In need of inspiration and insights from other multi-actor (MA) projects to improve the design and management of your project? Look no further! The EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu) has brought together good practices from over 100 Horizon 2020 MA projects in a ‘Compendium of Good Practice’. This easy-to-read document is written for use by the future coordinators and consortium members of MA projects with an eye on the specific objective of maximising user engagement and impact. It complements the ‘Thematic Network Explorers’ guide developed in the EURAKNOS project.



The EUREKA Compendium presents good practices of specific relevance to the project management cycle of Horizon-funded MA projects from the very beginning of project development to the very end of creating a project legacy. This is not intended to be a comprehensive project management guide, but a compilation of good practices to help you develop and manage your own MA project.



In the first section, there is an explanation of and introduction to the specific characteristics of the MA approach. Practical guidance is provided on commonly encountered issues such as how to choose consortium partners with complementary types of knowledge and skills. Various insights are provided from other MA projects on effective coordination and how to work well together.



There are ‘tips and tricks’ for improving engagement with users through social media in the section on communication and dissemination. Finally, good practice to increase impact through your project website and to make your project results available through the EU FarmBook (https://eufarmbook.eu/) is shared.



Check the EUREKA website for further details. There are loads of good practices to explore, enjoy!

The results of Multi-Actor Projects can become available by using a range of digital material types. Yet, making decisions about the material type to use is not an easy task. There needs to be a careful consideration of the dissemination purpose and target audience. The text has always been the primary means of delivering information. In addition, there are other popular and widely adopted formats to consider: image, video, audio. Whatever the medium of delivery is, it is always important to use the “appropriate” file format for making it available. Such decisions need to be made by taking into account the software application required to access the content. File formats that require the use of complex, proprietary software should not be considered as potential solutions. There always needs to be a balance between ease-of-use and consideration of open file formats, as well as what the most broadly used software applications are (e.g., applications for text editing). Based on this, in the EUREKA project (https://h2020eureka.eu/) we developed and proposed a list of recommended file formats for different types of dissemination material. In the case of text documents, the proposed file formats are “.rtf”, “.txt”, and “.xml”. This list is available in the “User manual for adding digital ‘knowledge objects’ to the online platform”, which can be accessed from our website https://h2020eureka.eu/press. Considering and following the file format recommendations made in this manual can contribute to an alignment and consensus among projects regarding the file formats to adapt and use for conveying information via different dissemination material types and media, among others through the EU FarmBook knowledge reservoir (https://www.eufarmbook.eu/)

Indexing the digital communication and dissemination material, created by a Multi-Actor Project (MAP), by using an appropriate subject category is not a trivial task. It has an impact on the findability of the digital material the audience is interested in accessing. Often communication and dissemination material of MAPs cover multiple subjects. The issue of using the appropriate subject categories to tag the content of digital material becomes an even harder task when there are multiple digital repositories concerned with the collection and further dissemination of the digital material by various projects. In many cases, ad-hoc solutions are adopted as subject categorisations, which results in a complex and fuzzy landscape.



This is one of the major challenges faced by the EUREKA project. Considering there is no one-size-fits-all solution, EUREKA has worked on a subject model (describing the content of the digital material of MAPs) based on existing standards. The model has been developed by bringing together the subject categories proposed by EIP-AGRI and agricultural concepts defined in the AGROVOC vocabulary. Thus, it has become feasible to combine a broadly acknowledged and widely used taxonomy of agricultural topics with a digital vocabulary already considered a standard in the agricultural community. Using the EUREKA subject model enables a uniform way of describing agricultural subjects within and across the various MAPs and thus the desired “interoperability” among projects.



For more information go to the “User manual for adding digital ‘knowledge objects’ to the online platform”, https://h2020eureka.eu/press, or experience its application in real life by going to the EU FarmBook https://www.eufarmbook.eu/

In recent years, there has been a big movement towards multi-actor projects and “Open Science”, including in the EU’s Horizon research and innovation programme. The multi-actor approach encourages the co-creation of knowledge and innovation by connecting researchers and practitioners (e.g., farmers, foresters, and their advisors) in projects to address important societal challenges.



The FAIR data principles are one practical aspect of this movement and aim to ensure that the scientific community is committed to facilitating knowledge exchange by making their research outputs Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR).



A key component of the FAIR data principles is the metadata which is attached to knowledge objects (documents, spreadsheets, slideshows/presentations, videos, podcasts, images, software applications, and datasets) to make them easy to find, reuse and manage – as well as to help understand their content and context.



Metadata is information about a knowledge object (“data about data”) and it is very useful for making best use of the knowledge object. For example, consider the simple case of a book. The title of the book, name of the author(s), publisher, publication date and cover notes are metadata which help to better understand what the book is about and what it can help with.



It is important that metadata is easily read by human and by machines (computers) to index knowledge objects globally, and help a wide range of stakeholders to find and access them. Metadata is therefore usually formally represented in a structured way and in many cases the format and required content for essential metadata is often guided by a specific community, sector/or data repository using a metadata standard.

Are you at the start, middle, or at the end of your research project and planning to develop knowledge objects for your project?



Here are a few tips to make your knowledge objects Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). They will enhance the impact of your work by making it easier for people to find, access and reuse your data in the future – it can also help you! Data which is not properly documented is much more difficult to interpret, communicate or share.



Tip # 1: Prepare a Data Management Plan (DMP) – this is a living document in which project partners specify what kinds of data they will create or use, and how they will process, store and archive them.



Tip # 2: Add human and machine-readable metadata - to make project data or knowledge objects FAIR they need necessary information called metadata to be associated with them. This can include the type of knowledge object, keywords, author, references to unique persistent identifiers (e.g. DOIs and URLs), user licensing, codes for awarded grants, etc.



Tip # 3: Share your knowledge objects on a trustworthy and FAIR data repository - choose a repository that i) assigns a persistent identifier to your knowledge object; ii) attaches metadata according to standard metadata schemas; iii) has a shared usage license, and; iv) provides access to the knowledge object or its metadata via an open and standard communication protocol. The pilot EU FarmBook (https://eufarmbook.eu) is one such platform that has been developed by the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) for making the results of EU-funded research and innovation projects in food, agriculture and forestry more widely accessible. Read more about the FAIR principles here: www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an EU-level open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir for making the results of EU-funded research and innovation projects, especially multi-actor projects (MAPs), in food, agriculture and forestry more widely accessible.



One of the challenges encountered was concerns about the quality of knowledge objects originating from the MAPs. A series of thematic working groups (TWGs) was therefore organised to validate the outputs of a representative sample of MAPs.



The first step was to identify relevant themes for the TWGs, and various approaches were considered based on experiences of the EIP-AGRI and FAO (UN Food and Agricultural Organization).



The next step was the recruitment of experts for each TWG. This was crucial for the success of the groups, and the EUREKA project used existing knowledge networks to identify experts and reach out to them. To ensure a balanced combination of expert types and categories in each TWG, the following factors were considered:



* Working field (Dairy, arable crops, forestry etc.)



* Profile (Researcher, advisor, policymaker etc.)



* Age



* Country



When contacting the experts, it was essential to make clear the precise objective of the TWGs and what was expected from their participation as experts. Direct contact with every expert and personalised letters and other communication was appreciated and enhanced their motivation to participate.



Because of the COVID–19 pandemic, the TWGs were organised using an online webinar format of 90-120 minutes. Agendas were sent well in advance to give the experts time to evaluate the knowledge objects and elaborate their opinions before the webinars.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an EU-level open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir for making the results of EU-funded research and innovation projects, especially multi-actor projects (MAPs), in food, agriculture and forestry more widely accessible.



