Stakeholder Task Force · Scoring workspace

EU-RESOLVE · COST Action CA24138 · read-only view
51stakeholders
19deliverable-critical
29definitive salience
19tier 1
26tier 2
6tier 3
MODE You are scoring your own contribution. Nobody else sees it until you submit.
inactive in this view Request access to the working workspace
Score stakeholders

Ranked live — click a name to score

1
1 · European Medicines Agency (EMA)
Policy, funding & regulatory
86.6
2
13 · EMBL-EBI
Research infrastructures & data
85.8
3
12 · ELIXIR and its national nodes
Research infrastructures & data
85.4
4
37 · Pharmaceutical industry: immunology and inflammation R&D leadership
Industry
84.5
5
48 · Candidate Expert Centres
Clinical delivery & patient voice
83.6
6
20 · European Federation of Immunological Societies (EFIS)
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
83.2
7
21 · European Society on Lipid Mediators (ESLM)
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
81.8
8
22 · International Association of Inflammation Societies (IAIS)
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
80.4
9
47 · Clinical decision makers and healthcare professionals
Clinical delivery & patient voice
79.4
10
10 · LIPID MAPS
Standards, metrology & methods
79.2
11
9 · Lipidomics Standard Initiative
Standards, metrology & methods
79.0
12
49 · Early-career researchers and innovators in resolution biology
Training, education & next generation
77.4
13
45 · European Patients Forum
Clinical delivery & patient voice
76.8
14
46 · Disease-specific patient organisations
Clinical delivery & patient voice
76.0
15
15 · EATRIS
Research infrastructures & data
75.0
16
11 · International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC)
Standards, metrology & methods
74.8
17
39 · Instrumentation manufacturers
Industry
71.8
18
40 · Reference standard and reagent suppliers
Industry
67.4
19
42 · Nutraceutical sector
Industry
66.0
20
29 · EULAR, including the PARE patient network
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
62.4
21
31 · European Society of Cardiology
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
60.2
22
5 · Innovative Health Initiative (IHI)
Policy, funding & regulatory
59.8
23
35 · ESICM and the European Sepsis Alliance
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
59.6
24
27 · International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS)
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
58.0
25
33 · United European Gastroenterology and ECCO
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
57.6
26
30 · European Respiratory Society
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
57.0
27
3 · European Commission, DG RTD
Policy, funding & regulatory
56.0
28
38 · Resolution-focused biotechnology SMEs
Industry
55.4
29
4 · European Commission, DG SANTE
Policy, funding & regulatory
55.0
30
18 · Named sibling EU projects
Research infrastructures & data
54.4
31
19 · Named adjacent COST Actions
Research infrastructures & data
54.0
32
32 · EASL and the MASLD community
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
54.0
33
34 · European Renal Association
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
53.8
34
25 · British Society for Immunology
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
53.4
35
28 · ISSFAL
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
52.8
36
2 · European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Policy, funding & regulatory
52.6
37
24 · European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO)
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
52.6
38
14 · EOSC
Research infrastructures & data
51.8
39
6 · EU HTA Coordination Group
Policy, funding & regulatory
48.8
40
16 · ECRIN
Research infrastructures & data
48.5
41
17 · BBMRI-ERIC and disease biobanks
Research infrastructures & data
48.5
42
26 · Named national and regional societies
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
48.1
43
41 · Diagnostics industry
Industry
48.0
44
23 · Eicosanoid Research Foundation
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
47.7
45
8 · National regulatory authorities and Heads of Medicines Agencies
Policy, funding & regulatory
45.3
46
36 · ESPEN and the clinical nutrition community
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
44.9
47
44 · EFPIA and EuropaBio
Industry
43.8
48
50 · MSCA doctoral networks and graduate schools
Training, education & next generation
43.1
49
43 · Contract research organisations and service providers
Industry
42.0
50
7 · HaDEA and EU4Health
Policy, funding & regulatory
40.9
51
51 · Science media and aggregators
Communication, media & society
37.8

