**Executive Summary**

This Project Handbook describes the internal procedures of the MAKE-IT
consortium in terms of management structures, communication and collaboration
as well as quality control measures. It also de.nes the way the partners are
dealing with Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), especially considering
ethical issues related to personal data collection, analysis and storage. Open
source and open access are important elements of RRI and the strategy of the
consortium in dealing with these aspects is reflected in the open data
management plan, which forms part of this document.

The main target group for this deliverable are the consortium partners
themselves as this handbook de.nes the project internal processes for securing
high quality research work to be performed across a set of complementary
partner institutions. It serves as a reference document for all MAKE-IT team
members including individuals joining in the project at a later stage.

Since the project is bringing together a set of diverse experts from different
.elds and backgrounds a core principle guiding internal processes is open
participation and flexibility. Transparency about the project status as well
as risk recognition is an additional principle that the project partners are
committed to.

Still, in order to effectively operate in a distributed team we have de.ned
some procedures of how to best communicate and structure our collaboration.
Regular meetings are held via videoconference as well as faceto-face.
Communication is also taking place via e-mail and the project mailing list.
The main tool for sharing and collaborating on documents is SharePoint.

The consortium is committed to producing high quality research outcomes and
deliverables and thus quality control is important. Quality guidelines
describe the internal peer review process, which is applied to all project
deliverables. In order to continuously improve our internal processes regular
internal surveys are performed, normally before project meetings. These
surveys are intended for the whole group to serve as a self-reflection and
self-evaluation tool about the project structures.

In terms of ethics, the consortium is following the general rules de.ned by
the EC (c.f. chapter 3) and commits strongly to respect the individual and
their privacy at all times. Templates have been prepared for informed consent
as well as the exchange of primary research data amongst partners that may
contain personal data from study participants. Raising awareness about related
RRI issues is of concern for the management and is regularly stressed.

Finally, openness is a core value of the project and thus the consortium is
looking into open strategies with regards to the research outcomes. This
relates to software that is published under speci.c open licenses, following,
and where possible contributing to, open standards as well as the research
publications, which should be made openly accessible as far as possible.

This handbook is understood as a living document and is updated if need arises
in order to improve the internal processes.

**1.**

**Introduction**

The MAKE-IT project is committed to high quality output and responsible
research and innovation. Thus this document de.nes a set of procedures that
the consortium is committed to adhere to and to improve in the course of the
project.

Openness and transparency are two of the guiding principles reflected in the
different processes and methods described. At the same time there is a strong
awareness within the consortium related to privacy and data protection of
individual citizens. These core principles underlying the research work in
MAKE-IT correspond with the practices related to Responsible Research and
Innovation (RRI).

Section 2 below describes the management structures, including the nominees
for the various boards. Section 3 is dedicated to speci.c quality management
procedures, including communication structures and tools, the peer reviewing
process for high quality deliverables, as well as risk management, SWOT and
other quality assurance means. In Section 4 the technical infrastructure for
communication and collaboration is presented. Section 5 presents the RRI
policies and identi.es the most relevant aspects for MAKE-IT while Section 6
outlines the speci.c ethical guidelines that the project is following. In
Section 7 the consortium’s strategy towards openness is described and relates
to open source in terms of software as well as open access in terms of
publications and other project results. Finally, Section 8 discusses
implication of gender aspects for the project.

The appendix includes examples of templates mentioned throughout the project.

**2.**

**Management structure**

Both the Grant Agreement (GA) and the Consortium Agreement (CA) specify a
number of bodies for the management of the project. Though the GA and CA,
being legal documents that can be found on SharePoint in _WP1 > Contracts _ ,
take precedence over this handbook, the following sections specify the
operational view of these bodies.

**2.1.**

**Work Package (WP)**

The work package (WP) is the building block of the project. The WP leader

  1. organises the WP, 

  

  2. prepares and chairs WP meetings, 

  

  3. organizes the production of the results of the WP, 

  

  4. represents the WP in the WP Leaders Committee (WPLC). 

  

  

Current WP leaders are shown in Table 1.

**WP**

**WP name**

**WP leader**

WP1

Project Management and Coordination

Paul Tilanus, TNO

WP2

Conceptual & Methodological framework

Jeremy Millard, DTI

WP3

Case Explorations

Christian Voigt, ZSI

WP4

Innovation Action research

Tijs van den Broek, TNO

WP5

Technology and Use Scenarios

Olivier Jay, DTI

WP6

Synthesis and Impact Analysis

Bastian Pelka, TUDO

WP7

Dissemination, Exploitation and Communication

Massimo Menichinelli, IAAC

Table

1

:

Current WP leaders

**2.2.**

**WP Leaders Committee (WPLC)**

The WPLC consists of

  * the WP leaders of all (active) WPs, 

  

  * the scienti.c lead of the project, • consortium manager. 

  

The additional  1  WPLC members are shown in Table 2\.

The consortium manager organizes and chairs the WPLC meetings. The WPLC
manages the coordination between the WPs. The WPLC has a mandate from the
Project Management Board (PMB) for all day-to-day management.

The PMB members and task managers, even if not WPLC member, are welcome at the
WPLC meetings.

**Role**

**Person**

Scienti2c lead

David Langley, TNO

Consortium manager

Paul Tilanus, TNO

Table

2

:

WPLC members in addition to the WP leaders

**2.3.**

**Project Management Board (PMB)**

The PMB consists of one representative of each partner. The current PMB-
members are listed in Table 3. The members of the PMB are referred to as
‘partner manager’.

The PMB takes all decisions that affect the direction of the project. The PMB
members are addressed for any issue, technical or administrative, concerning
that partner.

**Partner**

**Partner manager**

TNO

Iris Blankers

DTI

Jeremy Millard

ZSI

Christian Voigt

TUDO

Bastian Pelka

IAAC

Massimo Menichinelli

FLZ

Roberto Vdovic

HLW

Karim Jafarmadar

AHHAA

Helin Haga

CIR

Jeremie Gay

Table

3

:

Partner managers

**2.4.**

**MAKE-IT Advisory Board**

The MAKE-IT Advisory Board (MAB) is a group of persons from outside the
project. The MAB will be consulted for important decisions that affect the
direction of research and/or are related to adoption of the results from the
MAKEIT project. The MAB members are listed in Table 4\.

**MAB member**

**A:liation**

Sherry Lassiter

MIT

Dale Dougherty

Maker Faire & Make Magazine

David Cuartielles

Arduino

Willem Vermeend

NL Smart Industry & IoT Academy

Katherine Stokes

NESTA

Tom Saunders

NESTA

Table

4

:

MAB members

#  3\. Quality procedures and Code of Conduct

##  3.1. Internal communication structures & procedures

The Consortium Agreement (CA) speci.es a number of rules for the governance of
the project. Though the CA, being a legal document that can be found on
SharePoint in _WP1 > Contracts _ , takes precedence over this handbook, the
following describes the operational view of project meetings.

**3.1.1.**

**PMB Meetings**

Every 6 months a PMB meeting will be scheduled. In principle the PMB meetings
will be collocated with the plenary workshops. If important decisions need to
be taken at PMB level, then an ad-hoc meeting can be scheduled.

The agenda will be distributed at least two weeks before the meeting. All
partner managers can enlist agenda items for the PMB meeting.

