 to welcome you back let's say to this parallel session and we're going to discuss institutional changes again as in in the previous session but some concrete examples from two running projects one focusing on institutional changes in organizations and one focusing on institutional changes on wider territorial areas in ecosystems instead of organizations. So the first presentation is going to be done by Yiza Tang from Arcus University representing the GRACE project and Yiza we have the floor thank you. Thank you Nikos and well thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and present the GRACE project that's that's very nice and I'm very excited about it I thought the keynote this morning was was very interesting and and I think very promising also for the future of the RI field which is of course a little a little bit hanging in the wind given the the status of the swaths area but but I think some interesting discussions have been opened up and and I hope that some of the insights from the GRACE project can can sort of feed into that discussion also so at least that's that was the idea behind the way that I will start presenting it today. So as Nikos said that my name is Lisa Dein I'm from Arcus University in Denmark and I am a part of the GRACE consortium and in the in the project I am actually leading two work packages one on supporting grounding actions in relation to to open access and science education and then I'm also leading the work package work package that concerns the evaluation and impact assessment of the project so some of the things that I say today might have a slight skewness towards evaluation because that's sort of my my core field and and and what I do in this project but I'll try to present the project in its entirety in the best way that I can so I'll start by introducing sort of the overall aim of the GRACE project and how how we go about achieving this aim. I will go through some of sort of the main concepts because many of these these swaths projects obviously have similar aims but different approaches so I'll try to to dive into what I think at least is the special aspects of GRACE and and then I'll give you a few examples of how we're working with that and some initial lessons that we can that we can already see coming from from the work being done in the GRACE project so that's kind of the outline and I think it's as far as I remember Nikos I have about 20 minutes but I'll try to be as brief as I can to allow for for questions and discussions at the end. But the overall aim of the GRACE project is as I mentioned they kind of many of these projects have similar aims and since we are in a session concerning institutional change this is also of course sort of the the general aim of the GRACE project but of course we aim to contribute to the spreading but in particular the the embedding of RRI in the European research area and the way that we aim to do this is to facilitate these sustainable processes of institutional change but or as Elmerie Forsberg said in the last session maybe we are actually closer to organizational change rather than institutional change but that is always something that can be discussed. The way that we try to foster and facilitate these processes in the GRACE project is through these through the development of these smart grounding actions and grounding actions I'll get a little bit closer in the next slides to see what that means but another another key element in the GRACE project is to that we're working towards coordinating the selection of grounding actions into these specific eight-year long roadmaps towards RRI so in in trying to ensure sustainability and the continual sort of development of RRI in the organizations even beyond the project length the key aim here is to to develop these roadmaps that each organization tailors to their own specific needs and a final sort of aim or approach in the GRACE project is to facilitate these processes by providing expert support within the frame of these mutual learning processes that I will also get a little bit deeper into in in the next slides and through a co-creation environment so these are the sort of overall aims of of the project and just to sort of follow you through the the assumptions because RRI also as I think was was sort of one of the underlying elements of the last talk is that RRI can mean different things it's sort of an approach or at least a normative framework that we work in but RRI in in GRACE is is sort of conceptualized as an approach that not only sort of it's not only aimed at external activities or a sort of the interaction between the organization and external actors but it's also seen as as a way to more efficiently cope with current activities inside the organization so it's something that's conceptualized as as a core activity in itself so it of course has to do with research assessment publications labor relations and access to research funds and so on so this is sort of the approach to RRI that that we employ in the GRACE project and then we have this core element of the grounding actions which is sort of the the thing that we're trying to facilitate and to promote and develop in the GRACE project and grounding actions are the next step I think at least that's how I see it is the next step from action plans action plans have been sort of the focus in many of the SWAP projects over time but grounding actions is a way to to step closer into the organizations and try to get closer to the actual embedment of of RRI so these GA's or grounding actions are a coordinated set of activities that the organizations carry out that sort of tries to facilitate this embedment into the organization grounding actions are supposed to be very context specific and they're also in this project at least they're based on a self-assessment of each organization where they have conducted a thorough investigation of their own organization and the needs and capacities that they already have in order to to ensure or at least try to optimize the possibilities for the grounding action to be successful and sustainable in the in the long run the roadmaps as I mentioned is sort of the collection of grounding actions that are supposed to be carried out within an eight year period and it's an attempt to try to ensure the sustainability of the RRI effort that was also some one of the things that was questioned in the talk earlier is how do you ensure sustainable actions over time also beyond the scope of the individual project and and these roadmaps that we're developing in GRACE is an attempt to try to ensure this kind of sustainability by committing to continual action in the organization this is again tailored on the basis of the self-assessment that