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

European Medicines Agency (EMA)
Policy, funding & regulatory
WG4
Salience — Power, Legitimacy, Urgency
5
5
3
Your reasoning…
Interest — the Power-Interest grid
3
Your reasoning…
Influence & Impact
94
5
Your reasoning…
Engagement — the IAP2 ladder
1
4

1 Inform · 2 Consult · 3 Involve · 4 Collaborate · 5 Empower

Your reasoning…
SWOT — per stakeholder
5
3
5
2
Your reasoning…
Overall score86.6
TierTier 1
Salience classDefinitive (13/15)
Power-InterestManage Closely
Engagement gap3 of 4
Effort and valueMajor project

Full picture for the top-ranked stakeholder

In the working workspace every stakeholder opens on a page like this one, with each field editable and a discussion surface under every section. One record is shown here so the structure is visible.

Register & context — editable in the working workspace
Innovation Task Force; Scientific Advice Working Party; CHMP
Yes
EU
WG4
D13, D14, D15
Regulatory pathway for novel mechanisms of action and for biomarker qualification
Early scientific dialogue so the therapy development guidelines are written in terms a regulator recognises
Add a remark on this section…
D-Critical detail
Linked deliverablesD13, D14, D15
Why deliverable-criticalD13 delivers guidelines for developing Resolution Biology-based therapies at month 36. The MoU states that early engagement with policy makers, naming EMA, will raise awareness of biomarker tools that could serve as surrogates for clinical impact, and that the translation path will involve regulatory professionals. Guidelines drafted without that dialogue are guidance no developer can rely on.
MoU anchorCBO6 (policymakers, e.g. EFSA and EMA); MoU 2.2.2 Policy makers; MoU 1.2.1 point 6
Recommended first actionWG4 to request an EMA Innovation Task Force briefing while the M4.2 draft guidelines are still in outline, not after month 24.
Add a remark on this section…
Working Group links
Linked WGsWG4
Number of WGs1
Linked deliverablesD13, D14, D15
Add a remark on this section…
Groups analysis
Influence (0-100)94
Priority (from tier)Tier 1
Salience classDefinitive
MoU-citedYes
Add a remark on this section…
Salience — rationale / lever
Composite (3-15)13
ClassDefinitive
Add a remark on this section…
Power-Interest — strategy
QuadrantManage Closely
Add a remark on this section…
Influence-Impact — strategy
Influence94
Impact5
QuadrantCritical Player
Add a remark on this section…
Engagement (IAP2)
CurrentInform (1)
TargetCollaborate (4)
Gap3
Add a remark on this section…
SWOT — notes
Score / band0.85 · Strong ally
Add a remark on this section…
Sustainability pillar & engagement round — editable in the working workspace

From the published analysis: the post-Action sustainability pillar this relationship carries, and the round robin round in which it is scheduled. Members of the Task Force can change either and say why.

Regulatory literacy
Round 2
Add a remark on this section…
Key individual & entry point — editable in the working workspace
Innovation Task Force secretariat
if known
if known
email or phone, if known
The ITF exists for early, non-binding dialogue on novel mechanisms. It is the only low-cost regulatory door available before a development programme exists.
how the Action reaches them
Add a remark on this section…
Top 10 — Year 3-4 priority
Current rank1
Add a remark on this section…
Weights & thresholds

Weights

How much each lens counts towards the overall score. Members propose a weighting and the Admin consolidates.

30
15
20
15
10
10
Total100
e.g. deliverable-criticality should outweigh institutional influence, because…

Thresholds

Where the tiers begin, how close counts as borderline, and the engagement gap above which a relationship is high effort.