No minutes are taken at the PMB meetings, but decisions and actions of the PMB
are listed. These decisions and actions are shared with the WP leaders via the
consortium manager in the .rst WPLC meeting after the PMB meeting.

**3.1.2.**

**WPLC meetings**

Every two weeks the WPLC has a conference call. The main purpose of these
meetings is the alignment of work between the WPs.

The agenda will be distributed at approximately one week before the meeting.

The decisions and action points of the WPLC meetings are communicated to all
PMB members by the consortium management via e-mail. For that purpose the
agenda of the WPLC meeting is extended, within two working days after the WPLC
meeting, with the actual participants list, the decisions and action points.
The extended agenda is shared on SharePoint ( _WP1 > Meetings > WPLC _ ). This
allows PMB members to react, e.g. if decisions are taken in a WPLC meeting and
a PMB member considers that decision to require PMB endorsement.

**3.1.3.**

**WP and task meetings**

For meetings within the WP the WP leaders have full freedom to arrange them as
they wish. The only constraint will be the travel budget of the partners.

If a partner is not participating fully in the WP or task, and there is a risk
of that partner becoming a ‘defaulting partner’, as de.ned in the Consortium
Agreement, then the following steps will be taken.

  * The manager of the task/WP will have a private discussion with the partner. The result will be recorded in an e-mail, sent in Cc to the consortium manager. In the unlikely case the WP leading partner is not fully participating, any partner in the WP can signal this to the Consortium manager, initiating the next step immediately. 

  

  * If this fails to produce the desired behaviour or if a WPL is not participating fully in the WP, the Consortium manager will have a private discussion with the partner. The result will be recorded in an e-mail, sent in Cc to the PMB. 

  

  * If this fails to produce the desired behaviour, the PMB starts the ‘defaulting partner procedure’ as de.ned in the Consortium Agreement. 

  

##  3.2.External communication structures & procedures

The following key groups are identi.ed in the external communication. In all
other cases the WPLC will propose how to proceed. Wherever there is a risk of
con.dential information of any partner being published, the ‘PMB check’, as
described in section 3.3.1, has to be applied.

For all material used in the external communication, the quality
assurance/review procedures, as described in 3.3, apply.

**3.2.1.**

**MAB**

All communication with the MAB members is coordinated by the scienti.c lead.

Support will be provided by those project members who already have a personal
relation with the MAB members and the consortium management.

**3.2.2.**

**EU**

All communication with the European Commission (EC), and in particular with
the project of.cer, will be coordinated by the consortium management as de.ned
in Table 5 below:

**Role**

**Person**

Consortium manager

Paul Tilanus, TNO

Consortium management support

Catelijne Rauch, TNO

Table

5

:

Current consortium management

**3.2.3.**

**Related projects**

Exchange of information with related projects will be coordinated by the
consortium management team (Table 5). Support can be provided by partners
already having personal relations with project members of the related project.

Project members should be aware that exchange of information with related
projects might require an NDA prior to the information exchange.

**3.3.**

**Quality of (non-)deliverables and peer review**

Reviews are the key elements in the quality assurance of a project like MAKE-
IT. For the review process there is a distinction between review of
deliverables and the review of other material.

**3.3.1.**

**Deliverables**

For deliverables good planning is possible, since a global description of the
content, the submission date and the partners working on it are set out in the
DoA. The review will be done in three stages:

  * Structure or scope review 

  

  * Content review 

  

  * PMB check 

  

Two independent reviewers are appointed by the WPLC for each deliverable, and
in principle both  2  perform the structure/scope and the content review.
Reviewers are considered independent when they are not authors of the
deliverable. Of course, others are free to review too, but the appointed
reviewers take on the quality assurance responsibility for the deliverable.

**3.3.1.1.**

**Structure or scope review**

The input for the structure review is the structure description of the
deliverable. The structure description consists of at least two levels in the
**3.3.1.2.**

**Content review**

The input to the content review is the full deliverable text; only supporting
parts – references, list of abbreviations and annexes – might still need
completion.

The **content review** starts at the latest **3 weeks before** the submission
date. **Review comments** are submitted to the deliverable editor **2 weeks
before** the submission date.

In general the content review contains four main attention areas.

  * DoA coverage 

    * Is the scope and the content of the deliverable consistent with the intention of the deliverable as stated in the DoA? 

  

    * In case of deviations, are they fully and plausibly motivated? 

  

    * Are the relations to other MAKE-IT work/deliverables clear? Deliverables are rarely produced in splendid isolation, so … a deliverable provides input to other work, or brings other work together, or 

  

  

…

  * Target audience o Is the target audience clear? 

    * In case of multiple target groups, is it clear what parts of the deliverable are intended for each audience? 

  

    * Are the management summary, introduction and conclusions/recommendations at the level, and using the language, of the target audience? 

  

  

Note: The detailed content might be too detailed for all target groups, but
not the sections mentioned above.

  * Are the conclusions fully backed by the preceding material (no “jumping to conclusions”) and are recommendations actionable? 

  

  * Language and structure o Is the language used proper international English? 

  

Signal use of national variants – Dunglish, Gerlish, Itlish, … – and
sociolects – legalish, techlish, ... In case of doubt, consult a native
English speaker.

  * Is the text well-structured, e.g. using lists and tables where appropriate. Pages with a grey rectangle of text are suspicious J 

  

  * Do chapters have a local introduction/purpose and local conclusions/recommendations? 

  

  * Are illustrations and diagrams used to support the text where appropriate? If taken from external sources, is the attribution correct/complete? 

  

  * Are references to literature included – suf.cient but not overdone? 

  

  * Is the terminology from the MAKE-IT glossary used as agreed (see also section 3.7)? 

  

  * Technical content 

    * < For the editor/WP leader to guide the review process>

  

  

**3.3.1.3.**

**PMB check**

The PMB members receive the deliverable one week before the submission date.
They check that the deliverable does not disclose commercially sensitive
information of their organisation. If the deliverable contains material from
nonpartners that is made available via their organisation, the PMB member
checks the deliverable respects the con.dentiality agreements made by their
organisation with the non-partners.

Note: the PMB check is not a classical review. It is an ‘emergency break’ if
con.dential material is about to be disclosed and this was not noted by
authors and reviewers.

Both submissions to reviewers are Cc-d by the deliverable editors to the
consortium manager. The submission to the PMB for the PMB check is done by the
consortium manager. Deliverables are uploaded and submitted by the consortium
management.

The timeline for deliverables is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Timeline review of for deliverables

**3.3.2.**

**Non-deliverables**

For non-deliverables, such as publications and dissemination material, the
procedure for deliverables will be used where applicable and with a timeline
that .ts the material.

In all cases the WPLC is required to be informed via the WP leader about the
intention to publish MAKE-IT material as early as possible, with a minimum of
4 weeks. The WPLC will decide on the review procedure for that case. This is
enabled by WP leaders signalling planned academic publications or conference
contributions to the Scienti.c lead and signalling non-academic work to the
WP7 lead.

Since there are many types of material, this handbook cannot provide details
for all cases. We distinguish the following broad categories of material.

  * Dissemination material (flyer, website, leaflets, popular science publications, …) 

  

Default reviewer is the consortium manager, supported by one or more partner
managers.

  * Scienti.c publication or conference presentation 

  

Default reviewer is the scienti.c lead, supported by one or more partner
managers.