In order to give confidence to users (e.g. researchers, advisors, farmers, foresters etc.) and to make a knowledge reservoir attractive for the distribution and storage of research outputs it is necessary to establish proper governance and apply some best practices.



Key principles of good governance are:



* Ensure that the creators of knowledge objects retain control over their outputs and that mechanisms are in place to ask permission where and if necessary;



* Organise explicit permissions from contributors to include their knowledge objects in the reservoir and to allow third parties access to them;



* Apply the FAIR Data Principles in the preparation of knowledge objects and to the technological design of the knowledge reservoir;



* Where relevant, make GDPR rules explicit and build them into IoT devices and platforms.



Creation and maintenance of a knowledge reservoir, such as the EU Farmbook, should therefore consider:



1. The basic infrastructure, including focus and anticipation of developments



2. How to populate and publish knowledge objects, incl quality control



3. National and regional adaption



4. Individual use and feedback



There are multiple sources of funding for the development of agricultural knowledge reservoirs that can provide a good foundation for both their long-term future and adaptability to changing circumstances.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an EU-level open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir. Many of the lessons learnt during the project will be of interest and relevance to the developers of other similar digital platforms at a national or sectoral level.



The main focus of EUREKA was the building and testing of an online pilot platform called the EU FarmBook (https://eufarmbook.eu/). An important element of the design process of such a platform is the creation of a Product Requirements Document (PRD).



A PRD aims to ensure that everyone involved in the design process (user experience designers, back-end developers, front-end developers and the client) is fully and effectively aligned with regard to the required functionalities, the data architecture, front-end architecture and back-end architecture by collecting and collating all of this information in a single document. Creating a PRD not only ensures this alignment within the current design process but also ensures that other parties can use the same processes to recreate (and/or adapt) the platform.



The required functionalities that should be included in a PRD for a knowledge reservoir encompass user scenarios, functional system requirements and non-functional system requirements related to the personas and user journeys developed through extensive user research.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an open-source knowledge reservoir (the EU FarmBook) for making the results of EU-funded research and innovation projects in food, agriculture and forestry more widely accessible (https://eufarmbook.eu/). Many of the lessons learnt during the project will be of interest to the developers of other similar digital platforms.



An important aspect of creating such an agricultural knowledge platform is gathering data from numerous sources and transforming it to become more FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). In order to achieve this goal, data should be stored together with metadata that attaches semantic meaning to the objects. The recommended way to achieve this is to make use of a Resource Description Framework.



To increase interoperability, widely used agricultural ontologies such as AGROVOC (https://www.fao.org/agrovoc/) should be used to attach common understanding to objects. Additionally, for non-domain specific information, common ontologies (e.g. www.schema.org) exist which allow the general properties of data and other knowledge objects to be conveyed.



Rather than developing custom solutions, storage of such data should involve existing digital repository solutions such as DSpace to greatly reduce the amount of manual development work.



In order to ingest the data into such a repository objects will need to be extracted from various locations, transformed into an understandable format and loaded into the system. Although most of such a workflow can be automated, some manual effort by experts should still be expected in order to map unfamiliar concepts and formats to an understandable format.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an EU-level open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir. Many of the lessons learnt during the project are of interest and relevance to the developers of other similar digital platforms at a national or sectoral level.



The main focus of EUREKA was the building and testing of an online pilot platform called the EU FarmBook (https://eufarmbook.eu/). A key element of the design process of such a platform is user-testing.



A user test is a semi-structured interview including questions about the concept and specific elements of the platform and tasks which the participant has to execute. By conducting user tests, 6-8 users can typically detect up to 80% of main usability issues related to the platform. It is also possible to conduct unmonitored user tests where the attention is mainly focused on whether users are able to execute specific tasks.



User tests generally allow user researchers to detect why a user performs a task in a particular way, and whether the platform can be optimized to improve its user-friendliness. Additionally, user tests can be conducted on an existing platform, a prototype, a proof-of-concept, a minimal viable product and the fully developed product. By conducting user tests at several stages of the project, it is possible to detect major issues early on in the project and remediate these during the subsequent stages of the project.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an EU-level open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir. Many of the lessons learnt during the project are of interest and relevance to the developers of other similar platforms at a national or sectoral level.



The main focus of EUREKA was the building and testing of an online pilot platform called the EU FarmBook (https://eufarmbook.eu/).



When entering the development stage of a platform such as the EU FarmBook, developers will have to take decisions that can significantly impact the end result. Therefore, it is crucial to retain a common understanding of the concept, design, and user needs of the platform. To achieve this, it is recommended to hold weekly development meetings where the development team can discuss issues they’ve encountered during the last week with representatives of the coordination team, user research team, User Experience (UX) team and communication team.



These meetings are essential for several reasons: a) to reinforce collaboration between the different teams; b) to prevent unnecessary delays during the development stage, and; c) to allow for better expectation management. Finally, these development meetings allow the coordination team to stay up-to-date and take appropriate actions when needed.

The aim of the EUREKA project (https://www.h2020eureka.eu/) was to test the feasibility of building an EU-level open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir. Many of the lessons learnt during the project are of interest and relevance to the developers of other similar platforms at a national or sectoral level.



The main focus of EUREKA was the building and testing of an online pilot platform called the EU FarmBook (https://eufarmbook.eu/).



When creating the platform, the ‘Double Diamond’ design process was used. The British Design Council first popularised this process with the two diamonds representing a process of exploring an issue more widely or deeply (divergent thinking) and then taking focused action (convergent thinking).



When applied in practice, this encompasses a research phase where the problem under consideration is explored through an elaborate discovery of the user needs and synthesised by defining which user needs are crucial to solving the problem. Subsequently, the project enters a design phase during which the information of the previous phase is used to define the scope within which ideas (e.g., platform features) can be generated and prioritised in the ideation stage before moving into the prototyping phase, where the most important ideas are made more concrete by developing a prototype of them. The prototype(s) can be submitted to a series of user tests allowing the prototype(s) to be refined after each iteration.

Actors and stakeholders within the EIP-AGRI ‘landscape’ are searching for easily accessible and user-friendly knowledge. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) studied this landscape and found that users looking for information on arable crops can find reports and multimedia created by H2020 Multi-Actor Projects (MAPs), EIP-AGRI Operational Groups (OGs) and EIP-AGRI Focus Groups (FGs). Regarding products, 50% of the MAPs and 40% of OGs focus mainly on vegetables, while all the FGs dealing with arable crops provide quality information on industrial crops.



The EIP-AGRI covers a range of activities that are associated with different types of farming systems and agricultural practices, including:



* MAPs: Commercialisation, management activities (knowledge produced on logistics, rationalization and pest management), processing, breeding, services and education



* OGs: Waste management



* FGs: Socioeconomic organisation and processing



If looking for information addressing production, knowledge transfer has been chiefly associated with conventional and organic farming.



Topics covered by all the different EIP-AGRI projects related to arable crops include productivity, pest control and natural resources (linked to biodiversity). However, some topics were addressed mainly by one or two types of projects:



* MAPs and OGs: Sustainability and efficiency



* MAPs: Quality and resilience, food processing, farm inputs, and cultural methods. Regarding pests and diseases, MAP cover invasive species



* OGs: Quality, climate change and environmental impact, propagation materials, farm inputs, and fertilisers. Pests & diseases, including weeds



* FGs: Soil properties and pests and diseases, including weeds.