the organizations carried out and it's linked to the GA's that they're already conducting within the GRACE period A final sort of concept or assumption or basis of the GRACE project that I want to mention is this co-creation and mutual learning element. GRACE is funded on on the idea that to to optimize or to ensure that the organizations can work with it we need to support them in their in their processes and we're trying to facilitate that through a quite elaborate mutual learning system and and expert support so we have a number of expert organizations that are in charge of the GA's within the specific keys and they are tasked with supporting the development of the GA's in the individual organizations but in collaboration of course with the individual organization. We also have continual mutual learning sessions where the aim is to sort of facilitate knowledge sharing among both among the implementing organizations but also from expert organizations to implementing organizations and we've also developed a monitoring and mentoring scheme to sort of ensure this continual support and this continual both monitoring of course that the processes are are taking place as they should but also to ensure that mentoring is available even without the implementing organizations needing to ask for it at specific times and I'll give you an example in a minute of how such a mentoring and monitoring process looks. So in the GRACE project we have a three-step methodology which means we have a preparation phase or preparatory phase where this self-assessment was was carried out by the individual organizations of course with the support of the expert organizations this led to sort of a development of this self-tailored ROI profile so what are our current status of ROI in the specific organization where do we not have activities at the moment where would we like to have activities what what is the purpose of having activities within the specific field and this led to the design of the GA's that that each of the six implementing organizations are working with and right now we are in the middle of this development a mutual learning phase but also where the actual implementation of the GA's is is being carried out so we're kind of in the middle of things right now so we will have no sort of I don't have any final results to show you today but I have some reflections in a minute on what we can see already from working with these grounding actions and then we have a final phase that's that starting also soon is the stock taking phase where we'll have an assessment and and sort of the revision of the roadmaps that that have already been been designed and this is an example of both of what a GA is what the GA's are I'm not sure if you can actually see this but but but it's it's visually quite nice I think so so at least that you can see but here is an example of of one of our organizations one of our implementing organizations working with open access this organization has defined three three individual grounding actions within the key of open access so the first GA you can see at the bottom the red the red line down here where it says GA1 it says guidelines and platforms they have the the aim of developing new guidelines and a sustainable platform for open access in their organization and they have a number of tasks as you can see on the timeline that they've defined as steps towards the completion of this grounding actions on top of this the on the upper side of the of the timeline you can see the monitoring and mentoring meetings that are scheduled which have a specific purpose each one so to talk about the tasks that are that are ongoing and the ones that are coming up and provide the mentoring that the organization need at a specific time so I'm not going to go into the specificities of each task but this is just to illustrate how our sort of modus operandi is and in the grace project this is this is an example of how the organizations work with their GA's and how we try to support them in in that work so learning from the grace project I thought that instead of sort of going through what each organization was doing I thought it would be more interesting maybe to see so what can we already learn from from what we're working with in the grace project and one of the key things that are emerging already is that this co-creation as a route to embedment is a very important aspect and one that seems to be very fruitful and very productive for each organization in the grace project we try to use co-creation both in the design phase in the implementation phase but also in the development is the evaluation of the GA implementation and to this actually as a part of the of the evaluation but it's also something that can be used in the design phase is we've developed this reflection tool to assist co-creation in all these different phases of the grounding actions and the implementation of it. It has become an integrated part of the mutual learning sessions used it at the initial sort of design in the design phase of the grounding action at the mutual learning session there but it's also a key part of our evaluation approach to try to involve the implementing organization in setting their own success criteria rather than imposing success criteria from the outside so the implementing organizations are a key part of defining what the KPIs will be for each organization and how they will be measured so this is something I think could be a valuable tool also for other organizations working with with institutional change and I've put in a link here and I I suppose the slides will be available afterwards to to see it so you can see how this tool can be used I'll just give you a few examples here so in the sort of the development of the grounding action the idea is to first to sort of take a series of steps rather than then jump into the work before having thought it properly through and the idea is to first think of what is the big vision what do we want to achieve and this has to be based on a very thorough self-assessment in terms of what where are we already and once you've thought of that you need to think initially and and very clearly and structured about the success criteria that you think you will apply to this particular GA so how will we actually know when we've succeeded with this particular action another key element to include in the in the the design of a grounding action is also stakeholder inclusion who are involved when should they be involved and how should they be involved the implementation of is of course quite central to think about but the the important thing here is that it needs to be considered already in the design phase how will this be implemented what are the what are