**3.4.**

**Risk management**

In the GA the results of an initial risk assessment are listed. This is
considered the initial risk register.

When a partner or WP leader identi.es

  1. a new risk 

  

  2. a substantial rise of a risk, either because the chance of occurrence gets higher or the expected impact becomes bigger, 

  

  

then this should be communicated with the consortium management as soon as
possible. At the latest at the next WPLC this risk, and potential measures,
will be discussed.

Periodically, approximately once every 3-4 months, the risk register will be
reviewed in the WPLC. On this occasion, risks that cannot occur any longer, or
became very small, will be removed. New risks can be added, with the
associated mitigating actions.

**3.5.**

**SWOT**

A mid-term analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)
will be performed on the consortium team and the project. This will be done
during the plenary workshop in December 2016 and is to be used to refocus, if
needed, the project in the second project year.

The SWOT analysis is a structured planning method to evaluate the Strengths,
Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats of a particular undertaking, be it for a
policy or programme, a project or product or for an organization or
individual. It is generally considered to be a simple and useful tool for
analysing project objectives by identifying the internal and external factors
that are favourable and unfavourable to achieving that objective. Strengths
and weaknesses are regarded internal to the project while opportunities and
threats generally relate to external factors.

Strengths can be seen as characteristics of the project that give it an
advantage over others while weaknesses are regarded as characteristics that
place the team at a disadvantage relative to others. Opportunities comprise
elements that the project could exploit to its advantage whilst threats
include elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the project.

The project manager will communicate the results of the SWOT to the whole
consortium. The WPLC and the PMB will discuss and implement any measures that
might be needed to steer the project, as a result of the SWOT.

Figure 2: Template for the SWOT analysis

##  3.6.Project survey (incl. Responsible Research & Innovation - RRI)

Prior to the plenary workshops a short project survey, including questions
regarding Responsible Research and

Innovation (RRI, see chapter 5), will be sent to all project members by ZSI.
The questions will be discussed in the WPLC one month before the plenary
workshop. The idea of this survey is to identify room for improving the
cooperation within the project and awareness of the RRI principles.

**3.7.**

**Glossary/DeCnition of core concepts**

During the kick-off meeting it was agreed that a glossary of relevant terms
will be produced by WP2 (c.f. D2.1). The review of deliverables and other
material will include a check on using the terminology included in the
glossary in a way that matches the glossary de.nition.

Though WP2 ends after June 2016, the glossary will be maintained as a living
document. When needed, the WPLC can be requested to provide additional
de.nitions of terms for consistent use within MAKE-IT.

**3.8.**

**Project templates**

The MAKE-IT project intends to use a consistent ‘project style’. This is
implemented by providing templates for the deliverables, the presentations and
posters. More project style templates can be produced by WP7 when needed.

All available project style templates can be found on SharePoint in _WP1 >
Templates _ .

#  4\. Tools and collaboration infrastructure

**4.1.**

**Document sharing**

One key element in a research project like MAKE-IT is
collecting/sharing/analysing information and the collaborative production of
reports on the results of the analysis.

For both purposes a SharePoint environment has been created (see Figure 3)
with URL: _https://ecity.tno.nl/sites/MAKE-IT/SitePages/Home.aspx_ .

Figure

3

:

SharePoint Make-IT > Home

Within this SharePoint environment directories are available for each WP and
all submitted deliverables. Furthermore, lists are maintained for project
members and external contact persons.

Partner managers should announce a new project member to MAKE-IT SharePoint
manager _Catelijne Rauch_ . Name and e-mail address are suf.cient for creation
of the SharePoint access. All project members have to provide their contact
details in the project member list.

If a project member leaves the project, this should also be reported to
Catelijne Rauch.

**4.2.**

**E-mail and telephone**

Day to day information exchange will be based on e-mail and telephone.

Basic rule for exchange of information via e-mail: _never_ include a document
larger than 50kB in an e-mail. Provide in the e-mail a link to the document,
stored on SharePoint instead.

The available e-mail distribution lists are listed in Table 6.

**E-mail**

**Contains**

make-it_WPL@googlegroups.com

All WP leaders, scienti2c lead, consortium management

make-it_PPM@googlegroups.com

All partner managers

make-it_WP1@googlegroups.com

All project employees working in WP1

…

…

make-it_WP7@googlegroups.com

All project employees working in WP7

make-it_ALL@googlegroups.com

All project employees working in MAKE-IT

Table

6

:

Available e-mail distribution lists

Partner managers should announce a new project member to _Catelijne Rauch_ and
indicate the e-mail lists the new project member should be in. Project members
leaving the project will be deleted from the e-mail lists.

**4.3.**

**Online meetings**

Online meetings, such as the WPLC meetings, will use ‘Skype for Business’.
This tool supports screen sharing, making it possible to discuss lists of
action points and decisions, presentations, etc.

Invitations for the meetings will include a link as shown in Figure 4\.

Figure 4: Link in a Skype for Business meeting request

Clicking this link one joins the meeting, and this requires only a suitable
browser (on Windows, Mac, Linux or Android based operating system).

**4.4.**

**Quarterly progress reports**

One of the risks of working in a consortium is that one of the partners spends
a lot of effort without reaching a substantial result. To avoid this happening
without the WP leader and the consortium manager being aware, the effort of
each partner shall be reported every quarter.

The tool used for this monitoring is QPR, an Excel based tool where the
partner reports the person months spent in the recently closed quarter for
each Task. Figure 5 shows a part of the Excel sheet.

Figure 5: QPR tool (partial)

The consortium management will consolidate all partner inputs. In the WPLC it
is checked if the effort as reported is balanced with outputs of that partner.

QPR timeline:

  * The partner managers receive a request for QPR reporting on the .rst working day of the month after closing a quarter. 

  

  * The partner manager reports the effort at the latest on the 15  th  of the month after closing a quarter. 

  

  * The consolidated QPR report is available at the latest on the 22  nd  of the month after closing a quarter and will be on the agenda of the .rst WPLC after the 22  nd  . 

  

#  5\. Responsible research and innovation (RRI)

**5.1.**

**What is RRI?**

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has been formulated and widely
promoted as guiding principle and policy concept by the European Commission to
better align science with society and to meet the so called grand challenges
3  .

The starting ground was laid in 2001 with the formulation of the “Science and
Society Action Plan” to foster communication between science and society which
later, in 2007, was further shaped into the “Science in Society” programme in
FP7. RRI as concept was .rstly mentioned in 2010 and became an overarching
strategic guiding principle in Horizon 2020 and was then further con.rmed in
the recent Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe
4  .

Although a rather young concept, RRI became an important umbrella term for
principles that might not be actually new but which existed in isolation in
parallel. The formulation of the concept of RRI represents the approach to
generate a holistic paradigm with different so called key dimensions which
will be described in detail in the following.

RRI is as a guiding principle “a transparent, interactive process by which
societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a
view on the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability
of the innovation process and its marketable products” (Schomberg, 2013).
Others’ de.nitions of RRI (c.f.

Jacob et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2013) might slightly differ from Von
Schomberg’s but as described by Wickson & Carey

(2014) the overall common accordance is that responsible research and
innovation should

  1. address signi.cant socio-ecological needs and challenges, 

  

  2. actively engage different stakeholders, 

  

  3. anticipate potential problems and assess available alternatives and reflect on underlying values and beliefs and 

  

  4. adapt according to these ideas. Generally speaking, RRI is doing science and innovation with and for society by re-imaging the science-society relationship. 