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) studied over 100 multi-actor projects (MAPs) funded under the EU Horizon 2020 programme. This included analysing the main knowledge categories of projects in the livestock and permanent grassland sector based on the domain ontology of AGROVOC (https://www.fao.org/agrovoc/).



Some categories in this sector are broadly covered by both H2020 multi-actor projects (MAPs) and EIP-AGRI Focus Groups (FGs):



* Milk and meat, pork/cattle, goats and poultry are widely tackled for the Products category.



* For the Activities category, farming systems and practices and production associated with milk and meat were the two knowledge fields most covered.



* Within Topics, only sustainability and productivity was extensively addressed.



Other categories, however, are addressed mainly by either MAPs or FGs, and therefore lack this powerful MAP-FG complementarity:



* Sheep within Products category, being only covered by MAPs (and not by FGs).



* For the Activities category, water and integrated management, animal feeding, data analysis, and ecosystem and information services delivery were tackled by MAPs. On the other hand, FGs dealt with knowledge and innovation linked to grassland management and grazing systems.



* Within Topics, quality and resilience and efficiency were covered by MAPs while profitability & pollution were addressed by FG.



* Only MAPs covered the Resources and methods category, which includes innovation, farm inputs and natural resources, and the same was the case for Pest and diseases.



Consequently, these gaps and imbalances in the knowledge areas identified above should be addressed to promote wider implementation of the whole spectrum of EIP-AGRI activities.

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) analysed the geographical scope of - and interconnections between - over 100 multi-actor projects (MAPs) funded under the EU Horizon 2020 programme. It was found that partners in these projects form extensive network connections through their participation in the projects – around 70,000 bilateral connections amongst partners in over 100 projects.



Partners from larger countries tend to have larger networks notably those from France and Italy (for Research and Innovation Actions), the UK (Coordination and Support Actions), and Spain (Innovation Actions). Some smaller countries such as The Netherlands or Belgium also have partners with long experience of EU-funded research (e.g. universities and research institutes) and these inevitably also have extensive networks.



Such networks are of obvious benefit to individual partners, but overall they could be better balanced in order to enhance the accessibility and exchange of experience and knowledge, and thereby increase the dissemination and uptake of innovation.



There are several countries which need support to better connect with research and innovation at EU level. Some of the newer Member States especially are “lagging behind” in their participation in Horizon multi-actor projects.



The number of network connections developed via EIP-AGRI Focus Groups (FGs) financed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was significantly lower when compared to MAPs, only reaching about 16,000. However, in contrast to the uneven networking within MAPs, the participation of the different EU countries in the FGs is significantly more homogeneous. This is likely because the participants are selected to ensure even geographic participation.

Puzzled by the EIP-AGRI? Read on for a quick introduction.



Europe has become a world leader in agriculture and forestry research thanks to the EU Research and Innovation programme - formerly known as Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) and now Horizon Europe (2021-2027). However, the degree to which project results are implemented continues to be very low. There are several likely reasons for this, including the general lack of involvement of practitioners in developing and implementing research and innovation projects.



In order to address this issue, the EC developed the European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP-AGRI). This aims to involve different types of actors in identifying relevant challenges/opportunities and co-creating innovative solutions to them – the so-called multi-actor project approach.



The EIP-AGRI is a unique initiative since it brings together and connects two different ‘streams’ of project funding.



There are three different types of multi-actor projects financed under the EU Horizon research and innovation programme: Research & Innovation Actions (RIAs); Innovation Actions (IAs) and Coordination & Support Actions (CSA), including so-called Thematic Networks (TNs). These are all relatively large projects involving multiple partners from many different countries. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) studied over 100 of these projects.



Plus, there is one specific type of multi-actor project financed under the rural development component of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These projects are much smaller, more localised and are called Operational Groups (OGs). They focus on co-creation and the so-called process of interactive innovation.

As the world becomes more connected, it becomes ever more important to make critical knowledge and information available in multiple languages. Fortunately, advances in automatic translation now make this much more feasible.



In the EUREKA project, we combined auto-translation with selected manual translation to make both our website (https://h2020eureka.eu/) and the pilot version of the EU FarmBook knowledge reservoir (https://www.eufarmbook.eu/) available in 14 languages! How?



First, we chose a website content management system (CMS) that made it possible to implement a multilingual setup. Some systems even provide the option for plugins that make use of automatic translation services like DeepL and Google. Setting up these systems requires some technical knowledge but using them should be straightforward for most users. When working with several languages and in collaboration with others it is important to store the relation between different originals/translations – the history – in a logical way. Using the standard ISO language codes (e.g. French = FR) is very handy for this purpose and is a big plus for interoperability between websites/platforms. EUREKA chose DeepL for auto-translation (https://www.deepl.com/en/whydeepl).



Second, for manual translation EUREKA used an online platform called POEditor designed for managing collaborative or crowdsourced translation projects (https://poeditor.com/). It allows you to add text from many sources and to “Add Contributors” from your team with or without “Proofreading” rights. For useful further reading: https://www.acclaro.com/blog/how-to-choose-cms-for-multilingual-website and https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ISO_639-1.



Happy translating!

The power and impact of using good quality images in communication are indisputable and

increasingly understood by experts working in the multi-actor project community. Nevertheless,

in the agriculture and forestry sectors, there is still little interest or ability to find and use archived

images for enhancing the communication of research and innovation projects. This can

significantly reduce the effectiveness of otherwise good communication messages – or even

worse, actually discourage target audiences from engaging with the message.

The planning of an effective communication plan for a multi-actor project can be enhanced

greatly by having access to a good stock of images for reinforcing the key messages to be

conveyed.

There are several 'free' archives on the web that allow you to use different types of images

(photos, vectors, drawings etc.) simply by reporting the source and the author or by signing up

for a subscription (usually at a relatively low cost).

Some very good examples, leaving out Google search engine and its Images function, are Freepik

(https://www.freepik.com/) and Pixabay (https://pixabay.com/). More professional (and slightly

higher cost) content, on the other hand, can be acquired from platforms such as Adobe Stock

(https://stock.adobe.com/) and Shutterstock (https://www.shutterstock.com/).

The acquisition (free of charge or by subscription) of specific images should be adopted as a

strategic step taken during the writing of any communication plan for a multi-actor project.

Sharing of these images within the project consortium is then a further step towards facilitating

the project partners to improve their communication on the project and its activities

This abstract summarises practical experiences gained in the early development phase of the online knowledge reservoir platform, “EU Farmbook”.

Early end-user’s engagement and involvement are unavoidable for successful development and valuable results. As end-users have experiences with comparable solutions and hands-on knowledge of challenges to be solved, their inputs are important regarding future features of the platform. Moreover, their acceptance will encourage the end user’s adaptation later.

Therefore, user-centered design techniques are an essential part of agile development methodology to receive adequate information from end-users. The most often used engagement techniques in the need assessment phase are:

1. Surveys and interviews, focus groups;

2. Sketches’ and prototype validation by using user personas;

3. Joint stakeholder meetings, and design sessions.

User involvement is a multifaceted phenomenon with diverse success factors. The biggest risks are:

1. Starting end user’s involvement too late or/and in a not thoughtful manner;

2. Outreach to end-users is stalled without adequate intermediaries;

3. Overusing the common engagement techniques, leaving aside end user’s survey fatigue;

4. Communication with end-users and intermediaries is not enough clear, open, and/or regular;

5. Not enough profound analyses of the identified need to calibrate the future platform.

With careful planning, professional communication, and strong partnership these risks can be eliminated.