again what are the obstacles that we think we will run into and what are the enablers that we we can use what are our tools that can help us overcome these obstacles so these are the obstacles and the resources and these are all things that need to be considered at the the initial phases of a grounding action and then you can start over and in this there's reflection tool that we developed in the grace project we have a whole a whole guide and and it's a six-page document that that each of the organizations have been given so that they can also have this discussion at home remotely in their own organization and always keep on track with what they're doing and how if they're if they're doing what they actually decided that they were going to do so these are examples from from these documents and some of the we have then collected we're beginning to collect some of the insights from this implementation phase as a part of the evaluation process and what we're seeing already is that there are some common obstacles that tend to cut across all these different kinds of organizations because we have those research producing and also research funding organizations in in the grace project but some of the things that that are cross cutting are some of those very sort of structural things those some of the obstacles that we're hearing already is that there is a general resistance or sort of maybe more a lack of motivation from management and from staff and this is this is something that we're hearing across the board that another sort of common obstacle has to do with infrastructure that especially for some of the keys technical hindrances are actually quite a big concern it's very difficult to for instance do the development of platforms can be can be difficult to to overcome and and of course in the current COVID-19 situation some of these technical hindrances are becoming even more of an issue and time is something that is also across the board a very important obstacle especially lack of time that people don't have time to do it that other stakeholders feel a lack of time to implement it in a proper way and so on but some of the enablers that are also very important is that they are also where it where it works the organizations that say that this is that have had successful processes say that the support from staff is extremely important so the so the inverse from from the lack of motivation that I mentioned before and also the support and the inspiration from experts and other partners in the grace project have also is also seen as very important for the implementing organization and then a very important thing which actually touches upon what was mentioned this morning is that one thing that's also mentioned very very much is normative drivers so actually these sort of institutional change processes for instance in the horizon Europe some of the normative pressures to develop some of these things are seen as very important and as something that can be used that leverage it within the organizations to actually promote these kinds of change processes so I think I'm running to the end of my 20 my 20 minutes probably so so this is what I will say it was unfortunately or I'm sorry a little bit unstructured but I thought it was important to to mention some of the the insights that we're learning from the great grace project so I hope that that has been of interest and if there are any questions you're more than welcome to to ask so thank you for your attention so far thank you very much Lisa I think if there are one or two questions you can take one or two questions now then have a second presentation and then we have more general questions let's say there is any immediate question for this and now you can take one or two and then put the next one anybody who wants to ask us something just take the mic or all right in the chat I just wanted to to mention that the interesting in this aspect of this project and maybe you can discuss it later is that we have also one research funding organization implementing institutional changes let's say which is it's rather important to see the experience there yeah we have a comment from Ellen Marie saying that I recognize everything we say from there I practice software are common experiences I guess okay so there isn't isn't any question right now we can take the questions for Lisa and myself after my presentation so what I have to do now is I have to share my own screen let me see I think I can yes perfectly Nicos yes okay thank you Antonija thank you again so I'm going to to represent to represent here territorial project and talk about the first experiences and results from this project which is an ongoing project somewhere in the middle right now and I'm going to focus on institutional changes at the regional and the ecosystem context rather than an individual organization so let's let's say a few things first about the challenges that we are facing the broad challenges I think we discussed that in the morning also a broad transitional processes affecting contemporary european societies the shift to a post-modern society that affects social research innovation and the mistrust of society global science innovation that we see a lot with fake news mistrust of vaccines all the things that we're seeing right now local and national research institution in the need to justify their own existence and a competition let's say for funding and everything and all the effects of globalization with mobility of research mobility of funding and and everything so this is a new environment let's say that we have to to operate within and in the regional level we also have research innovation planning that has been going on for many years of course the latest phase of this is the research and innovation smart specialization strategy which has been gone for seven years and now we're preparing for the second phase of this there is a critique over the smart specialization that can be let's say in the focus on on on three issues there is a critique by people saying that this is a dialogue of experts a lot of times society is set out of this dialogue it can it doesn't have the tools to to participate in this dialogue there is another criticism saying that a lot of times the agenda of the smart specialization process is being hijacked by a certain strong corporation in a given region or a or a big university or a couple of universities and so on and a lot of times the lack of participation of society leads to ignoring the future challenges and opportunities as well as possible externalities so all this the general environment and the specific research innovation planning as it is done in smart specialization strategy right now leads to the need of a reliable