65
45
3
75
Tier 119
Tier 226
Tier 36
Flagged borderline10
e.g. Tier 1 should be tighter, because…
Results

Top 10 stakeholders — radar across all eight lenses

PowerLegitimacyUrgencyInterestImpactInfluenceEngagement gapSWOT
European Medicines Agency (EMA)
EMBL-EBI
ELIXIR and its national nodes
Pharmaceutical industry: immunology and inflammation R&D leadership
Candidate Expert Centres
European Federation of Immunological Societies (EFIS)
European Society on Lipid Mediators (ESLM)
International Association of Inflammation Societies (IAIS)
Clinical decision makers and healthcare professionals
LIPID MAPS

Full ranking

#StakeholderCategoryScoreTierEffort and value
1European Medicines Agency (EMA)Policy, funding & regulatory86.6Tier 1Major project
2EMBL-EBIResearch infrastructures & data85.8Tier 1Major project
3ELIXIR and its national nodesResearch infrastructures & data85.4Tier 1Major project
4Pharmaceutical industry: immunology and inflammation R&D leadershipIndustry84.5Tier 1Major project
5Candidate Expert CentresClinical delivery & patient voice83.6Tier 1Major project
6European Federation of Immunological Societies (EFIS)Scientific societies & clinical bodies83.2Tier 1Quick win
7European Society on Lipid Mediators (ESLM)Scientific societies & clinical bodies81.8Tier 1Major project
8International Association of Inflammation Societies (IAIS)Scientific societies & clinical bodies80.4Tier 1Major project
9Clinical decision makers and healthcare professionalsClinical delivery & patient voice79.4Tier 1Major project
10LIPID MAPSStandards, metrology & methods79.2Tier 1Quick win
11Lipidomics Standard InitiativeStandards, metrology & methods79.0Tier 1Quick win
12Early-career researchers and innovators in resolution biologyTraining, education & next generation77.4Tier 1Major project
13European Patients ForumClinical delivery & patient voice76.8Tier 1Major project
14Disease-specific patient organisationsClinical delivery & patient voice76.0Tier 1Major project
15EATRISResearch infrastructures & data75.0Tier 1Major project
16International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC)Standards, metrology & methods74.8Tier 1Quick win
17Instrumentation manufacturersIndustry71.8Tier 1Quick win
18Reference standard and reagent suppliersIndustry67.4Tier 1Quick win
19Nutraceutical sectorIndustry66.0Tier 1Quick win
20EULAR, including the PARE patient networkScientific societies & clinical bodies62.4Tier 2Major project
21European Society of CardiologyScientific societies & clinical bodies60.2Tier 2Quick win
22Innovative Health Initiative (IHI)Policy, funding & regulatory59.8Tier 2Major project
23ESICM and the European Sepsis AllianceScientific societies & clinical bodies59.6Tier 2Quick win
24International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS)Scientific societies & clinical bodies58.0Tier 2Quick win
25United European Gastroenterology and ECCOScientific societies & clinical bodies57.6Tier 2Quick win
26European Respiratory SocietyScientific societies & clinical bodies57.0Tier 2Quick win
27European Commission, DG RTDPolicy, funding & regulatory56.0Tier 2Quick win
28Resolution-focused biotechnology SMEsIndustry55.4Tier 2Quick win
29European Commission, DG SANTEPolicy, funding & regulatory55.0Tier 2Quick win
30Named sibling EU projectsResearch infrastructures & data54.4Tier 2Quick win
31Named adjacent COST ActionsResearch infrastructures & data54.0Tier 2Major project
32EASL and the MASLD communityScientific societies & clinical bodies54.0Tier 2Quick win
33European Renal AssociationScientific societies & clinical bodies53.8Tier 2Quick win
34British Society for ImmunologyScientific societies & clinical bodies53.4Tier 2Quick win
35ISSFALScientific societies & clinical bodies52.8Tier 2Quick win
36European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Policy, funding & regulatory52.6Tier 2Quick win
37European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO)Scientific societies & clinical bodies52.6Tier 2Quick win
38EOSCResearch infrastructures & data51.8Tier 2Quick win
39EU HTA Coordination GroupPolicy, funding & regulatory48.8Tier 2Quick win
40ECRINResearch infrastructures & data48.5Tier 2Quick win
41BBMRI-ERIC and disease biobanksResearch infrastructures & data48.5Tier 2Quick win
42Named national and regional societiesScientific societies & clinical bodies48.1Tier 2Quick win
43Diagnostics industryIndustry48.0Tier 2Quick win
44Eicosanoid Research FoundationScientific societies & clinical bodies47.7Tier 2Quick win
45National regulatory authorities and Heads of Medicines AgenciesPolicy, funding & regulatory45.3Tier 2Quick win
46ESPEN and the clinical nutrition communityScientific societies & clinical bodies44.9Tier 3Fill-in
47EFPIA and EuropaBioIndustry43.8Tier 3Fill-in
48MSCA doctoral networks and graduate schoolsTraining, education & next generation43.1Tier 3Fill-in
49Contract research organisations and service providersIndustry42.0Tier 3Fill-in
50HaDEA and EU4HealthPolicy, funding & regulatory40.9Tier 3Fill-in
51Science media and aggregatorsCommunication, media & society37.8Tier 3Fill-in
Engagement plan