Open science refers to the free availability or open access to scientific research results to any stakeholder, whether amateur or professional, at no financial cost beyond the cost of using the internet. The open access policy has spread rapidly and has greatly influenced the scientific environment, especially publishing. The European Union has stipulated in its research programs that there is a contractual obligation for open access dissemination unless the results need to be protected for exploitation (e.g. by a patent). This makes science more accessible to society at large and can help to increase the potential for innovation. Open access to research results requires that the principles F.A.I.R. (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) are respected. This does not only refer to research articles, but covers the whole spectrum of research outputs. Reuse of primary data generated in the projects is of particular interest as it helps to avoid additional experimentation (e.g. on animals and thus adherence to the 3Rs principle), allows different and additional data analyses and the use of data in a wider context such as meta-analyses or Big Data analyses. Data paper provides a way to share and reuse the data. It is a searchable metadata document that describes a data set without further analysis or interpretation. There are several advantages to creating a data paper. The data can be used for other purposes and ideas, the data paper is citable, and it can also open the door for new research collaborations.

One hundred and twenty-nine multi-actor projects (including thematic networks) of the H2020 programme were analysed in terms of the involvement and role of different actors in the creation of data and knowledge. Actors from the research sector (universities and research institutes) were the prevalent actors, followed by the business sector actors (including multinationals and SMEs). The participation of other types of actors such as advisory services to farmers, education/training institutions (other than universities) or consumer organisations was low. In general, research actors were the initiators of projects and had the role of coordination and project management (> 90%). In projects of coordination and support action type, such as thematic networks, research actors were less often (≈60%) in the coordination role, although remaining important. Advisory services were better represented in thematic networks than in other types of multi-actor projects. In line with the rationale of the multi-actor approach, tasks were distributed according to the competences of the actors and the nature of the project. It was observed that research partners continue to be the main producers of research results, deliverables and publications, while other types of actors were rarely involved in research and data creation. They were mainly involved in activities related to validation and exploitation of results, innovation and demonstration and in project communication. In terms of geographical representation, the participation of the Eastern part of the EU is disproportionately low, especially given the need to increase the innovation potential of agriculture in this part of Europe.

The multi-actor approach represents the collaborative integration of resources to achieve a common goal and refers to the involvement of different types of actors in project development and implementation. It is a form of team building that is critical to creating and sustaining networks and knowledge communities. A multi-actor approach in research and innovation projects is about engaging end-users and practitioners to make the best use of complementary types of knowledge. End-users and practitioners are not just observers or research objects, but their entrepreneurial skills are used to develop (co-create) solutions. The concept includes "co-ownership" of the results, thus accelerating the practical application of knowledge. The analysis showed that all the H2020 multi-actor projects respected the basic principles (commonalities) of the multi-actor approach; the distribution of tasks corresponded to the competencies of each actor, and the “stakeholders” were "used" in the conception and execution phases, in the initial analysis of the problem(s), in different types of interactions such as debates, interviews, focus groups, workshops, round tables, surveys, in the co-creation of new knowledge and the use of the results, in the promotion of the project and the dissemination of its results. Not only did research partners create results in this way, but practitioners were also involved in co-creating results in field trials, testing and validating solutions, demonstrations, demo farms, living labs, study visits, and exchanges. Policymakers were involved as facilitators of learning about current situations and problems. Non-research partners were also mainly responsible for promoting and communicating the project.

Social media with its wide-scale reach and rapid information sharing, can play a defining role in project planning, execution, and implementation. Using social media in the right way, information is delivered to the right people at the right time. Mainly, the success depends on the project data content in social media accounts (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter). The project content in the social media should be short, interesting, understandable, multilingual, dynamic, visual, and attractive. The format of the information should be easily absorbed. So, it is recommended to use such formats as pictures, videos, diagrams, etc., newsletters, and must also be able to rank and download the project results on the website. It is important to note that, the video content is the best content type for dissemination-related purposes. Short nonprofessional videos could attract lots of people. In principle, interactive information is very attractive for end-users. Interactive information can be provided through an interactive demo farms map with filters, events calendars, etc. It’s very useful to use mixed tools. A closer relationship with end-users could be built by providing contact information after each information message, as people want to know who is behind all shared information. A short message must be with an interesting/attractive picture.

Social media is a powerful, daily used, and wide tool. All information/data can be accessed by the end-user 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It is therefore essential to properly design and use the data content of the project to achieve the project's objectives in an appropriate and efficient way.

Feedback collection tools are currently very important on the project website/platform as an effective way to obtain useful information on project activities, communicate with end-users, get their reactions to the information provided, improve the ongoing activities and etc. It makes no difference whether the feedback is positive or negative, both are very useful in highlighting the project’s weaknesses and strengths. Nowadays, the most popular feedback collection methods are:

• Digital means: Google forms/forums; emails; social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) statistic metrics – likes, engagement, shares rates; website statistic – visitor’s traffic, click per link/post, google analytics; webinars; farmers; external survey.

• Direct contact: workshops/work sessions, meetings, dissemination events with farmers and stakeholders (oral comments, emails after events).

It is highly recommended to collect opinions/feedback at different stages of the project, which can help to improve the platform/website in time for the target audience. In general, feedback can be collected from different users: internal (project team members) and external (focus groups – stakeholders, farmers). Their experience is a relevant and important element of the project. So if there is a need to achieve project goals in a directionally and timely manner, the feedback tools are necessary. There are many solutions available for collecting feedback from end-users. Choose the most suitable for you!

Project content management systems (PCMS) are used to manage, store and track project content from creation to publication. In practice, most projects use existing PSMS to monitor content performance, manage and access files, search for data and etc. Typically, a PCMS consists of the following main components:

1. Content delivery (design). The main menu entries contain links to all the data available in the portal. The structure of the project website menu is usually structured as follows: “Home”, “Project”, “Results”, “Stakeholders”, “News”, “Events”, “Media” “Contact”, and “Language” (if the portal is multilingual). The navigation of the portal must be user-friendly, so that it does not require a lot of technical training and so that the user can quickly find the desired information.

2. Content management (functionality). Typically, PCMS focus on data quality control, data protection, open-access, and easy search functionalities, frequent updating, social media interface, user authentication, collection of user feedback, subscription to news and newsletters, and chat function. To ensure the usability and continuity of the project data even after the end of the project, it is important to keep the data relevant to the end-user up-to-date, and of high quality. Data repositories are usually hosted by the project partners or by an administrator assigned to do so. Data must be uploaded regularly and as frequently as possible. Also, it is equally important to evaluate the search function. The advanced search function is a great help for end-users.

It can be stated that a well-designed PCMS helps to communicate with end-users and to implement and achieve project objectives.

How do we organise that Horizon projects and Operational Groups share knowledge better?

We answer the question, using the Dutch cooperation project "Learning journey Nutrient cycle" as an example. Its purpose is to exchange knowledge on the mineral cycle. The more than 50 Operational Groups each deliver appealing results, but they hardly know what is happening in the other groups. Nor do they know which results come from European and national research projects.

In order to promote this exchange, the 'Knowledge on Demand' subsidy scheme has therefore been opened in the Netherlands. Normally, this is used to communicate Dutch research to farmers, but it can also be used more broadly.

The project "Learning journey Minerals cycle" is a cooperation of:

- Nutri2Cycle Multi Actor Approach project and NUTRIMAN Thematic Network,

- Top Sector projects, carried out by Wageningen Research,

- 48 Operational Groups.