  

  

In other words, RRI is meant to provoke a paradigm shift among researchers and
other stakeholders such as civil society organisations, educators, policy
makers, and businesses, etc. who actively take part in science and innovation
developments.

According to the European Commission (Jacob et al., 2013), RRI comprises the
following key dimensions  5  :

  1. **Governance:** Governance of policymakers to prevent harmful or unethical developments in research and innovation 

  

  2. **Open Access** : Open access to research results and publications to boost innovation and increase the use of scienti.c results 

  

  3. **Ethics** : Research must respect ethical standards and fundamental rights to respond to societal challenges 

  

  4. **Gender** : Gender equality and in a wider sense diversity 

  

  5. **Public Engagement** : Engagement of all societal actors (researchers, industry, policy makers, civil society) in a reflective research process 

  

  6. **Science education** : Enhancement of current education processes to better equip future researchers and society as a whole with the necessary competences to participate in research processes 

  

  

As can be seen in Figure 6, there are overlaps between these key dimensions
and overall, there are differences in the structure and layer of these
dimensions. While some are rather narrow and concrete, others are broader and
have rather an overarching function (European Commission, 2015) (such as the
key dimension governance) and some remain on a rather abstract level. RRI and
its key dimensions is an evolving concept, so the key dimensions are still
subject to change. While some argue that the six key dimensions have to be
complemented with further two (European Commission, 2015), others claim that
RRI shall rather focus on process requirements ( Kupper, Klaassen, Rijnen,
Vermeulen, & Broerse, 2015).

In Figure 6, the two perspectives have been integrated for a better overview
by the RRI Tools project  6  . While the inner circle shows the six key
dimensions with its overlaps, the outer circle depicts the process
requirements: **openness and transparency, anticipation and reflection,
responsiveness and adaptive change and diversity and inclusion** . In fact,
the two perspectives complement each other in a constructive way, while the
one focuses on the process of RRI, the other puts forward policy agendas or
visions. However, for a better understanding and easy comprehension, we will
put on the glasses of the six key dimensions as they are more debated in
scienti.c and public discourse.

Figure 6: Overview of key dimensions and process requirements of RRI according
to RRI-Tools project

The key dimensions can be perceived as a set of moral values that shall be
introduced in research and innovation. According to Kupper et al. (2015), for
RRI to become a success story and to provoke shifts in mentality, however, it
has to be based on further values such as democratic values regarding
participation and power, social and moral values regarding care for the future
and individual and institutional values of open-mindedness or receptiveness to
change.

In the following the six key dimensions will be described in more detail.

**5.1.1.1.**

**Governance**

Among the six key dimensions of RRI, governance has a slightly different
function compared to the others, as it is rather an organising and steering
principle that determines the success of all other RRI dimensions. In other
words, RRI relies on good governing structures for the promotion of RRI.
“Governing is any form of coordination that a stakeholder sets to foster and
mainstream (the process requirements and outcomes of) RRI within its own
organisation or in the interaction with other stakeholders” according to the
RRI Tools project  7  .

7\. _http://www.rri-tools.eu_

Governance methods range from foresight techniques (scenario studies, value
sensitive design, etc.), assessment (ethical committees, needs assessment,
technology assessment, etc.), agenda setting (consultation, co-creation, etc.)
to regulation (code of conduct, policies, funding guidelines, etc.).

Governance as an organising principle is seen on different levels, at funding
agencies level which need to support governance of RRI to institutional
responsibilities level. Organisations are called to set up RRI guidelines and
policies and also to install respective infrastructure and personnel support
(e.g. RRI of.cers).

Currently, governance of RRI is rarely seen on a project level. The **MAKE-IT
project** can be perceived as an attempt to tackle RRI on a project level.
However, comprehensive RRI guidelines for projects are still missing and thus
this handbook will aim at meeting this need. Also it has to be acknowledged
that governance structures need to be at least on institutional level in order
to be sustainable. On a project level however, it makes sense to break down
what RRI in the context means speci.cally and how RRI “can be done” in the
project since RRI is not a universal principle but a concept that needs
adaptation.

**5.1.1.2.**

**Open Access**

In the narrower sense, open access is about enabling or giving access to
research results and publications to the public. It addresses only the .nal
stage of research activity, the publication and dissemination phase. Open
access, in this sense, is different from open science, open innovation and
open data although there are obvious overlaps.

For instance, in contrast to open access, open science implies opening up the
whole science process in real time to the public, from choosing areas to
investigate in, formulating the research questions to choosing the methods,
collecting data and .nally discussing the results. Open science means
democratising science and research through ICT.

To avoid confusion, in the following, we will refer to open access in the
narrower sense.

The value underlying open access is about democratising knowledge and removing
barriers for the interested public, thus also empowering society. It enhances
openness and transparency of the research process. The proposition is that
open access is for the bene.t of society but also for the bene.t of research
and innovation as access to a more diverse range of stakeholders might
contribute to the development of new knowledge and to boost innovation
potential. Furthermore, an argument that is often used to convince researchers
is the fact, that open access articles are cited more often than publications
in traditional formats (Föger et al., 2016).

For some, open access means publishing in digital, online, and free of charge
publication formats removing price barriers but not permission barriers
(Gratis OA). For others open access means that additionally literature shall
be free of unnecessary copyright and licensing restrictions (c.f. RRI-Tools
project).

There is the call for publicly funded research and innovations developments
being accessible free of charge for the public. In 2012, the European
Commission proposed to all Member States, that 60% of all scienti.c
publications shall be open access until 2016, following the Green or Golden
Road (c.f. chapter 7). With the launch of Horizon2020 it has become mandatory
to follow open access publication strategies (European Commission, 2012) .

**MAKE-IT** will follow open access publication strategies and will also make
data available to the public at an earlier stage where suitable (c.f. chapter
7).

**5.1.1.3.**

**Ethics**

Ethics as a principle under the umbrella term of RRI has moved beyond
ful.lling legal requirements and protecting objects of research. Certainly,
complying to national and international standards and submitting proposals to
ethics committees is fundamental also under this notion but the principle of
Ethics is understood as a process, similarly to all other key dimensions, that
urges researchers and stakeholders to question themselves if they comply with
high moral standards and if they ensure increased societal relevance and
acceptability of research and innovation outcomes. Ethics thereby shall not be
perceived as a constraint but rather as a guiding principle to help ensure
high quality outcomes and to justify decisions.

The European Commission de.nes ethics as key dimension of RRI as follows:

_“European society is based on shared values. In order to adequately respond
to societal challenges, research and innovation must respect fundamental
rights and the highest ethical standards. Beyond the mandatory legal aspects,
this aims to ensure increased societal relevance and acceptability of research
and innovation outcomes. Ethics should not be perceived as a constraint to
research and innovation, but rather as a way of ensuring high quality
results.” (p.4)_ 7

Ethics comprises three main aspects (European Commission, 2015):

  1. Research integrity and good research practice: scienti.c misconduct and questionable research practices shall be avoided. 

