 I would like to move now to the first use case from this webinar, and I would like to invite Andrea Riccio. Here we are. Welcome to everybody. I'm absolutely glad to be here presenting you our co-creation experiments that has had already mentioned took place in one of our resource center, which is like somehow devoted to innovation and like startups. So but let's start from the beginning. But I cannot change the slide. Okay, which was our challenge when we decided to set up the experiments and that it's the challenge that we keep working on to establish the first RRI based the Sapienza Research Center. So the idea was to have this brand new research center where we try to like put into practice a responsible governance in order to foster possible scale up to the entire organization onto other parts of the organization. So some assumptions. The experiment aimed at implementing, as I said, these responsible governance in an ongoing Sapienza project that was named Sapirienko. Sapirienko with the aim of like strengthening university social impact and value taking into consideration also the topic of sustainability. What we really used as an initial assumption was to consider responsibility as one of governance dimension for the organization management. Together we, the most I would say traditional dimensions such as efficiency, efficacy and cost effectiveness. So some maps, sorry, which were our objective to test in a pilot scale the setting up of a multi-actor co-created responsible governance in a complex environment. So the aim was to try to understand limits and opportunities for a big university to implement responsible governance using a pilot case. The other objective was to involve different stakeholders. So we had internal scientists but also external ones. So like researchers coming from other research organization but also company or company organization. For example, we're working a lot of this with Italian Association for Industry. And we also worked with policy makers like the regional ones because we tried to implement this structure, this research center according to the smart specialization strategy of our region. Okay, I was looking for a chat. Can you hear me? Well, then another important objective of the project was to engage families and especially school children, letting them experiencing through hands on experiments the role of sustainability in their daily life. So we selected in order to like to deploy our like our cooperation experiments, we selected some of the pillars of RRI as they are like stated by the commission. And the pillars were governance as it was easy to understand, than science, education and public engagement. As a result, we will see that our experiment could be somehow divided into main blocks. The first one aimed really at implementation of our like governance and governance guidelines for responsible for responsible research and innovation in RFPOs. And the other one aimed at creating hands on activities to foster science, education and public engagement for especially families on the teams of sustainability. So as far as it concerned the governance perspective, which is like the first block that we will talk about, we can say that there was a first phase started in September 2018, in which we tried to involve internal and external stakeholders in our co-design phase to state which were according to them, the core elements for our RRI based the research center using the theory of change. So as a methodology we choose the theory of change developed by Carol Weiss in the 90s. And we tried so in this way to define which were our inputs. So what we had just to make you an example, we had like some funding from the European Commission, we also have like a physical space which was a very income. We have people willing to do that, then which could be our activities. So the real things that we could do, and which could be and which would have been our outputs, outcomes and impact. When we talk about outputs, we talk about like the immediate results of your activities, so you can measure them in the short time. Then when we talk about outcomes, we intended to measure like the medium period, so the medium time, and so something that derives from the activities, but it's a little bit more foreign time. And finally the impact that should have been measured as a degree of change. That's why it is called then the theory of change, because impact, so your long-term perspectives, implies how your actions are able over time to change your organization. That is the result. So we developed this logic framework that now it's, then we will systematize it during our talk, which is like pretty dense. And from where we received a lot of information. In fact, to sum up all the information that you saw in our logic framework, which was indeed pretty messy, we can say that the setup of responsible governance in the research organization needs that scientific matters are informed by RRI. So this means that you cannot just consider RRI as an isolated item that really doesn't enter into relationship with all the scientific matters, but it should be like inserted in scientific matters. So among the issues that came out are, for example, issues connected to research integrity, gender balance, open science and open access. Another important assumption that emerged from the analysis of the logic framework is that responsible governance should be by definition open to society and for external stakeholders. In order to receive feedbacks and contributions, one of our final aim is to build our scientific agenda in an open way. And another important issue is that responsible governance needs the establishment of common language, platforms and procedures. This means that, and it was pretty evident also in these workshops that we had together where we were more or less people informed about the topic we were talking about. We used to use different languages and also different ways. So somehow we should develop common paths of work. That's one important obstacle in order to foster and to develop science and society relations. So a common language, just to make you an example, hard scientists and soft scientists, if we can use this division, really didn't speak during our workshop the same language. And another important thing achieved by the workshop is to understand that one of the main outputs of responsible governance should be real institutional change. So not just adding, I would say, a set of rules that really doesn't imply any cultural shift, but real institutional change with the bridging of profit and non-profit research and innovation actions. Because, at