The cooperation is implemented by:

- Netherlands Centre for Manure Valuation (NCM): cooperation between government and industry,

- Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie,

- Regiebureau POP, the National Contact Point,

- Wageningen Environmental Research and Communication Services,

- Groen Kennisnet (GKN).



GKN manages the electronic information supply for agricultural education, and will now offer the same services to farmers and their advisors. They, therefore, have a similar task to the EUREKA project. Agreements have therefore been made to acquaint GKN with the EUREKA approach and standards and to make the EUREKA platform more easily accessible to Dutch Operational Groups.

Horizon projects and Operational Groups do not know of each other's existence. How can they cooperate better?

In the Netherlands, more than 50 Operational Groups are active in the field of mineral cycles. Participants in the groups work enthusiastically on their specific challenges, but they hardly know what other OGs, Dutch, and European research projects are doing. However, all projects have set themselves the goal of sharing knowledge.

How do you do that together?

A number of key people have gathered, from:

- Netherlands Centre for Manure Valuation (NCM): cooperation of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Dutch Farmers' Organisation LTO, and the animal feed and manure processing industry;

- Zuidelijke Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie;

- Regiebureau POP, the National Contact Point;

- Wageningen Environmental Research and Wageningen Communication Services;

- Groen Kennisnet (GKN).

They represent:

- 2 H2020 projects, in Nutri2Cycle Multi Actor Approach project it is the fulfillment of a National Task Force minerals and in NUTRIMAN Thematic Network communication on circular fertilizers;

- A number of Top Sector projects, carried out by Wageningen Research;

- 48 Operational Groups in the field of Manure Valorisation, Regional Nutrient Cycle, and Residual Flows.

For all parties involved, the cooperation is an extra effort, which is not in their list of deliverables. Why do they do it anyway?

To prevent things from happening twice; to ensure that the communication fits in with the busy meeting agendas of farmers and because they enjoy working together.

Cooperation stems from and leads to friendship.

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) analysed a total of 129 Horizon 2020 multi-actor projects (including thematic networks) in terms of their partnership composition and leadership.



The majority of project beneficiaries belonged to the academic sector (universities and research institutes) followed by private enterprises (including both multinationals and SMEs). Other types of beneficiaries, included advisory services and consultancy companies, educational/vocational institutions (other than universities) and non-governmental (e.g. consumer and environmental) organisations – albeit the participation of this latter group was low. Most of the beneficiaries were involved only once (in one project), whilst in contrast, a small number of key actors were involved many times in many projects.



The academic sector tends to dominate in all project types, especially in Research and Innovations Actions (RIAs) and Innovation Actions (IAs) where they commonly (>90%) have some form of co-ordinating role. They are less dominant (≈60%) in Coordination and Support Actions (CSAs). Farm advisory organisations are most well-represented in Thematic Networks (TNs).



The significant role of the academic sector is understandable, considering that the majority of multi-actor projects are RIA projects where there remains a strong research component, however, greater effort could be made to engage non-academic partners in research activities. In terms of geographical representation, it is clear that all types of beneficiaries from the newer EU Member States remain under-represented and there is a general need to enhance their opportunities and capacity to participate in multi-actor projects.

Surveys are a key tool for multi-actor projects, especially those aiming to address the needs of end-users. But how to create and distribute a good survey? The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) identified some simple ‘tips and tricks’:



* When creating the survey, first define the target length (number and type of questions) and target audience.



* Make each question as clear, simple, and easy to answer as possible to reach your goal. Avoid complex questions, gather only the necessary information. Try to ask about something relevant and interesting for the respondents.



* Limit the number of possible answer choices for each question. If using a ‘Likert scale’, offer 5 choices maximum. Avoid long lists of questions with “multiple answers possible”.



* Limit the number of open questions, and leave them to the end of the survey form.



* Before you launch your survey, TEST AND REFINE the questionnaire, ideally with some volunteers from your target audience! If it takes more than 10-15 minutes to complete it (including consent pages), then you begin to risk to have lower response or completion rates. Generally, SHORTER and SIMPLER is best!



* Use your project network for disseminating the survey and engaging respondents. If a potential respondent gets a message from someone they know and trust, they will be much more likely to respond.



* Select a limited amount of time to have the survey open. Generally, 15-30 days is considered a good range. If it is critical to reach a higher number of responses, then consider evaluating the results by target groups part-way through this time period and fill any obvious gaps by reaching out directly to the necessary people by phone, personally, or other channels.



Good luck and happy surveying!

Scientific results are usually presented and/or published in the form of a scientific article with a typical structure and a very detailed and scholarly description of the rationale, methodology, presentation and interpretation. This usually makes them so specific that they are rarely read by farmers, technicians, advisors or the general public. To reach practitioners, the message must be focused on their problem or issue of interest, it must be short, clear and easy to understand, but at the same time, it must not oversimplify.



However, researchers face a dilemma because the credibility of their scientific result(s) depends not only on the reputation of the institute or scientist(s) generating the result but also on the quality and impact of the journal. It is therefore important to maintain the rigorous peer-review of the scientific results and to communicate them in reputable journals to fellow researchers, but at the same time complement them with a more accessible form of presentation.



For example, a summary of the highlights and practical implications, making use of audiovisual aids such as infographics, factsheets, videos, or podcasts, which can make scientific information more visual, accessible and comprehensible. Similarly, while it remains important for researchers to share the information about scientific result(s) through professional channels such as ResearchGate and LinkedIn, or even to attract attention through social media such as Facebook or Twitter, the most effective communication with farmers remains through personal contact. This underlines the need for interactive exchanges, in line with the policy of the multi-actor approach of the EU’s Horizon research and innovation programme.

The European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) uses the multi-actor (MA) project approach to bridge the gap between science and practice. Such MA projects are funded under both a) the Horizon research and innovation programme and b) the second (rural development) pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union.



This MA approach foresees a process of co-creation and co-ownership of project outputs with the end-users of these outputs. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) studied MA projects and identified the following best practices for co-creation and co-ownership processes:



* Establish an emphasis on innovation and not just research;



* Maintain a constant exchange of knowledge with stakeholders;



* Be clear from the outset about what is being offered to practitioners;



* Use participatory approaches to improve the engagement of practitioners in the creation of knowledge;



* Consider the meaning and usability of knowledge outputs and present them in a structured manner;



* Provide open access to all knowledge outputs and ensure their validation and interoperability so that people can re-use them with confidence;



* Provide simple explanations for all scientific outputs, including metadata for the re-use of data;



* Work with easy-to-use digital tools to provide straightforward access to knowledge outputs;



* Farmers increasingly use social media and project communication channels should therefore be adapted accordingly;



* Develop and disseminate packages of ready-to-use advice for farmers;



* Remember that much of the value of a knowledge object is in the learning experience associated with creating it.

The Horizon research and innovation programme of the European Union is implemented through different types of projects:

* Research and Innovation Actions (RIA)

* Innovation Actions (IA)

* Coordination and Support actions (CSA), including Thematic Networks (TN).

All of these project types may involve the multi-actor (MA) approach. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) identified the following clusters of tangible knowledge objects produced by MA projects: 1) publications, 2) IPR outputs, 3) software, applications or tools, 4) primary (raw) data, 5) registers or collections or databases, 6) video/audio materials, webinars, podcasts, and 7) infographics or other printed materials. Intangible outputs (e.g. networks of people, demo farms, living labs innovation hubs) may also be produced.

