engagement, impact and
sustainability. To effectively facilitate this enterprise, Research Management (RM) itself is also constantly
evolving, where its Administrators (RMAs) are required to rethink regularly their contribution and up-skill
themselves in order to provide highly quality, targeted, timely support to the research community. Given the
increased number of people entering the RM profession, RMAs also need to maintain currency in knowledge
and skills to remain competitive in the profession. My presentation will explore a structure for developing a
team and individuals in RM across diverse portfolios – from grant management and ethics and integrity, to
capacity building projects and research student candidature management. Based on a model I have developed
within my team, I will outline a program of formal and informal RM training, knowledge gathering and
development that will enhance and optimise performance, and sustain and advance RMAs into the future.
Learning outcomes: Attendees will be able to
- understand the various aspects of professional development and training;
- identify and articulate gaps in knowledge and skills;
- formulate personalised professional development programs and plans;
- establish a culture of learning and sharing within and external to their teams; and
- identify transferable skills and learn how to leverage them within an RM framework or other professional
frameworks.
Audience: Intermediate to advanced (as both groups will benefit from my presentation).
Ms. Agatha Keller (ETH Zürich | University of Zürich), Dr. Simon Kerridge (University of Kent), Ms. Barbara Gray (East Carolina University)
Political decisions influence the research agenda. Whether anticipated or not, researchers as well as research
administrators have to deal with the consequences. The full extent of the impact of BREXIT is hard to estimate – “BREXIT means BREXIT” – but what does it mean? A popular vote in Switzerland had the effect that Switzerland became a 3rd Country within Horizon2020 instead of an associated country. The new administration in the US will bring changes and new challenges. Some political events and decisions can be anticipated but when they occur for real it is a whole different game. In this session we would like to share our experiences how we dealt and still deal with drastic changes of framework conditions due to politics. We want to elaborate what effect they have on internal strategies. How one can communicate and fight against rumors and false information.
Whom to talk to and to involve in the decision making process. Is it wise to lobby against the decision or better to adapt? Can long-term consequences be predicted and what instruments we have to foresee them. We also would like to discuss opportunities and challenges.
Participants will get an overview on how political events change the research landscape. They will get the
opportunity to share and discuss their experiences – from different perspectives – to the same events.
In summary, in a time of uncertainty one thing is certain, there will be change – so how can we best face the
challenges and take advantage of the opportunities?
Mr. Jon Hackney (Worktribe), Prof. Jessie Kennedy (Edinburgh Napier University), Dr. Lindsay Ramage (Edinburgh Napier University)
Edinburgh Napier University worked in partnership with Worktribe to develop and implement an end-to-end
research management system supporting the full research cycle. We are the first University to implement the
full system provided by Worktribe. This session will discuss the motivation for taking this approach, present
the benefits we have realised and the challenges on route.
Prof Kennedy will present a leadership perspective on the rationale and risks in choosing Worktribe and the
cross University collaboration required to realise the system.
Jon Hackney will discuss the benefits and challenges of working closely with academic partners to develop
research information systems.
We will provide a demo of Worktribe showing the range of functionality followed by a presentation from Lindsay
on the challenges in adoption of the system by administrative staff and academics and the benefits and
challenges engagement with the system.
Dr. Robert Porter (Grant-Winners Seminars)
Research administrators are often called upon to provide direct assistance to researchers in writing their proposals, as many academics, even those with substantial publications, can struggle with the stylistic differences required for competitive grant proposals. This workshop will focus on the role of the grants specialist as editor and writing coach. Basic principles of good grant writing will be covered, starting with the phrasing of a compelling research theme to the actual construction of the proposal itself. Major differences between traditional “academic prose” and persuasive grant writing are highlighted. Common pitfalls that can lead to early rejection of good ideas are reviewed, matched with practical strategies for stronger writing. Special attention will be paid to the perspectives of grant reviewers and how to write in ways that will meet their expectations.
Topics include: a) Twelve common pitfalls in proposal writing and how to avoid them; b) Two critical steps
that will double the chances for success; c) Constructing a “sales pitch” for the proposal; d) Simple keys to a
more powerful writing style; e)Visualization: Using illustrations for persuasive effect.
By the end of the session, participants will have a set of practical tools and guidelines to help researchers prepare more competitive grant proposls.
Dr. Floora Ruokonen (University of Helsinki), Dr. Riikka Raitio (Aalto University), Dr. Tuija Heikura (Aalto University)
There are three main reasons for establishing a professional project management service: 1) enabling researchers to focus on their research 2) managing project risks 3) protecting the reputation of the organization.
Perhaps the most common approach to creating a project management office (PMO) is to train the current administration to also manage research project administration. Another approach is to allow researchers recruit administrative coordinators for their own projects. Some organizations apply both approaches simultaneously.
As the complexity of the research grant variety increases, it is, however, becoming more evident that a more efficient and risk-minimizing path needs to be adopted. Many organizations have thus concluded that a specialized PMO is needed, and the establishment of such functions is widely ongoing.