least in Italy at the moment, it seems very different working for profit and non-profit actions while putting them together in continuity towards the responsibility was something that the participants of the workshops considered very important. And finally, according to the first outcomes of the workshop, what emerged is that we should base responsible governance on a shared set of values reflected in simple guidelines with proper indicators, aiming to stress the social value of the response of research and innovation. That means that one of our achievements that we go beyond the life of the project is to keep working on this governance dimension, trying to implement sort of shared guidance for what responsibility is. Then we moved to a second phase concerning our governance perspective, which took place in April, last April, so 2019. And the idea was to formalize the concrete implementation of responsible governance. In this case, we choose another tool for working together because the participants were the same involved in the previous workshop, which was like a balanced scorecard. In order, we thought to assess for dimension, each of them guided by a specific objective, in order to understand how to implement responsibility. And for dimensions, we're financial, user perspective, so our users perceive and give value to what we do, internal processes, so how we can change from internally our organization in terms of like deployment of activities, for example, and then growth and innovation, meaning what we could do in terms of new processes, new action, or a new implementation of a really existing action to foster responsibility. That's how our balanced scorecard looks like. So just to go on the objectives because then we will have the table of indicators and as you will let these slides were made available for you, you can go more specifically through the single indicators. We will just see some examples. But here, it's important to see how we started from a general objective and we declined it into specific objectives according to the four dimensions that we are looking to assess. So from the objective of implementing another right-based research center, we had the idea of investing in responsible and sustainable actions in order to look at the financial dimension of our action. In terms of users' engagement, the objective is to engage users and ensure their satisfaction. So also by developing, for example, a survey on the action that we are implementing. As far as it concerns internal processes, our objective was to foster the take of a responsible governance and as far as it concerns growth and innovation, the specific objective was related to develop new initiatives for responsibility and sustainability and in Sapienza, we are definitely working at that. Just to make you some example, we launched a call on internal for funding public engagement actions from one side and on the other hand, we are developing our dashboard of indicators to assess all these dimensions. It has become sort of a strategic objective of the university. So more or less we are trying to transform what we need in the co-creation experiment into our real processes. And here you have the tables, just an example tables. For example, concerning the financial objectives in terms of investment, for example, we had a percentage of expenditure for awareness campaign and events related to responsible governance and we fixed a target and some actions. And more or less we did the same with all these objectives, defining proper indicators, related targets and linked actions in order to deploy how we should act in order to foster responsible governance. That's the financial perspective. Then we have the user's perspectives. For example, an idea was to implement a loyalty card and giving some incentives in order to develop an engagement strategy customized to different stakeholders. And again, we have in terms of internal perspective, the idea of, to have assessed the creative engagement of quadruple elix stakeholders, fixing it at least 20%. So having not only in our activities internal stakeholders or generally speaking people from academia, but also trying to favor and to foster the collaboration with all the actors of quadruple elix. And as far as it concerns growth and innovation perspective, the idea is to, for example, organize bottom-up initiatives. So to have, for example, a call to sustain bottom-up initiative launched, trying to add them as a target, at least three per year. And another important thing that I want to underline is that when we try to develop this balance scorecard, we try to keep together the two, I would say parallel dimension because they are even more and more integrated nowadays of responsibility and sustainability, looking at sustainability in an open dimension, in an open perspective. So not only in terms of environmental sustainability, but also looking at the dimension of social sustainability and economic sustainability. So we have tried, we really didn't succeed to define by the end of 2019, the end of the year was pretty a mess, but I keep this just to keep in mind that we have to do that. A set of guidelines for superior and responsible governance. So we will do that at the beginning of this year for sure. But now let's move to the education and engagement perspective. We worked on that mainly in May 2019, organizing like hands-on activities. So first of all, we had these hands-on workshops for kids and families that targeted two main actions. The first one was to prepare bioplastics with daily ingredients. For example, the kids used coconut flowers, organic waste and so on. And on the other hand, they had the chance to work on 3D printing with organic materials of super radios. In this way, we like give the children and their family the chance to have a first like approach to both sustainability, but also to science and science education in a very like easy going way. Also, because our ideas were that engaging researchers from the other side in activity of science education and public engagement, it is a responsible action itself. And somehow, so this was our ideal link with these two different perspectives that we took into consideration in our experiment. And here you have some picture of how we promoted these activities because we did it in May and that's important because it still testify an important like engagement internal activities because we did it in May because in May we have some extraordinary opening during the weekends of our university museum that are coordinated all together by a museum hub, centralized museum hub. And we took this occasion to