The outputs delivered depend on the project type. RIA projects produce new knowledge, so scientific articles are their typical and most important output. But RIAs also produce knowledge objects for practitioners (e.g. factsheets, videos and databases), for policymakers (e.g. briefing papers) or for the general public (e.g. newsletters and podcasts). With open science policy, the publication of primary research data is also increasingly important and should be accompanied by appropriate metadata.

Further, IA projects aim to promote adoption of innovations and their outputs are mainly intangible. CSAs (including TNs) are less focused on research and mainly produce knowledge objects for practitioners and policymakers.

It is not only important that published outputs (e.g. scientific and technical papers) comply with the FAIR principles, but software/applications/tools should also be easily accessible for potential end-users.

A webinar is a powerful, low-cost tool that can help achieve a project’s goals. In order to organise a high-quality webinar, it is recommended to follow these basic steps/rules:



1. Set a date and time. When working with a relatively small group of people, it’s useful to find out their availability in advance (e.g. via a Doodle poll) to ensure the maximum number of participants. It is recommended to do this at least 4 weeks before the webinar.



2. The next step is to prepare for the event. The content/materials should be created at least 2 weeks before the webinar. This includes:



· preparation of the participant consent form;



· preparation of a detailed agenda for the webinar, including a indication of roles and responsibilities. This is important if the webinar will be led by several people.



· create a ‘script’ for the webinar to guide the moderator and presenters with all relevant timings, tasks and responsibilities, key messages etc.;



· creation of a meeting link. It is recommended to use the most popular tools, either Zoom or MS Teams. Consider using specific webinar settings to access additional functionality of these tools.



· creation of a visually attractive PPT template for presenters to use.



3. Promote the event using all possible communication channels. If specific participants are well known to you then invite them personally. Use a combination of a ‘Save-the-Date’ sent well in advance followed up by the full agenda closer to the webinar. Participants should be informed if the webinar will be recorded or any other form of personal data will be collected.



4. One day before the webinar, send a reminder about the event.



Have a great and productive webinar!

EUREKA (www.h2020eureka.eu) was a two years long project with a diverse range of partners that worked together to develop a pilot version of an EU-level online agricultural knowledge reservoir. The name chosen for the platform was the ‘EU FarmBook’ (https://eufarmbook.eu/) and it will continue to be developed by a much larger seven years long project with the same name.



The name of the ‘EU FarmBook’ is clearly based upon a well-known social media platform, but how to generally go about creating and selecting the name for a platform?



The classical and still highly effective approach is to organize a simple brainstorming session, but there are also more structured ways of creating names. One way is to bring together relevant stakeholders and define the scope that the platform should cover (e.g. farming and forestry). Subsequently, the stakeholders are asked to provide words which should be included in the name. Once this list of words is generated, the stakeholders are asked to create combinations with words from the list. Out of all the generated ideas, a selection is made based on voting (three votes per stakeholder). Finally, the stakeholders are asked to vote (one vote per stakeholder) for their favourite name. This process can be facilitated via a face-to-face physical meeting, or it can be set-up and run online with the potential advantage of engaging many more participants.

We are in an age of digital communication. It is becoming less common for projects to have discussions face-to-face, but to meet instead virtually online. This meeting format was necessary in recent years due to the unprecedented challenges posed by COVID-19 but is now increasingly popular for many other reasons. In principle, this has created new opportunities to reach project goals more efficiently and environmentally friendly without using valuable financial resources for travel. Hosting online webinars eliminates the need to travel, allows access to many more participants (including those unable to travel for various reasons), and uses digital tools to present information more understandably. Choosing the best digital tools to use depends on the goals of the meeting:

1. If the meeting is organised only to share information, a presentation sharing platform is used. Presenters can share their desktop screens, files, and any open applications on their computer or mobile device, with their audience during the presentation. The most popular tools are Teams and Zoom.

2. If the meeting is organised to get real-time feedback from the audience by voting, it is convenient to use digital tools such as MENTIMETER, KAHOOT or Slido.

3. Digital tools such as Mural, Klaxoon, and PinUp are great for facilitating interactive discussions online.

Every minute matters! A well-organised and facilitated online meeting can make highly efficient use of project time, enhance creativity and contribute to the achievement of project objectives. It is recommended to use several digital tools in various combinations and to prepare templates/questions/tables, etc., in advance. It is also important to notify participants what digital tools will be used and how.

Multi-actor projects can be complex, and good internal project communication is a vital component of project success. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) found there are many digital tools that can help keep participants up-to-date on the changing status of the project, coordinate documents, share relevant information in a timely and efficient manner, and deal with urgent requests, etc. To optimize project success, it is recommended to use only one main tool for internal communication, thereby reducing the risk of information (and data) loss when participants switch between different tools.



Some of the most popular digital tools for internal project communication are:



* Project collaboration tools - the most popular and commonly used tool is SharePoint. It is a website-based collaboration system that uses workflow applications, “list” databases and other web parts, and security features to empower teams to work together. Effective project collaboration can also be developed using other third-party tools applications such as Wrike, Asana (for small teams), Basecamp, etc.



* Chat tools - sometimes, the project partners want to have a live chat and discussion during a project. Effective communication can be ensured by using chat tools such as Slack; e-mail; MS Teams (by creating a channel), Yammer, Podio, etc. There are many such tools available; it is up to you to choose the one that best suits your needs and habits.



Therefore before starting any project, choosing the right digital communication tool is essential. Inadequate communication in a project leads to ineffective, unproductive decisions that hinder the achievement of the project's objectives. So, choose your digital communication tool carefully!

Websites are central to the communication and dissemination activities of most multi-actor projects. But how to enhance their effectiveness and impact?



Little things can make a big difference. Therefore, it is important to think about the smallest details when creating a project website, including carefully planning the menu structure and ensuring it is ‘fit-for-purpose’. Most websites are built with more or less similar structure (e.g. menu options such as “About”, “Partners”, “Results”, “News”, “Events”, and “Contact”), and functionality (e.g. a search function, user authentication, downloads, subscription to receive updates and newsletters, etc.). Depending on the project and target end-users, the website may include additional features such as:



* Multi-lingual options – many multi-actor projects are international, with target end-users speaking several languages. Providing a range of language options will significantly increase the likelihood of the project results being used.



* Open data access – some multi-actor projects offer open-source data repositories, but who can upload and edit the data? Does access to the data require registration? Are there any restrictions on data use? What data interfaces are used?



* Forums and/or user feedback – these features enhance interactivity with end-users and help to improve the platform for the target audience.



These additional features can be key to achieving a project’s goals, but to be effective, they need to be integrated into a clear and easy-to-use menu structure that visitors to the website can easily navigate. This needs to be included in the early stages of website planning rather than being added later.

It may not seem like a big decision, but choosing the ‘right’ title for your project is very important. The project name forms part of the first impression that those outside the project will have when coming into contact with it. A simple, intuitive, and memorable title helps potential users or collaborators to find the project more easily when searching online. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) reviewed over 100 multi-actor Horizon 2020 projects and noted the following key ingredients of a good project title:



* Relevant - the name should reflect the main project activities or contents.



* Unique - check there are no other projects or companies with the same name. Also try to avoid highly similar names that might lead to confusion.



* Simple and understandable - ensure your project name is easy to read and to pronounce.



* Memorable - shorter names are easier to remember.



* Findable - ensure that the project is quick and easy for end-users to find online by using the project name as part of its web address (URL). Consider combining words in the domain name by integrating key project words with the project name. This can help speed-up search queries greatly and result in a very recognizable and findable project. For example, research and innovation projects funded by the Horizon 2020 programme commonly included “2020” or “h2020” in their domain name e.g. www.liaison2020.eu or www.h2020fairshare.eu. If you take this approach it’s a good idea to also check the availability of your preferred domain name as soon as possible.