Engagement plan

Four Action-level plans from the analysis: communication, risk, post-Action sustainability, and the round robin schedule. In the working workspace every field is editable and every entry carries a discussion surface.

Communication plan

Policy, funding & regulatory
Policy, funding & regulatory
Resolution failure drives a measurable share of the chronic disease burden, and it is a tractable target with a definable regulatory path
Scientific advice meetings, position notes, briefings tied to D13
Twice yearly and at each milestone
Chair with WG4 Leader
One regulatory dialogue opened before the M4.2 draft at month 24
Add a remark on this entry…
Standards, metrology & methods
Standards, metrology & methods
The Action extends existing standardisation work rather than duplicating it
Technical liaison, joint sessions, shared draft review
Continuous through D07 drafting
WG2 Leader
D07 drafts reviewed by at least two external standards bodies before M2.3
Add a remark on this entry…
Research infrastructures & data
Research infrastructures & data
The knowledge hub is built to live inside the European data infrastructure, not beside it
Technical partnership discussions, deposition agreements
Monthly during the D17 build
WG5 Leader
A named infrastructure custodian identified before M5.2 publication
Add a remark on this entry…
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
Scientific societies & clinical bodies
Consensus definitions and SOPs your members can adopt, produced with them rather than for them
Society channels, congress sessions, survey distribution, joint symposia
Quarterly, aligned to congress calendars
WG1 Leader with WG6 Leader
The T1.2 survey distributed through at least five society channels
Add a remark on this entry…
Industry
Industry
A defined development framework for a mechanism class you cannot yet develop against with confidence
Closed roundtables, technical working sessions, application note collaboration
Twice yearly
WG4 Leader
Named industry participants in the D13 drafting process
Add a remark on this entry…
Clinical delivery & patient voice
Clinical delivery & patient voice
Why inflammation that does not switch off matters for your condition, in language that respects the reader
Umbrella organisation briefings, annual meeting invitations, educational videos, plain-language summaries
Quarterly
WG6 Leader
Patient organisation input minuted against D02
Add a remark on this entry…
Training, education & next generation
Training, education & next generation
Training, mobility and a visible route into a field still small enough to shape
Training schools, STSMs, ECI sessions, the educational platform
Continuous
WG6 Leader with ECI co-leads
CBO4 targets tracked continuously: 20 per cent of leadership, 40 per cent of participation
Add a remark on this entry…
Communication, media & society
Communication, media & society
Inflammation is supposed to end, and understanding why it sometimes does not is changing how disease is treated
Institutional press offices, science media, festivals, open access publication
Continuous, with peaks at each deliverable cluster
Science Communication Coordinator
Coordinated release through member institutions for each publication cluster
Add a remark on this entry…
inactive in this view

