Finnish Research Infrastructure Survey and Roadmap Project

1. Finnish Research Infrastructure Survey and Roadmap Project Eeva Ikonen Photo Pirjo Mäenpää/TSV

2. Lessons learned: comments by Panels  LME Panel: • A much shorter, simpler proposal answering the questions: What does this infrastructure do? How does it operate? Who uses it and to what extent? How do you wish to change and improve it? may have given a better comparison. • A word limit of say 800-1000 words and an instruction to write for a general audience and specifically answer the above four questions as clearly as possible would have helped the Panel, as well as focussed the minds of the proposers.

3. Lessons learned: comments by Panels • The SSH Panel strongly hopes that after such a detailed and honourable process of consultation, Finland will have regular calls for proposals on Research Infrastructure, or at the very least, a “post-box” by which new and/or emerging ideas can be identified, as well as appropriate financial resources to develop them.

4. Lessons learned: comments by Panels  PSE Panel: • Detailed guidelines are needed to render the process more transparent and structured within and among Panels. Finland as many other countries is still in a learning phase regarding the best practice in selecting the RI proposals with the highest potential for the national or for the ESFRI Roadmap, especially evaluation of multidisciplinary proposals. • More attention should be given to facilitate cooperation between industry and academia regarding RI policies. The PSE Panel introduced the concept of ‘technology infrastructures’ (TI) on the same line as research infrastructures (RI) which serve more basic research.

5. Lessons learned: comments by Panels  PSE Panel: • The concept of a research infrastructure needs to be defined in a way that differs clearly from networking activities between research organizations. Some of the networks may be seeking the RI label to foster high-quality cooperation, although in some cases domestic and international networks may be a more appropriate approach for the participants. Some of the networks may later develop to become a distributed RI.  • The Panel work would benefit from more specific guidelines for their technical evaluation in the future. Detailed guidelines would render the process more transparent and well structured within and among different Panels.

6. Lessons learned: comments by Panels  PSE Panel: • Guidelines should explicitly instruct how Finland defines concept and research policy of national level RI. • The methodology and procedure concerning the evaluation of proposals which need parallel assessment from two Panels needs to be clarified. • The advice from the Panel is to find mechanisms to increase and improve interaction between science communities to propose joint proposals to the Roadmap. Lessons learned: by Secretariat • Report of the process, technical solutions and feed back from proposers and panelist has made. • Independent observer of the process might be useful. • RI Council or national level body for RIs is essential for the process

7. Lessons learned: conclusions Guidance • information, www., seminars etc. 6 months before the submission of RI Roadmap proposals (online submission) Evaluation • Two step evaluation: 1) expert group selecting eligible proposals for 2) panel evaluation (international and national experts). Panel site visits and/or hearings Selection proposals to RI Roadmap • RI Council or national level body for RIs selects RIs to the Roadmap Implementation • RI Council or national level body for RIs together with all stakeholders Update of the Roadmap and follow up • RI Council or national level body for RIs in cooperation with all stakeholders