  

  2. Research ethics for the protection of research objects (people, animals, and environment). This is the aspect that is best developed in institutional guidelines as well as national and international laws and policies. This aspect matches the traditional notion of ethics and is most referred to when speaking about ethics. 

  

  3. Societal relevance and ethical acceptability of research and innovation outcomes. This aspect is closest to the key dimension of ethics in the understanding of RRI as it is a cross-cutting principle. It relates to the grand challenges as formulated in the Lund Declaration in 2009  8  . In this sense, it is ethical if science and innovations contribute in facing and solving them. 

  

  

Ethics further implies social justice and inclusion aspects: The widest range
of societal actors and civil society shall bene.t from research and innovation
outcomes. In other words, products and services as a result of R&I activities
shall be acceptable and affordable for different social groups. Researchers
and innovators are asked to reflect upon the impact of their activities on
“society” and to minimise potential negative outcomes.

Instruments that can be used to reflect upon potential negative and positive,
intended and unintended outcomes comprise, for instance, ELSI/ELSA tools
(Ethical, Legal and Social Implications/Aspects) and mechanisms for
multistakeholder/transdisciplinary processes of appraisal of ethical
acceptability. RRI is thus not “outsourced” to ethical committees but consists
in continuous reflective questioning.

Chapter 6 is dedicated especially to dealing with ethics in **MAKE-IT** .

**5.1.1.4.**

**Gender**

Gender equality means equal rights, opportunities, and responsibilities for
both genders so that individuals can exploit and realise their full potentials
independently from their sex.

Gender equality as a key dimension of RRI comprises two main aspects (European
Commission, 2015):

  * The human capital dimension: Gender balanced teams in research and innovation and 

  

  * The science and innovation dimension: Inclusion and integration of gender perspectives in research and innovation content and process. 

  

Firstly, to meet the human capital dimension of gender, emphasis shall be laid
on balanced research teams and gender balanced leading positions. This is
mainly a task for research and innovation institutions to set and follow
gender equality plans but also international research projects with different
institutions on board can emphasise gender balance for instance in the
compositions of advisory boards or key note speakers at conferences or panel
discussion boards. Promoting gender equality at all levels means contributing
to achieving excellence: Female scientists and innovators are given an
opportunity for promotion and making their voices heard. Furthermore, an
attractive work place with flexible and family friendly working conditions
might attract top-level female researchers (as long as household and family
tasks are mostly carried out by women).

Secondly, to include gender in research and innovation activities as such, for
instance, in the formulation of the research question, in the selection of the
data (collection), etc. helps avoiding gender bias in results. Output that is
mainly based on a male perspective is not universally valid, since it cannot
simply be transferred to or adapted to the other half of the population.
However, gender bias is often unintentional but to make these biased
perception, assumptions and prepositions more explicit is one of the goals of
gender as key dimension in RRI.

The European Commission  9  underlines three objectives in the Horizon 2020 in
terms of gender balance in research and innovation activities:

  1. fostering gender balance in Horizon 2020 research teams, 

  

  2. fostering gender balance in decision-making bodies (40% female in panels and 50% female participation in advisory groups) and 

  

  3. integrating sex and gender analysis in research and innovation. 

  

  

Apart from the institutional change that is necessary to come to equal
participation in research and innovation activities, a research project can
aim at addressing unconscious gender bias, e.g. perception of women’s
achievement in STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics), in the
formulation of the research questions, and in analysing the breath and width
of penetration of gender perspectives in research content. Furthermore,
project members shall make sure that tasks and responsibilities are equally
distributed and that in advisory boards and other decision making or
consulting bodies both sexes are represented. Similarly, it has to be made
sure that among .rst authors on research papers there are also female authors.
All written materials, dissemination instruments, conceptual notions, reports,
etc. should be critically analysed with gender sensitive glasses on.

Gender analysis and gender monitoring throughout the project shall aim at
looking at both aspects of gender equality, at the human capital dimension
(where possible, apart from institutional conditions) and the research aspect
of gender (Föger et al., 2016).

In **MAKE-IT** we pay special attention to gender in this project. On the one
hand gender is an aspect to be considered in the de.nition of the speci.c
research questions. E.g. is gender equally presented in the Maker communities
or is there a dominant gender? Does gender influence governance structures in
the different cases, etc.

On the other hand, gender is also relevant when it comes to internal
processes, such as the composition of research teams, of work package leaders,
of advisory groups, the use of gender sensitive language and the awareness of
producing gender sensitive content. We are aware of the current imbalance in
the WPL and less so in the advisory board and will consider gender speci.cally
in any new allocations.

In line with the Toolkit on Gender in EU-funded research (European Commission,
2009) Make-IT will strive at doing gender-sensitive research. Particularly in
the following project steps gender as a research factor has to be addressed
and taken into account:

  1. Research ideas and hypotheses: The main research questions have been formulated in the proposal. However, we will analyse and assess the relevance of gender in our research when specifying the research questions. 

  

  2. Project design and research methodology: As the toolkit suggests, in the very moment research concerns humans, research has to differentiate between the two genders and analyse the gender speci.c situation. In our research we will aim at representative data in the sense that both perspectives will be described. 

  

  3. Research implementation: Data-collection tools such as questionnaire, interview guidelines, etc. need to be gender sensitive and use gender-neutral language and have to allow for differentiation between gender perspectives. In the data analysis we will particularly pay attention whether there are differences between males and females, for instance, in the usage of FabLabs, in terms of artefacts that are produced, in terms of learning, etc. 

  

  4. Dissemination phase – reporting of data: We will use gender-neutral language in our publications. Furthermore, we will sensitively decide which visual materials to use. Also we will aim at publishing gender speci.c results. 

  

  

**5.1.1.5.**

**Science Education**

Science education under the RRI umbrella is meant to meet several objectives
(European Commission, 2015; Föger et al., 2016):

  1. To empower the society to critically reflect and to improve on their skills to be able to challenge research, thus to make them “science-literate” (in this sense, there is a great overlap with the key dimension of public engagement) 

  

  2. To enhance future researchers and other societal actors to become good RRI actors 

  

  3. To make science attractive to children and teenagers with the purpose to promote science careers, especially in STEM 

  

  4. To close the gap between science and education. There is still a signi.cant distance between the two areas. 

  

  

Thereby, science education does not build on one-way communication channels
but on channels that allow and enhance “the society” to talk back. According
to the RRI-Tools project, RRI should be integrated in all levels of education,
from primary to university level, and in different segments of education, i.e.
formal, lifelong learning and informal learning activities. Inspirational
activities that make pupils reflect upon “good” research, its negative and
positive outcomes, about ethics and ethical dilemmas, gender inequalities,
etc. can have an empowering function. Other tools comprise courses in open
democracy, in co-design or co-research or “living labs” that enable
participants to shape the development of certain technologies or services.

In **MAKE-IT** we will particularly pay attention to activities that address
children and teenagers. Most FabLabs in our 10 case studies regularly offer
educational activities to young people and schools and the Maker movement has
started to get attention from schools and educational authorities.

**5.1.1.6.**

**Public Engagement**

From the so-called “de.cit” model with the willingness to educate and to
inform about science through one-waycommunication channels in the past two
decades, the emphasis now is laid on public engagement, which means more
elaborate and active involvement of citizens.