Risk linkage

1. Poor engagement and low involvement in WG and activities
1
Poor engagement and low involvement in WG and activities
Early-career researchers; named national and regional societies
1
2
2
Recruitment Committee adopts pro-active approaches through regular updates and network-wide events (MoU mitigation). Reach into communities the network does not yet hold institutionally is the weak point.
Add a remark on this entry…
2. Poor interest from stakeholders
2
Poor interest from stakeholders
All D-Critical groups, especially EFIS, ESLM, IAIS, pharmaceutical industry, European Patients Forum
3
3
9
Dissemination committee adopts a proactive approach (MoU mitigation). The MoU rates this LOW on the basis of proposal support; support for a proposal and engagement with a deliverable three years later are different acts. This analysis is the corrective.
Add a remark on this entry…
3. Delays in reaching milestones and/or deliverables
3
Delays in reaching milestones and/or deliverables
Lipidomics Standard Initiative; ELIXIR; EMBL-EBI; reference standard suppliers
2
2
4
MC monitoring with support from other WGs (MoU mitigation). Add explicit tracking of delay caused by waiting on external parties, which is where D07 and D17 are exposed.
Add a remark on this entry…
4. Challenges in database establishment and curation
4
Challenges in database establishment and curation
ELIXIR; EMBL-EBI; LIPID MAPS; EOSC
2
3
6
Internal curation expertise (MoU mitigation) addresses build capability, not the binding constraint. Add interoperability with existing reference resources and a named custodian.
Add a remark on this entry…
5. Conflicts amongst partners
5
Conflicts amongst partners
None external
1
1
1
Conflict Resolution Plan, with MC able to seek COST Association or external expert support (MoU mitigation). Adequate.
Add a remark on this entry…
6. MC member or WG Lead steps down
6
MC member or WG Lead steps down
Any organisation whose relationship with the Action runs through one individual
2
2
4
Prompt succession considering geographical, gender and age balance (MoU mitigation). Add a record of which external relationships travel with the individual.
Add a remark on this entry…
7. Consensus definitions and SOPs are published but not adopted outside the network (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
7
Consensus definitions and SOPs are published but not adopted outside the network (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
EFIS; IAIS; ESLM; Lipidomics Standard Initiative
2
3
6
Route the community survey and the draft definitions through the named societies before publication, and seek explicit endorsement rather than assuming it. Threatens D06 and D07.
Add a remark on this entry…
8. The knowledge hub has no custodian after month 48 (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
8
The knowledge hub has no custodian after month 48 (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
ELIXIR; EMBL-EBI; EOSC; Expert Centres
3
3
9
Name an infrastructure custodian during the build phase and design D17 to that custodian's requirements. Threatens D17 and D22.
Add a remark on this entry…
9. The hub duplicates resources the field already trusts (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
9
The hub duplicates resources the field already trusts (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
LIPID MAPS; EMBL-EBI; named sibling projects
2
3
6
Make identifier cross-linking to established resources a design requirement, not an enhancement. Threatens D17.
Add a remark on this entry…
10. Therapy development guidelines are written without the sectors that would apply them (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
10
Therapy development guidelines are written without the sectors that would apply them (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
Pharmaceutical industry; diagnostics; nutraceutical sector; EMA; EATRIS; drug development CROs
2
3
6
Convene the D13 drafting group with those sectors present from the outline stage, under Chatham House terms. Threatens D13.
Add a remark on this entry…
11. SOPs specify materials or platforms that laboratories cannot obtain (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
11
SOPs specify materials or platforms that laboratories cannot obtain (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
Reference standard and reagent suppliers; instrumentation manufacturers; service providers
3
3
9
Confirm availability and pricing of every required standard before the SOPs are fixed at M2.3. Threatens D07.
Add a remark on this entry…
12. The learned society ambition is stated but never converted into a structure (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
12
The learned society ambition is stated but never converted into a structure (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
IAIS; ESLM; Eicosanoid Research Foundation; EFIS; Expert Centres
3
3
9
Treat D22 as a governance deliverable with a named working group and a decision point at month 30, not a publication due at month 42. Threatens D22 and CBO2.
Add a remark on this entry…
13. Patient involvement is real but cannot be evidenced at reporting time (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
13
Patient involvement is real but cannot be evidenced at reporting time (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
European Patients Forum; disease-specific patient organisations
2
2
4
Establish one structured route through an umbrella body and minute patient input against D02 explicitly. Threatens D02 and CBO6.
Add a remark on this entry…
14. Engagement concentrates on constituencies already inside the network (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
14
Engagement concentrates on constituencies already inside the network (analytical addition, not among the six risks in MoU 4.1.3)
All external categories
3
2
6
Score the engagement gap institutionally and record whether each relationship survives the departure of one individual.
Add a remark on this entry…
inactive in this view