concept of responsibility and the territorial and regional level so this is what territorial ties do the project and the specific objectives of the project is to bring responsible research innovation at the forefront of the debate for developing local and regional research innovation capacities and help territorial research innovation systems participate ongoing transformation transformations we want to develop a territorial responsible research and innovation framework which battles deter deep territorialization and forces territorial territorial making we recognize that the borders of territories are flux and are being broken down by the forces of globalization mobility and everything and we want to use responsible research innovation as a framework of re-instituting territorialization we want to use also responsible research innovation as a springboard for broadening the number of stakeholders involved in a smart specialization strategy so to address the criticism that I talked in the previous slide and in more general to embed responsible research innovation principles in the regional research and innovation planning processes and doing this we want to develop local and regional research innovation capacities and introduce measurable changes and institutional changes in the ecosystems of five territories which act as the experiments or case studies let's say of this project before going to to talk about the five experiments I want to talk about how we view that responsible research innovation can facilitate inclusiveness and responsiveness in the smart specialization strategy process first of all we have the keys of course and if we look at the right keys we can see that the keys can facilitate inclusive responsiveness in smart specialization in many ways so open access and open science can facilitate open data and open innovation in a given region ethics and general quality can make sure that all available human capacities potential is realized and that citizens trust is gained based on the principles of ethics and general quality. Public education and science education can help multiply the research innovation capacity of a region by introducing citizen science and also by introducing science in education and this will can increase the capacity and RRI governance can need to increase citizens engagement in the whole process in the same time if we look at the RRI dimensions anticipation reflexivity inducement and responsiveness we can see that all this can enhance the smart specialization process so with anticipation we can go beyond the conventional business user approaches by anticipating future development opportunities with reflexivity we can help local entrepreneurial and scientific authors to better understand their own needs aspirations and limits and also to understand what the society needs and how it can be best served with inclusiveness we can include local capacities and the granular scientific societal in the whole cycle of smart specialization strategy and with responsiveness we have all economic environmental or societal opportunities and risks involved in new technologies better understood and managed in a way that is more socially efficient so this is these are the concepts that we have to work with and the five territories that are happening right now the project is at the phase where we're finishing the co-design of the experiments and we are starting next month to actually do the experiments to embed changes institutional changes in ecosystems in five regions and these regions are the region of central Macedonia here in Greece where we're focusing on gender equality in the regional research innovation system Emilia Romania in Italy where responsible research innovation and science education is included in the smart specialization process by engaging the social stakeholders in this the Gapropo municipality in northern Bulgaria were trying to build a municipality public engagement plan again for influencing the smart specialization strategy development the region of northeast Romania with its capital in Iasi Romania where we're doing a cost consultative instrument to identify and prioritize needs of innovation and the platform for innovation brokerage between local population society innovators and facilitators and the municipality of Drotelang in Norway were employing responsible research innovation in retail revitalizing university education and bringing closure especially populated territories with urban research innovation facilities so these are the five experiments and in this we what we will try to do the teams that are going to work in these five experiments is to promote these two changes in the actors research innovation actors in the ecosystems of these five territories which will lead in transformation of these ecosystems and the transformation of the territory eventually so as I said the phase that we are right now is that we have we're finishing the design of the experiments and we're starting to do the experiments so I'm going to talk about expected institutional changes that we expect to see in the next let's say 18 months in each one of these regions so the region of central Macedonia here in Greece this is the region I think I lost connection for a moment yes Nikos for a moment we lost you could you please please go back one slides yes I will I will let me let me share my screen again because I think yes thank you sharing also now can you see the screen again yes yes we can see okay and I cannot move it okay so what I was saying is that we expect to introduce some institutional changes at local actors in each one of the territories which will lead in transformation changes hopefully at the whole regional research innovation ecosystem and the region itself and I don't know if you've heard that I said that we are starting now the experiments we finished the period where the experiments were designed co-designed with the participation of actors from each territory and I'm going to talk now about the expected changes out of this experiment what we expect to see not actually changes because most of them haven't happened yet so for the region of central Macedonia which is a region north in Greece with the capital of Thessaloniki we try to develop a general quality competent structures and mechanisms for example general quality plan general quality committees a general neutral language protocols work like balance structures and so on with the participation of various actors for the moment we have established and this is the first institutional change the regional authority of the region of central Macedonia has established a general quality committee a couple of months ago as a direct result of the project we're also trying