According to the International Association for Public Participation (Pearce,
2010) participation ranges from informing to active co-decision:

  1. informing „…we will keep you informed…“) 

  

  2. consulting „… we will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision…“ 

  

  3. involving „… we will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decisions…” 

  

  4. collaborating „…we will look to you for your advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible…“ and 5) empowering „…we will implement what you decide…“). 

  

  

There is a vast range of tools and methods with different levels of
participation available, e.g. public consultations, public deliberations for
decision making, public participation in R&I processes.

The goal by opening up research and innovation processes to the public is to
better meet the values, needs and expectations of society and thus to improve
R&I and to .nd solutions to the so called grand challenges that society is
facing (Cagnin, Amanatidou, & Keenan, 2012).

According to Föger et. al (2016), participation is not free of charge and
cannot just simply be “ordered” and thus activities have to be calculated in
the budget allocation.

Thus, this key dimension of RRI is dif.cult to realise in **MAKE-IT** but
activities will be set to involve children and teenagers.

**5.2.**

**RRI in MAKE-IT**

The notion of Responsible Research and Innovation does not offer a checklist
or one universal guideline how to do RRI. It is also not in the spirit of RRI
to have such set measures, as RRI is rather perceived as a process that
requires continuous questioning and reflection. Thus, mechanisms have to be
installed and embedded in the project to stimulate reflection of the
consortium and to keep these alive throughout the lifetime of the project.

We would like to point out that not all key dimensions are equally relevant
for MAKE-IT. Except some projects that deal speci.cally with RRI, there are no
projects as of our knowledge that have installed RRI as a whole as a
crosscutting principle. Most projects address one or two key dimensions of
RRI.

In MAKE-IT RRI principles will be implemented as far as possible and relevant,
whereby the responsibility for implementation and the monitoring will be
shared among all consortium members. WP leaders shall particularly pay
attention that RRI principles are reflected in their work package where
relevant.

To .nd out which key dimensions are particularly relevant for MAKE-IT we
conducted a workshop with all consortium members at the Kick-Off Meeting.

**5.2.1.**

**Results of The Hague workshop**

In the framework of the Kick-Off meeting in The Hague in January 2016, we
carried out a small workshop with all the Consortium partners to get a few
ideas on what RRI means in this project and which RRI key dimension might be
of particular relevance in this project. The workshop was meant to make the
project partners familiar with the concept of RRI and to stimulate reflection
and discussion on RRI themes.

After a short introduction to the concept of RRI and its key dimensions, the
partners were asked to note down on cards important aspects for MAKE-IT
related to any of the RRI dimensions and to cluster them accordingly.

Figure 7: Exercise on RRI dimensions

Under **Science education** , the partners mentioned two aspects: work in WP 2
in the conceptualisation and development of the methodological framework as
well as security issues in WP 5 relating to the use of machines.

When thinking about **Open Access** , the partners found the need for
documentation, open services and open data on fablab.io. In WP 5, the IPR of
fabricated parts could be an issue. Furthermore, the choice of journals where
the consortium publishes is an important aspect of open access (open access
versus closed access journals).

In respect to **Governance** , a public policy in WP 2 was found useful as
well as privacy and data protection guidelines. Further, a potential impact on
employability and employment was mentioned by the partners. In WP 5, the
partners found that in the technology and use scenarios, designers and makers
shared responsibility.

The **Ethics** key dimension of RRI seems to be the hottest topic in MAKE-IT
as it received the largest number of comments: There are security issues in
WP5 when people are exposed to fumes, for instance, when operating the
machines. Children as participants in Fablabs might be particularly affected
by any of these potentially harmful practices. As consortium partners we will
have to make sure to involve people in any of the research activities only
after brie.ng them and after their given consent. Partners posed the question
how to deal with liberty of expression when making use of digital fabrication:
the technology can be used for the good and the bad. On the one side, it
allows for convenient prosthetics, on the other hand, a gun can easily be
built. This is particularly relevant in WP 5. In action research (WP 4),
transparency and ethics are regarded as crucial to build on trust and
engagement. Giving access to all people irrespective of socio-economic class,
ethnic group or disability was another mentioned aspect (particularly relevant
in WP7 outreach activities). Social inclusion as value to reach marginalised
groups is found very important.

Regarding **Public Engagement** there was just one question noted down:
Whether WP 4 technology innovation constitutes a social innovation example.

The key dimension **Gender** shall be taken into account when deciding upon
how to approach and address stakeholders. In regard to gender the question is
whether to aim for proportionality or equality or both.

The results of the workshop served as a good starting point in the RRI
considerations in MAKE-IT. The exercise was particularly useful to sensitise
the project partners. Furthermore, it became clear that some key dimensions
are more important or relevant for MAKE-IT than others. The three core topics
that evolved were: Gender, ethics and open access.

In the following we will therefore concentrate on these key dimensions which
will be dealt with in more detail. However, also the remaining three shall
remain in our mind-sets as we would like to continuously stimulate reflection
and discussion on RRI.

**5.3.**

**RRI management plan**

In order to stimulate reflection and deliberation on Responsible Research and
Innovation and to keep these alive we have foreseen several instruments:

  * Regular surveys: RRI speci.c questions will be added to the regular management survey that is distributed a few days before each partner meetings. Questions to be included will look at how different key dimensions have been addressed in the past 6 months and what could be done to better address the respective key dimensions of RRI or showcase lessons learned. 

  

  * RRI Self-Reflection-Tool: The RRI-Tools project has developed the so called “RRI Self-Reflection-Tool”. It is an online tool for different stakeholder groups and for people with any level of knowledge on RRI. The tool is meant to comprise food for thought to stimulate reflection on RRI key dimensions and process requirements. Participants can choose which questions they would like to reflect upon (since not all of them will be relevant) and receive suggestions at the end how to further improve in terms of RRI. Further resources such as best practice examples, tools or literature will be recommended. In MAKE-IT we will invite the project partners to regularly make use of the Self-Reflection –Tool. 

  

  * RRI reflections at Consortium Meetings: At every consortium meeting we would like to propose a short reflection on RRI issues and to discuss RRI topics based on the results of the Self-reflection-Tool and the experiences made by the consortium. 

  

**5.4.**

**RRI instruments and tools**

Our main instruments for implementing RRI are described in detail in the
following sessions. The main tools are the:

  * ethical guidelines, including forms for informed consent and con.dentiality agreement 

  

  * open data management plan 

  

  * RRI self-assessment tool and survey 

  

**6.**

**Ethical guidelines**

Ethics is an integral part of responsible research, from the conceptual phase
to the publication of research results. The consortium of MAKE-IT is clearly
committed to show appreciation of potential ethical issues that may arise
during the course of the project and has as such de.ned a set of procedures on
how to deal with ethics in a responsible way.

The main aspects the project is dealing with in regards to ethics are the
protection of identity, privacy, obtaining informed consent and communicating
bene.ts and risks to the involved target groups.

The studies performed in MAKE-IT may include data collection from individuals
and organisations remotely as well as on site. In order to achieve the goals
de.ned within the research tasks of the work programme the consortium may
collect personal data from study participants. Such data may include basic
demographic data, responses to questionnaires or interaction data with
technologies.