In the establishment of PMO’s, several questions and challenges arise: e.g. how does such a team differ from
other administrative teams? What is the optimal placement of a PMO in the organizational structure? What
sort of managers should work in the team? What kind of qualifications should they possess? And what kind of
challenges and advantages are there in different ways of organizing the PMO function?
In the proposed session we share two ways in which the above questions can be answered. Our examples come from two Finnish universities, the University of Helsinki and Aalto University. There are significant differences in both the organization and operation of the PMOs of the respective universities. Aalto University has a smaller centralized team of research managers who collaborate with the Principal Investigators (scientists). At the University of Helsinki a larger team was set up in connection with a recent organizational restructuring and the aim is to eventually include all project managers in this centralized team. The Aalto PMO team members have experience in conducting research whereas the University of Helsinki project managers have more versatile career and educational backgrounds, and mainly do not have research experience themselves. Both of these systems have their own challenges and advantages which we will discuss along with presenting the process of setting up a PMO team in each university. We also draft the next steps of further developing the PMOs. After this we invite the audience to share their experiences or to ask questions about setting up a PMO.
Dr. Mirjam Siesling (Tilburg University), Mrs. Susi Poli (University of Bologna), Dr. Aygen Kurt-Dickson (London School of Economics and Political Science)
The aim of our presentation is to present the results of a three-fold case study that was performed in Italy
(University of Bologna), the United Kingdom (London School of Economics) and The Netherlands (University of Tilburg). The case study was taken up in order to be able to look at how the role of ‘Blended Professionals’ (BPs) is conceptualised in practice, following the work of Celia Whitchurch who was one of the first to introduce this concept.
There are many definitions of what a BP can be and even so many manifestations of them, however, in the context of this case study we have chosen to define BPs as those persons in academia that 1) have received a PhD but have decided to leave the academic profession and have taken up a job in administration or support staff; 2) are engaged in a professional PhD track, expressing the wish to combine both academic and professional work and expertise and/or 3) can be described as ‘hybrid researchers’, moving between the realms of academic knowledge on the one had and non-academic knowledge on the other. Contextual circumstances and developments in higher education policy, such as the decrease of academic positions combined with an increase in the number of people acquiring a PhD, the increase in the demand of generating societal impact in scientific research and the call upon universities to collaborate with non-academic partners, lead to a steady rise of BPs in nowadays academia. BPs form a group of highly skilled professionals in nowadays academia, but seem nonetheless to have their ‘identity’ challenged, as they don’t fit easily into either an academic or administrative/professional role but someway between the two depending on the job.
The threefold case study consisted of face-to-face semi-structured interviews with a total of 15 respondents.
Research questions were related to 1) identity and perception of belonging to either the academic realm or the professional/administrative one, or both; 2) issues of freedom and control; 3) the perception of the unique and indispensable contribution that BPs make to their Higher Education Institutes.
With the session, we aim at not only presenting the results of the case study but also to discuss the outcomes with the audience. Discussion helps us to assess whether the case study findings resonate with the EARMA members (many of them BPs as well) and provides the opportunity to bring the research further in terms of new research questions and new theoretical insights.
Ms. Madalina Mirea (University of Waterloo), Mr. Drew Knight (University of Waterloo), Ms. Meaghan Winfield (University of Waterloo)
The International Research Partnership Grants were designed to provide University of Waterloo researchers
with incentives to develop new international research collaborations with institutions known for high-quality
research, advance research and innovation, and leverage new funding opportunities. The University of Waterloo provides 50% of the budget with the remaining 50% coming from matching cash contributions from other sources. This seed program has had measurable impact in facilitating global research networks with elite institutions, leveraging new funding opportunities and advancing grand challenges research. Since 2011, the program has invested $860,000 in 60 projects, with researchers leveraging additional matching cash contributions totaling over $1.3M. These international research teams subsequently generated over $6M in new funding programs and enabled 134 new research partnerships, 174 workshops and conferences, 127 publications, 50 new technologies, 10 spin-off companies and five patents. The program has been exceptionally successful in increasing the worldwide recognition of University of Waterloo’s ranking as the most innovative university in Canada.
It promotes Waterloo’s internationalization goals by supporting multidisciplinary coalitions to address global
research challenges.
Ms. Monique Bossi (APRE), Ms. Gaelle Decroix (NCP)
RICH,the network of National Contact Points for Research Infrastructures, invites you to attend the session at the EARMA 2017 Conference Free access to Research Infrastructures
Date: 26th April 2017, 16.40- 17.40
Venue: Mediterranean Conference Centre, La Cassiere Hall
The aim of the RICH session at the EARMA 2017 is to introduce services of the RICH Consortium, work of National Contact Points and Transnational access opportunities (TNA) for Research Infrastructures. Testimony of TNA will provide participants with useful tips how ensure and benefit from the free of charge access to the best European research infrastructures.
PROGRAMME
Introduction of RICH activities
Monique Bossi, Coordinator of the project, APRE
What is Transnational Access
Gaëlle DECROIX, NCP and French Delegate on RI, CEA
Experience of TNA users
Kris Zarb Adami, University of Malta
Discussion