create actions together with our museums and to start collaboration with them. And here are some pictures. For example, here you can see the bioplastics that resulted from the first workshops. He's trying to make bioplastics. You can see the veggie on the tables, for example. And here we have the sapireros. So these super readers made organic materials and they are working on that, experiencing how to build things. It was really hands on. I was there and it was extremely fun. Let's move quickly, apart from the description of the experiment to talk about like how we approached the quadruple elix. For sure, the cooperation was favored from all the quadruple elix actors by the experiment's venue because Sapirienko was funded to be interdisciplinary and multi-actors and it is by definition devoted to cooperation and cross-cortalization among different actors and different competencies. For sure, we can underline a common difficulty that first of all resides in academia because in reality the university system and some people notice that and tell all these to us is still reluctant somehow to cross-cortalization. Also because we really don't have, at least in Italy, a proper national strategy or an incentive structure to favor working on different disciplines and especially with different actors. So there's still something that we have to do internally from one side and on the other side externally by pushing, being one of the biggest universities, pushing somehow the change, the initial change, the real change. As far as it concerns institutional change, first of all we can say that responsible research and innovation and open science are in the Italian system defined term mission. So we used to say that the first mission is didactics, the second mission is research and the third mission of universities and generally speaking to research organization is creating linking with the territory and cooperating for the social and cultural growth as well as the economical ones of the society. And I'm sure that our cooperation experiment, as I was also saying to you in the beginning, giving you some example of what we already did, laid the groundwork for some degrees of institutional change. So I do believe that something moved and something changed also because we worked by informing the university governing bodies and they were like pretty happy about what was happening. Still a little bit I would say far away from like taking part to the actions, but they were informed, they liked it and so probably there will be some other steps as the one I told you, like internal calls or like sensitive awareness sections and so on. And also the fact that we were able to involve researchers, especially coming from hard science, our main pilot case was managed by the Department of Industrial Engineering. So some people that are pretty far ideal at least from the concepts of responsibility and so on because they really work on very, very strict things very focused on their scientific matter rather than on the impact of their work. So which should be in the end our real outcome concerning the old institutional change, make researchers aware that responsibility and openness far from being another administrative issue to comply with represent an added value in the research work. That's the very, very aim of our activity. Not only of my experiments, of Sapiens experiment, but of the entire I could say fit for RRI project. The idea that responsibility and openness are not just something that you have to do because they are beautiful, but we are trying to show since the first word package that in the making a critical analysis of what was happening in the science institutions could be that RRI and OS could be useful in the daily work of researchers and as a reflection in the reorganization of research organization. Policy support requirement. As I already said to you, our final step will be to define a simple set of guidelines for responsible governance in Sapiens goal. We demo scaling them up. If we can add this scale up, before to have this scale up we need that these guidelines will be approved by our governing boards. We usually have an academic senate and a board of administration because this will represent a real political support towards RRI and OS. We are not in this space, but we are working to achieve that. By the way, as we already said, some policies to further this process have already been launched. A working group with researchers and administrative staff could to cope with definitions and indicators concerning the mission and this is an activity that already had an important first success because we approved and also directors and our general director approved a first set of indicators concerning among the other dimension public engagement and public engagement and sustainability and responsibility and we also launched an internal call for funding that was over just last Monday so now we are analyzing the results for implementing science and society relations. So we will see how it comes, but for sure giving some incentives for like creating a science and society engagement will favor the spread of these activities. Which are our next goals? Finalizing the guidelines. Of course, keeping working on the stakeholders involved in the design phase and looking since now at a possible scale up implement within sovereign call new science education activities on a regular base, so not waiting every May to do that, but trying to do that with more regularity and not only with like kids and families so generally speaking with a good society but also trying to engage in the portfolio like actors, so just to make you an example to organize like policy makers workshops or industry workshops and we are trying also to connect and somehow we are like succeeding in doing that experiment with other ongoing initiatives one among the others, CIBIS which is a project in which Sapienza works actively which is funded under the Erasmus Calls for European universities and that looks at implementing CDQ university, so we have one of the activities that I'm looking after for university which aims at implementing open labs and these open labs for sure represent an interesting like way of giving a follow up to our cooperation experiment. For me that's all. Thank you very much Andrea for this very interesting presentation it was very very comprehensive and definitely substantiates all the efforts that were undertaken in this project for the past three years and it's very important for everyone to see in details all the great work that you have been doing and that of course the entire consortium has contributed to.