**6.1.**

**Data protection and privacy**

During any data collection process data protection issues involved with
handling of personal data will be addressed by the following strategies:

Volunteers to be enrolled will be exhaustively informed, so that they are able
to autonomously decide whether they give their consent to participate or not.
The purposes of the research, the procedures as well as the handling of their
data (protection, storage) will be explained. For online interviews these
explanations will be part of the initial brie.ng of interviewees, for face-to-
face interventions informed consent (see below) shall be agreed and signed by
both, the study participants as well as the respective research partner.

The data exploitation will be in line with the respective national data
protection acts. Since data privacy is under threat when data are traced back
to individuals – they may become identi.able and the data may be abused – we
will anonymise all data.

The data gathered through questionnaires, interviews, observational studies at
the workplace, focus groups, workshops and other possible data gathering
methods during this research will be anonymised and therefore the data cannot
be traced back to the individual. Data will be stored only in anonymous forms
so the identities of the participants will only be known by the research
partners involved. Raw data like interview protocols and audio .les will be
shared within the consortium partners only after the con.dentially agreement
(See Annex II) has been signed. Reports based on interviews, focus group and
other data gathering methods will be based on aggregated information and
comprise anonymous quotations respectively.

The collected data will be stored on password-protected servers at the partner
institution responsible for data collection and analysis. The data will be
used only within the project and will not be made accessible for any third
party. It will not be stored after the end of the project (incl. the time for
.nal publications) unless required by speci.c national legislation.

The stored data do not contain the names or addresses of participants and will
be edited for full anonymity before being processed (e.g. in project reports).

**6.2.**

**Communication strategy**

Study participants will be made aware of the potential bene.ts and identi.ed
risks of participating in the project at all times.

The main means of communicating bene.ts and risks to the individual is the
informed consent. Prior to consent, each individual participant in any of the
studies in MAKE-IT will be clearly informed of its goals, its possible adverse
events, and the possibility to refuse to enter or to retract at any time with
no consequences. This will be done through a project information sheet or the
informed consent form and it will be reinforced verbally.

In order to make sure that participants are able to recall what they agree
upon when signing, the informed consent forms will be provided in the native
language of the participants. In addition, the consortium partners will make
sure that the informed consent forms are written in a language suitable for
the target group(s).

**6.3.**

**Informed consent**

As stated above informed consent will be collected from all participants
involved in MAKE-IT studies. An English version of the declaration of consent
form is provided in the Annex I of this document.

**6.4.**

**Relevant regulations and scientiCc standards**

The consortium follows European regulations and scienti.c standards to perform
ethical research. The following lists some of the basic regulations and
guidelines.

The MAKE-IT project will fully respect the citizens’ rights as reported by EGE
and as proclaimed in the Charter of

Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01), having as its main
goal to enhance and to foster the participation of European citizens to
education, regardless of cultural, linguistic or social backgrounds. Regarding
the personal data collected during the research the project will make every
effort to heed the rules for the protection of personal data as described in
Directive 95/46/EC  10  .

In addition, the consortium follows the following European Regulations and
Guidelines:

  1. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: 

  

  

_http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm_

  2. The European Convention on Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf 

  

  3. Horizon 2020 ethics self-assessment _http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h2020msca-itn-2015/1620147-h2020_-_guidance_ethics_self_assess_en.pdf_

  

  4. The EU Code of Ethics: _http://www.respectproject.org/ethics/412ethics.pdf_

  

  5. The European Textbook on Ethics in Research https://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/textbook-on-ethics-report_en.pdf 

  

  6. European data protection legislation: _http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm_ 7) The RESPECT Code of Practice for Socio-Economic Research: 

  

  

_http://www.respectproject.org/code/index.php?id=de_

8) The Code of Ethics of the International Sociological Association (ISA):
_http://www.isasociology.org/about/isa_code_of_ethics.htm_

**6.4.1.**

**National and Local Regulations and Standards**

In addition to the more general and EU-wide guidelines, project partners have
to adhere to, and respect, national regulations and laws as well as to
research-related organisational ethical approval as requested by the own
institutions. All partners are aware of their responsibilities in that respect
and will follow the respective guidelines.

#  7\. Open access and open research data

The project .rmly believes in openness to be a major factor for innovation.
There are many examples of how open innovation and open source are successful
models, especially in domains where many different stakeholders are required
to bring about effective change. Openness has many facets. The most important
ones for the MAKE-IT consortium are, following Carlos Moedas’s (European
Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation) strategy of the 3 Os, Open
Science, Open Innovation and Open Data  11  :

  1. **Open project collaboration** . All partners are committed to developing (working for) relationships with external partners for mutual bene.t. Making contacts with similar projects and establishing collaboration is considered bene.cial for all. Open collaboration in MAKE-IT is understood in a trans-disciplinary way, opening research processes to the wider public and allowing new form of collaboration as intended in the action research stream of the project. 

  

  2. **Open source technology** . From a technology perspective, the project builds upon open source technologies, such as the CAPs for Makers (especially fablabs.io) and wants to share its results with the community. Business models and exploitation strategies are not based on locking down access to project results, but on providing added value through services. 

  

  3. **Open access to scienti1c results** . From a scienti.c perspective, the consortium clearly favours open access to its scienti.c output, which is supported by several project members’ internal policies of supporting open access in general. 

  

  4. **Open access to research data** . MAKE-IT is part of a pilot action on open access to research data and is thus committed to providing access not only to project results and processes, but also to data collected during that process. The general policy of the MAKE-IT project is to apply “open by default” to its research data, with exceptions being made based on privacy, competitiveness and the relationship between researchers and cases; ethical rules on anonymity as described above (chapter 6) are thus highly relevant and need to be agreed with each of the case participants. 

  

  

MAKE-IT is part of the H2020 pilot action on open access to research data and
has started to develop a .rst data management plan. The open access strategy
will be detailed in the following sections.  
  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

_https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-
oa-pilot-_

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

_guide_en.pdf_

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr> </table>

**7.1.**

**Open access strategy for publications**

In line with the EC policy initiative on open access  12  , which refers to
the practice of granting free online access to research articles, the project
is committed to follow a publication strategy considering a mix of both 'Green
open access' (immediate or delayed open access that is provided through self-
archiving) and 'Gold open access' (immediate open access that is provided by a
publisher) as far as possible.

All deliverables (reports, software, data, media, other) labelled as “public”
will be made accessible via the MAKE-IT website (make-it.io). The publications
stemming from the project work will also be made available on the website as
far as it does not infringe the publishers rights as well as on the OpenAIRE
platform _https://www.openaire.eu/_ .

All outcomes of the project labelled as “public” will be distributed under
speci.c free/open license, where the authors retain the authors’ rights but
the users can redistribute the content freely. The following are a few
relevant sources for deciding on the speci.c license for each outcome:

•

Data:

•

A de.nition of Open Data:

_http://opende.nition.org/_

•

Licenses:

_http://opende.n_

_ition.org/licenses/_

•

Software:

•

Free Software

•

The de.nition:

_http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html_

•

Licenses:

_http:/_

_/www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html_

•

Open Source Software:

•

The de.nition:

_https://opensource.org/osd-annotated_

•

Licenses:

_https_

_:_

_//opensource.org/licenses_

•

Reports, publications, media:

•

Creative Commons

•

Explanation:

_https://creativecommons.org/about/_

•

Licenses:

_htt_

_ps://creativecommons.org/licenses/_

•

Choose a license:

_https://creativecommons.org/_

_choose/_

**7.2.**

**Data management plan (DMP)**

This is a .rst version of the DMP for MAKE-IT, which provides an analysis of
the main aspects to be followed by the project’s data management policy. The
DMP evolves in the course of the project and will be updated accordingly as
research data is collected. The data management plan will be facilitated by
the DMP online tool  14  . Consortium partner can either register and .ll in
the information requested directly in the tool in several iterations
throughout the duration of the project or contribute to the template that will
be developed based on the tool.