to put together a quadruple helix action group on research innovation general and social inclusion and this is going to be led by the regional of central Macedonia the directorate for innovation entrepreneurship in there and we're trying to involve the quadruple helix actors in infusing this whole super research innovation principle in the upcoming regional smash research strategy so the discussion about the smash research strategy is already the other way in our region in this region well I come to this region so that I'm saying our region and we want to suggest new new monitoring procedures and indicators for regional institutions that include also aspects of tethering quality so this is what we expect to see in the region of central Macedonia in a middle of Romania again we're focusing on the smash specialization process and we try to have the regional research innovation actors engage in new forms of cooperation with state policy and civil society in order to have a more participatory smash specialization process more particularly who try to engage technical schools and non-formal training institutions related to citizen science in new training policies within this participatory smash specialization strategy and a new publication related identity for territorial research innovation organizations addressing social issues and local needs the again like in the case of central Macedonia the regional body which is in charge of regional operational programs that are being influenced by the smash specialization strategy will try to abide by the new research responsible research innovation policy guideline that will be produced by the project in the Caprovo municipality the municipality is right now producing its own policy for smash specialization and it's trying to have the key quadruple regional actor to become a members of a group that they call economy innovation capital to introduce in the industry industrial zones a green deal and new projects between education institutions and local businesses addressing also aspects of responsible research innovation and development of a transparent decision making process in governance actors for considering the needs of local community as regards smash specialization process in the region of northeast Romania what we're trying to do is to involve local organization in a platform for innovation progress between local population innovation facilitators the region is a big region in Romania there are a lot of rural areas that we try to bring into a discussion about how to better have a research innovation process projects is also related to smash specialization and the regional authority there is trying and together with the regional development agency to produce local development strategies and to evolve actors on targeted micro regions local actions of local action groups on two specific regions on donor basing and tech law if I can answer correctly so again this is trying to influence as much asization priorities towards agro food sector and safe food production which are very important for this region the last one is a region in the north of Norway in drodelac where in two particular areas that are far away from the from major cities and rural areas in rural and non talent we're trying to establish new make new mechanisms for recruiting university graduates to temporarily work with this region and become conduit for knowledge exchange between university the university and you and drodelac and new policies to be adopted by actors in drodelac that will facilitate a permanent dialogue between local businesses especially those that are in local business parks in the region and the university in order to facilitate new endeavors in the research innovation and also we try to make an institutionalized collaboration between all the actors in order to infuse all these principles in a new path for development of smash specialization that would be the first for the region so this is a very quick picture let's say of of what we expect to happen in the next 18 months some institutional changes have been already underway as I told you about the new general policy committee established in central Macedonia and some will be realized in the next months of course it is very important that all this take into account special provisions for sustainability as we discussed also in the morning and hopefully in a couple of years or 18 months we will be able to present more concrete results from this project so thank you very much for your attention you can see more details in our website keregoriaproject.eu and back to the role to my role as coordinator of this of this session I would like to ask you to make some comments or questions both Lisa and myself both presentations so please write in the chat or yeah let me stop sharing yes or just take the floor let's see I have something in the chat from Claudia Colonello yes can you provide some more I think that's a question for me I expected two such changes in the final experiments can you provide some more info about the modality of activation of the territorial actors well then it's very different for in each one of the experiments I can talk about our own here in in central Macedonia what we are doing is on two two levels let's say one level is we try to form some working groups that will work on several aspects of the gender equality RRI key let's say so there will be a working group that will work mostly on the issue of work and life balance as a major problem regarding gender equality in research innovation we have another group that will work on gender neutral language in research innovation and so on and so on and these groups are going to be coordinated by us and the region of central Macedonia and produce some guidelines and possibly policy recommendations for all the actors in the region the second aspect is working closely with the group that is preparing the smart decision strategy in the in the region and trying to promote public engagement and societal participation more closely to the smart decision strategy in other territories there are different tools for example in in Romania they're trying to be the platform that we have also an internet presence where society local actors universities innovators and so on will cooperate in order to produce new ideas let's say so there are there are different different modalities all the floor is open we're 27 people here please ask yes i have a question also for from Hermione Horsberg about Trotelang now in Trotelang what they what they are trying to do is to involve the local communities that are really far away from Trotelang in order to be more connected to the research innovation actors mainly the university or other research