Wishing you creativity and good luck in creating the right title for your project!

Social media is an increasingly important tool for EU-funded research and innovation projects to communicate and interact with their target audiences. But which social media channels are most effective for project partners to use?

The simple answer is – it depends upon your needs!

‘Tips & tricks’ from 19 Horizon 2020 multi-actor projects (MAPs) analysed by the EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) are:

* focus on the 1 or 2 main channels used in your national context and post in your own language;

* make a social media strategy, include an editorial calendar and plan how often you should post. Sponsored posts and contents are good practice to get more successful results;

* the most effective social media channel used by the MAPs analysed is Facebook. It was commonly reported as very useful for reaching farmers. Facebook is widely used for non-professional communication and posted information can also reach a wider public;

* Twitter is not generally popular among most farmers, but a lot of policy-makers are regular users;

* Instagram was seldom mentioned as a useful channel for MAPs, although it is widely used by the younger generation. But it has potential for projects. It is a self-standing repository of all the project-related images that you want to promote;

* YouTube is the perfect repository for audio-visual content of a project;

* LinkedIn is a networking site for professionals, it can be used for groups and has established networks on specific topics.

The best results in terms of engaging people on social media are those who choose to focus their effort on one or two main channels and on creating specific types of content. This is a more effective and realistic strategy than attempting to be active on all of the popular social media channels at once.

All EU-funded multi-actor projects (MAPs) must give appropriate attention to activities that help to maximise the impact of the project. Furthermore according to EC guidelines, it is important to define impact indicators which “represent what the successful outcome should be in terms of impact on the economy/society beyond those directly affected by the intervention”.



The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) assessed the implementation of the multi-actor approach in over 100 projects and during interviews with co-ordinators found that the development of impact indicators remains a major challenge for many MAPs.



There are many dimensions to addressing this challenge, but MAPs face an additional obstacle which must first be overcome - namely managing the diversity of partners, tasks, competences and perspectives that are an intrinsic part of the MAP approach, but which can easily lead to a lack of focus on the pursuit of project impact.



Indicators are very helpful for developing and maintaining this focus on impact – for ‘bringing a clear view of the road a project is taking towards its final destination’ – but in order to achieve this it is crucial that all the MAP partners:

* feel ownership of the impact indicators by being involved in their development / definition, and;



* continue to effectively communicate with each other during project implementation in order to create a transparent environment in which they remain engaged with the impact indicators.



* regularly revisit the impact indicators in meetings or workshops. Data on the impact indicators can be collected during the project to identify issues where attention is needed. Surveys amongst the partners are also useful for identifying project activities that may need changing.

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) has made a detailed assessment of the implementation of the multi-actor approach in different research and innovation projects.



Working with a diverse range of partners in a multi-actor project can be very challenging. Partners are likely to have many different ways of thinking and of doing things, including contrasting approaches to problem solving, time management, planning and executing tasks. These differences must be addressed in the design and development phase of a project in order to create a strong foundation for the implementation of project tasks / activities and the maximising of project impact.



The most important first step in steering a project towards maximum impact is to engage partners in the definition and agreement of a common goal(s). Without clear goals, a project loses its pace and direction resulting in limited or even negative impact.

Many different approaches can be taken to the setting of common goals. The more diverse the project partners (plus associated stakeholders and potential end-users), then the more difficult goal-setting can become.



Best practice is to adopt a collective approach with substantial and well-facilitated input from all partners. Other approaches include a scoping phase with all partners and then more detailed elaboration by a core group, or alternatively a preliminary drafting by a core group followed by consultation with all partners. It is generally not a good idea to let one partner dominate the process, unless this is clearly agreed by all partners as the best approach to take.



The key objective is to keep all partners fully engaged, motivated and signed up to the common goal(s) when fulfilling their roles / tasks during project implementation.

A knowledge community represents a network of people with a common interest who work together to create and share knowledge on a particular topic or issue. A project with its partners is a typical example. But what happens after a project is finished?

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) reviewed over 100 H2020 multi-actor research and innovation projects and collected a range of different perspectives on the challenge of building a sustainable knowledge community. A few are included below as potential insights and/or inspiration for other projects reflecting on the same issue.

“Sustainability of knowledge is the issue, not the repository of knowledge objects by itself, but the continuity of the knowledge community. How to ensure that knowledge remains accessible? Structured. The concept of a project means that there is a beginning and there is an end. The challenge is in sustainability – what will happen with knowledge in ten years? Should we think in terms of FAIR knowledge that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable?” (H2020 Feed-a-Gene)

“The most important output of the project is to build a network of the people and develop forest management policies and business process by enhancing network coordination” (H2020 INNOFOREST)

“Sustainability is one of the key words in our project. We have to assure that Living Labs will be sustainable, that after the project ends Circular Rural Living Labs will continue” (H2020 LIVERUR)

“Our aim is to connect people rather than to produce knowledge. We make use of knowledge produced in other projects; up-taking the innovation coming from other projects” (H2020 NEFERTITI)

“The most of valuable output of the project will be the Agri-Tech Network and Innovation Portal” (H2020 SmartAgriHubs)

Knowledge is a basic ingredient for the creation of new infrastructures, business / policy decisions and many other activities impacting widely upon society. The EU agri-food and rural sectors are gradually entering the digital age by deploying a range of digital technologies that are reshaping the way various activities are performed. However, leveraging the full power of knowledge requires it to be conveyed in ways that make its exploitation feasible by both humans and machines.



Delivering quality data is a requisite for opening up new opportunities in the agri-food and rural sectors. Presently, most EU-funded multi-actor research and innovation projects (MAPs) create massive volumes of data and other ‘knowledge objects’ in various formats. However, the quality of this information is inextricably linked to its accessibility which depends upon how Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) it is.



To contribute to this ongoing effort towards distributing quality data, the EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) undertook a thorough FAIRness investigation of existing MAPs. This showed that only 25-30% of the knowledge objects disseminated by them were created in a way that could be shared and reused due to numerous key issues such as the lack of compliance with standards, missing metadata values, and the lack of licensing information instructing specific means of data exploitation.



To address these issues, the EUREKA project proposes the following recommendations for the FAIRness of data delivery by MAPs:



1. Deploy PIDs (Persistent Identifiers);



2. Comply with the minimum set of metadata proposed by EUREKA;



3. Attribute a license to all data/ knowledge objects, and;



4. Deliver a data management plan.

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) set out to create a functional prototype of an EU-wide, centralised repository of agricultural knowledge (known as the EU FarmBook) which is proposed by the European Commission for serving the needs of the so-called AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems) community at EU and national level.

This was a huge endeavour! The greatest challenge was the collection of information and content (‘knowledge objects’) in heterogeneous types and formats from a range of disparate sources and integrate them into a single storage space.

The knowledge objects made available in such a repository should be complemented by rich information (metadata) indicative of a) what the information they convey is about; b) their form and origin, and; c) any restrictions in using them. The EU FarmBook therefore needed a very robust data structure.

The EUREKA project addressed this challenge by proposing and developing an elegant data model which was built upon widely adopted standards which are able to make all data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR). A unique contribution of the EUREKA data model was the ability to supply well-defined types, formats and intended use purposes of the diverse range of knowledge objects anticipated for uploading into the EU FarmBook. Descriptions of knowledge objects with this level of granularity permit a greatly enhanced user experience by enabling many more ways of searching the repository.