At the time of writing it is expected that the project will produce the
following data:

  1. WP2: aggregated datasets for trend analysis 

  

  2. WP3: case study data from interviews, workshops, questionnaires, etc. 

  

  3. WP4: case study data from surveys, platform data (e.g. from fablabs.io or happy lab platform), social media data and observational analysis. 

  

  4. WP5: platform usage data from Maker CAPs, such as fablabs.io 

  

  5. WP6: analysis of existing data, collected through the other research work packages 

  

  6. WP7: data from other CAPs regarding Dissemination, Exploitation, Communication of the MAKE-IT project 

  

  

This initial list includes primary (empirical) and secondary (desk-top,
aggregated) data. For the currently identi.able primary research data sets,
that the project will produce, we follow the requested template description as
de.ned by

the European Commission  15  (Table 7):

**Data set Data set description referenc**

**e & name **

DOI_1 Aggregated Twitter

MAKE- feeds collected for IT_Twitte the trends analysis rAggrega of WP2; this
will be te_X included in the

Deliverable D2.1 as well as in an academic

publication;

The data will only show links (Twitter IDs), which will allow authors to

delete their tweets anytime

14\. _https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/_

**Standards & metadata Data sharing Archiving & **

**preservation**

Twitter's Developer Twitter's Developer Agreement The aggregated data

Agreement & Policy: & Policy: (links to Twitter IDs)

_https://dev.twitter.co https://dev.twitter.com/overvie_ supporting the

_m/overview/terms/agr w/terms/agreement-and-policy_ publication will be
_eement-and-policy_ made available on Most Tweets are public, but the project
website researchers are not allowed to for the duration of at

republish any information that least 5 years after

links back to the user or his/her project end.

location. Thus following this policy and internal ethical

guidelines only aggregated data will be made available; user and location will
be omitted.

Authors need to keep control of their tweets, e.g. if they delete a tweet or
go private they express their wish not to be analysed but if they are part of
an archive,

15\.
_https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-
oa-data-mgt_en.pdf_

this wish isn’t respected

_https://twittercommunity.com/t_

_/twitter-and-open-data-in-_

_academia/51934/4_

DOI_2

MAKE-

IT_Surve

y_X

Survey data being

collected at the

diOerent cases

(

possibly in WP

3

and WP4); the data

will be anonymised

and will refer to

aspects covered in

the three core

pillars of the

project:

collaboration,

governance, value

creation

As indexed on the

sharing platform e.g.

Zenodo, it will have

publication data, DOI,

keywords, collections,

license, uploaded by

the Consortium.

Shared on Zenodo, open digital

repository; license will be most

probably:

Creative Commons Attribution

Share-Alike

Zenodo is developed

by

_CERN_

under the

EU FP7 project

_OpenAIREplus_

(

grant agreement

no. 283595); the

service is free for

the moment;

Zenodo is working

on a sustainability

plan to deliver an

open service in the

future; if this is not

the case MAKE-IT

will provide the data

accessible via its

website for the

duration of at least 5

years after project

end.

DOI_3

MAKE-

IT_Interv

iew_X

Interviews

conducted with

individuals being

associated to any of

the cases to be

studied (WP3 and

WP4) needs to be

stored

anonymously;

The data may be in

the following

format (depending

on the interviews

and the speci2c

cases):

1\.

audio 2les

2\.

transcripts

3\.

aggregated

2

les

4\.

interview

As indexed on the

sharing platform e.g.

Zenodo, it will have

publication data, DOI,

keywords, collections,

license, uploaded by

the Consortium.

Shared on Zenodo, open digital

repository; license will be most

probably:

Creative Commons Attribution

Share-Alike

Is possible MAKE-IT

will make use of

Zenodo (see above).

guidelines

DOI_4 Usage of machines

MAKE- in the labs/maker

IT_Machi spaces (if available); neUsage this data can

_X include information about check-in,

check-out, usage time, material,

gender; it will be part of the case

studies (WP3 and

WP4); depending on agreements from the lab (and possibly their users) As
indexed on the sharing platform e.g. Zenodo, it will have publication data,
DOI, keywords, collections, license, uploaded by the Consortium.

Only in clear agreement with the organsations providing the data;

Shared on Zenodo, open digital repository; license will be most probably:

Creative Commons Attribution

Share-Alike

Is possible MAKE-IT will make use of

Zenodo (see above).

DOI_5 Platform usage data

MAKE- from fablab.io IT_Platfo (anonymous data); rmUsage the data includes:

_X Communication pattern, usage

patterns, uploads, downloads, etc.

As indexed on the sharing platform e.g. Zenodo, it will have publication data,
DOI, keywords, collections, license, uploaded by the Consortium.

Shared on Zenodo, open digital repository; license will be most probably:

Creative Commons Attribution

Share-Alike

Is possible MAKE-IT will make use of

Zenodo (see above).

Table 7: Currently identi7able primary research data sets

To summarise, the main open access points for MAKE-IT data, publications, and
innovation are:

  * The project website: _www.make-it.io_

  

  * Zenodo: _http://www.zenodo.org/_

  

  * OpenAIRE _https://www.openaire.eu/_ for depositing publications and research data 

  

##  7.3.Open access and open data handling process

The internal procedures to grant open access to any publication, research data
or other innovation stemming from the MAKE_IT project (e.g. technology) follow
a lightweight structure, while respecting ethical issues at all time.

The main workflow starts at the WP level, where each team is responsible for
respecting ethical procedures at all times during the data gathering and
processing steps. The WP team members are also responsible for making any data
anonymous, if applicable. For any publication the WPLB needs to be informed;
agreement has to be reached within the WP for making any outcome openly
available; the .nal approval is done by the PMB (see Figure 8):

Figure 8: Open Access work 9ow

Finally, it should be stressed that due to the nature of the Project, the Data
Management Plan has to be revised during the course of project activities,
especially those related to action research. Due to the open nature of this
type of research it is not possible to clearly specify all data sources and
collected outcomes from the beginning.

**8.**

**Conclusions**

This handbook describes the main procedures of the MAKE-IT project to operate
successfully and effectively in order to achieve high quality project results
following a responsible research and innovation (RRI) approach. Open access,
ethics, and engagement of all societal actors are amongst the key elements of
the European RRI framework (European Union, 2012). MAKE-IT is clearly
committed to respond to societal challenges in a responsible way by the
research topic itself as well as by the way the research is conducted.

While this handbook is provided in the form of a report and deliverable it is
a living document in the sense of being updated and challenged by the
consortium in the course of the project. The processes described in here are
implemented in the daily work of the consortium and most of the elements (e.g.
the forms for informed consent, data management plan, etc.) are separately
available on the collaboration infrastructure such as Sharepoint.

The management reports will include updates on any crucial changes in the
handbook as well as on the results of speci.c measures such as the SWOT
analysis or any additional elements added to the project structure related to
high quality responsible research.