laboratories and they are using students in order to facilitate this dialogue let's say so students are as far as I understand the students are going to do small projects in these rural communities and engage in a dialogue with the society there so that from this project bigger projects or and bigger innovations can come and the university and all the other research innovation actors that are based in Trotelang we have an easier access to the needs and hopes and objectives of the rural communities any other questions you still have some time okay we have a question from Haro let me we can you read the question Nikos please because it will be recorded okay yes I'm reading the question so Lisa and Nikos you also address the obstacles such as lack of interest at management level at research innovation funding and performance organization but it is not just lack of interest but rather other interest so the question is how to connect to the other interests have you seen good examples of this other interest is highlighted let's say Haro, do you want to go first yeah yeah sure um yeah you're quite right it's not just uh it's not just a lack of interest or a lack of motivation um but it's of course this is a this is an area that's filled with competing institutional logic as Elmeri also mentioned this morning so so it's um it's of course has to do with competition uh also and I don't know if I've seen any good examples of of connecting uh to other interests but but we're at least very very much discussing in the grace project right now is how to um um how to use RRI as a strategic uh instrument also how to sort of uh transplant it into something that will also position for instance universities or or funding institutions in in a more broad landscape so that would be to to maybe connect it to to strategic interests uh as well so so we're discussing how that's done because that's not a simple procedure and and I don't know if I have a very good answer to that but but it's but it's um it's certainly a uh a concern and something that we're trying to address in different ways but I'm not sure that I have necessarily seen sort of um diverging interests it's not I don't think we see um examples of organizations where for instance management have an opposition towards particular RRI keys as I would actually have otherwise expected I don't I don't think we see that because there isn't it's the RRI program or the RRI concept there's also very much sort of a normative um as I said sort of a change uh drive that's very sort of uh present in the at least the european debate uh so I don't think we're seeing examples of organizations where we have a counter norm in a way but but it's it's there sure a sort of competition for for interest and competition for resources uh within the organizations and and what we're at least trying to do as I said is that we're trying to connect them in a strategic way so that the organizations can leverage this in a way and use it to say okay so if we do this we'll actually be at the forefront and we'll actually be be spearheads in a a development that's inevitable in a way so so I think that's probably my best answer to that question I don't know Nikos if you have other experiences yes well it's a very good question Harold thank you very much and uh indeed it's a it's very important I have to say that for the moment uh we haven't seen examples of of conflicting interests uh we have seen and it's it's natural that we see obstacles in terms of as I said business as usual uh things that uh people don't believe what will change um things like that I mean reluctance in this way uh but not as as expressed as as as other interests let's say for the moment uh I mean the experience from uh the experiments and the code design we have is that there is there is enthusiasm and there is some uh let's say uh adherence to common principles uh but I would expect to see more more conflicts and more uh objections in the the actual implementation because for the moment in in all five experiments I think there is enthusiasm there is a commitment but we're still in the beginning here's some time I I just wanted to ask since we have some time which is of course I participate in both projects but uh not so much uh in grace I I I want to do to follow up on what I said before I mean do you see a very a big difference between implementing graphic actions in research performing and then research funding organizations in grace you can both yes yes we do have both and yes there is a difference um I think there is um the research funding this will be very sort of anecdotal in a way because we are as you know in the middle of of of the process but but it seems that there are um there are big differences first of all in this sort of um in the initial sort of state and capacity of RRI in the organization so with the funding organizations they kind of seem to struggle a little bit to find their place in the RRI uh setting if we can call it that so so they they need to make more of an effort to translate RRI into something that makes sense for their particular organization uh but on the other hand uh I think it's extremely important to have them uh because they can actually they can actually function as spearheads and they are the they are the ones that can actually set sort of sort of um some of these normative drivers in motion that we're already seeing so if they actually ask their their what is that called the the ones that they fund to to have RRI as a as a focus area in the projects then that will set some some things in motion at other levels so it's extremely important to have them but the RRI concept is not always as uh directed towards funding organization so I think there is a it seems that there is a there is a lot of need for what within my field we call organizational translation that we need to they need to adapt the RRI concept to fit funding organizations more than than we need to do in in research performing organizations because some of these the keys are more um research performing oriented in a way so yes there is there is a big difference but I think it's it's extremely important that we keep discussing how how we can fit it more more neatly to uh to funding organizations also so any other question you can you can take the floor also if you want okay if there isn't any other question I would like to thank you very much and please follow Grace and Territoria project through our social media and we're going to have more more presentations and if you have any questions of course you can just write to us to me and these are everybody that are involved in the project so we'll be happy to follow up okay the next session is in 20 minutes actually and hope to see you all there