The categorizations proposed by the EUREKA data model, and the metadata that it can be used to define, have made it significantly more feasible to better integrate knowledge objects in the EU FarmBook and to thereby contribute to their widespread adoption in the AKIS community.

EU-funded research and innovation projects, including so-called multi-actor projects (MAPs), are required to increase their efforts to communicate with relevant actors and stakeholders, as well as the general public.



The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) has analysed the communication practices of over 100 MAPs funded under the EU Horizon 2020 programme and identified numerous good practices. These can help to maximise the impact of remaining MAPs running under Horizon 2020, the writing and implementation of future MAPs under Horizon Europe.



Here are some useful ‘tips and tricks’:



* The involvement of experienced communication specialists in a MAP is very important for optimal communication;



* Newsletters remain one of the main communication tools for MAPs. They are very effective for promoting and disseminating results to voluntary subscribers, but also act as a ‘communication driver’ by compiling news, events and information into a digestible format that can be used via many other communication channels;



* Look for synergies with other projects to maximize impact across EU regions and projects;



* The MAPs that achieve the best results in terms of engaging people on social media are those that choose to focus their efforts on one or two main channels and on creating specific types of content (e.g. videos for YouTube). This is a more effective and realistic strategy than attempting to be active on several of the popular channels at once;



* Be aware of the common failure to recognize the difference between communication and dissemination. Follow the EU guidance carefully and examine the approaches of other projects carefully, especially those that you observe having good results in raising awareness of their work and results.

The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) aims to help strengthen agricultural knowledge exchange in EU Member States through the development of an online knowledge reservoir called the FarmBook. An open-source e-platform is a good tool for the development of such a knowledge base and can improve connections between two distinct user groups: multi-actor project partners and multi-actor end-users (farmers, foresters, advisors).



In order to design for user groups, it is important to involve them in the e-platform design from the beginning. In respect of features to include in an agricultural e-platform it is expected that certain key features are included, such as sector specific information or an advanced search function.



However, designers also need to pay special attention to the features end users require, based on the end user needs, if the e-platform is to be successful within the agricultural community. Understanding user needs and requirements can be undertaken using a range of methods, with a triangulated approach suggested for rigorous results:

• Workshops enable discussion about potential needs and requirements, and how these can be translated into features

• One-to-one interviews enable targeted understanding

• Online surveys add a numerical ranking to the qualitative data collected during workshops and interviews



Using these methods, additional features for an e-platform highlighted by end users include the ability to:

• See other people’s opinions on information

• See information automatically tailored to user preferences

• Receive emails with information based on preferences

• Rate information on the platform

• Provide opinion to information on the platform

• Create own user profile

Knowledge can be obtained from a wide variety of sources and in a wide range of formats. Effective knowledge exchange is critical for the advancement of the agricultural sector and the strengthening of knowledge exchange within the so-called Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) of EU Member States has become an increasingly important objective of EU agricultural policy. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) aims to help strengthen knowledge exchange through the development of an open-source EU agricultural knowledge reservoir.



But what are the key challenges experienced by users in obtaining agricultural knowledge?



1. Finding trustworthy information – users don’t always trust information that is delivered alongside advertisements as it appears to be more of a sales article. Sources without references can also be problematic.

2. A lack of critical insight – users often want to compare knowledge to enable them to make decisions based on a range of quality sources, where these sources don’t exist to compare, a barrier exists.

3. Language – is a barrier to users from two perspectives, firstly obtaining knowledge in the native language and secondly, obtaining information that is written for them as an audience without too much technical, policy or academic jargon.

4. Not everyone wants to share information – despite vast quantities of knowledge existing in the agricultural sector, not everyone in the community is willing to share with others. This is commonly due to market competition. Information that exists behind a pay wall is also a challenge.

5. Building a network with the right people – finding the right people to share knowledge with can be a challenge, especially in specialist agricultural sectors.

Communication and dissemination strategies are critical for ensuring effective knowledge transfer to the agricultural community as well as being mandatory by the European Commission for Horizon 2020 projects. A key factor for successful knowledge transfer is understanding the preferences and habits of the agricultural community in how they search for and obtain new knowledge.



The end users of the outputs of Horizon 2020 projects use a range of sources to obtain knowledge, from formal to informal. Formal sources are usually easy to consult but often require effort of the user to apply to practice, whilst informal sources allow interactivity with the source of the knowledge, but may not be useful if things subsequently go wrong and additional help is needed.



Formal sources include: The internet – most commonly used is the google search engine to then link with more specialist websites; Printed texts such as books and magazines, and; Agricultural TV, popular in countries such as Bulgaria but not common in other areas.

When searching for information online users commonly look for text, which is more popular than images, video and audio.



Slightly less formal sources include meetings and events (study trips, demonstrations), plus training and seminars.



Informal sources include: Friends, family and colleagues; Advisors / technicians, and; Communication / media tools (e.g. Whatsapp and Facebook) and online communities.



The value of informal sources of information should not be underestimated, especially when farmers are facing urgent problems to solve. Also keep in mind that formal sources act as important mechanisms to ensuring that new and relevant information can be distributed by the more informal channels.

End user personas and journeys are a critical tool for product development, they enable practitioners to understand who they are designing for as well as getting to the core challenges and opportunities that the end user experiences. Without understanding the end user it is possible that practitioners design applications without fully understanding the system complexities, problems and what the end users actually need.



End user personas and journeys are useful in the agricultural context and can help develop technology, knowledge outputs and policy for a range of stakeholders including farmers, foresters and advisors. The EUREKA project (www.h2020eureka.eu) is using end user personas and journeys to develop and pilot an open-source agricultural knowledge reservoir called the FarmBook.



User personas are: i) A collection of single fictional representations of a larger segment or group (not a real person); ii) Grounded in key shared characteristics, and; iii) Consistent, but are never fully correct representations of all members of the group. They include key demographic characteristics such as: age; gender; location / language, and; employment.



They also include key information relating to professional challenges and opportunities. For example, a farmer persona may have the challenge of ‘access to land’ but the opportunity of ‘successful networking’.



User journeys help to provide additional insight into the personas. Journeys present the steps required to perform a professional task and include information on: a) Behaviours and emotions, both positive and negative (what the persona felt), and; b) Touchpoints for gaining knowledge such as the internet or an advisor (how the persona did it).

In Horizon 2020 multi-actor projects such as EUREKA (www.h2020eureka.eu) workshops are important for gaining input from end users, as well as communicating and disseminating the knowledge that is built in the project. Physical face-to-face project workshops are moving online because of increased concern about the impact of international travel, as well as restrictions on human movement due to COVID–19. But what are the advantages of online workshops, what does a good workshop look like and what aspects are critical to its success?



Key advantages of online workshops include:

• Reduced environmental costs of travelling

• Reduced time commitment for all participants

• Potential for input of participants that cannot usually travel to such meetings

• Reduced expenditure on travel costs, enabling funds to be spent on other important tasks



Some advice for planning a good workshop:

• Plan in advance and send invitations early

• Promote the workshop on social media and through networks

• Include interactive features, including discussions, rating apps (e.g. Mentimeter) and the group chat function

• Check that interactive exercises work in advance

• Send out a workshop pack the week before with details of the project and joining instructions



Tips for delivering a good workshop:

• Encourage all participants to enable their video so that the conversations feel more personal

• Small groups work best to stimulate conversation e.g. using ‘breakout rooms’ can help to split large groups

• Use interactive features to stimulate discussion

• Be honest - technical difficulties happen!