Post-Action Sustainability Project (PASP)

Independent learned society for Resolution Biology
Independent learned society for Resolution Biology
The structure the MoU itself names as the Action's ambition: a standing body that owns the definitions, the SOPs and the community after month 48.
ESLM; IAIS; Eicosanoid Research Foundation; EFIS; Expert Centres
Convert D22 into a governance workstream with a named group and a month 30 decision point, and test appetite with ESLM and IAIS first.
Add a remark on this entry…
Knowledge hub custodianship
Knowledge hub custodianship
A permanent institutional home for the curated open access resource, with a maintenance commitment beyond the grant.
ELIXIR national nodes; EMBL-EBI; EOSC
Open a hosting conversation with the relevant ELIXIR node before M5.2 publication at month 24.
Add a remark on this entry…
Standards adoption
Standards adoption
Definitions and SOPs that survive as standards rather than as papers, referenced by bodies outside the network.
Lipidomics Standard Initiative; LIPID MAPS; IFCC
Formal liaison with the Lipidomics Standard Initiative before M2.1 collation closes at month 18.
Add a remark on this entry…
Expert Centre network
Expert Centre network
CBO2 as a constituted network with published criteria, membership and a convening rhythm, rather than a list.
Candidate Expert Centres; university hospitals; national nodes
Agree Expert Centre criteria with the Core Group before any centre is approached.
Add a remark on this entry…
Translation platform
Translation platform
Industry and translational relationships that continue past the grant, as a consortium or a standing forum.
Pharmaceutical industry; biotech SMEs; EATRIS; ECRIN; BBMRI-ERIC; IHI; diagnostics; drug development CROs
Closed industry roundtable on D13 scope, framed as the first meeting of a continuing forum.
Add a remark on this entry…
Patient interface
Patient interface
Patient involvement as a routine input to priority setting rather than an episodic invitation.
European Patients Forum; disease-specific organisations
Agree a structured input route with EPF ahead of the next annual meeting.
Add a remark on this entry…
Policy and regulatory literacy
Policy and regulatory literacy
A field that stays legible to regulators and policy makers, with an open channel when it matters.
EMA; EFSA; DG SANTE; DG RTD; EU HTA Coordination Group; national authorities
Request an EMA Innovation Task Force briefing while the M4.2 draft guidelines are still in outline.
Add a remark on this entry…
Training pipeline
Training pipeline
The researchers the Action trained staying in the field, with a continuing training offer after month 48.
Early-career researchers; MSCA networks; EMBO
Put all six YRI training tasks on one shared calendar owned by WG6 with the ECI co-leads.
Add a remark on this entry…
Community continuity
Community continuity
A recurring scientific meeting with a named host, so the network has somewhere to convene after the Action.
World Congress of Inflammation; named societies; adjacent COST Actions; sibling projects
Secure a session at the next World Congress of Inflammation and use it to test the society proposition.
Add a remark on this entry…
inactive in this view

Round robin schedule

Round 1
Round 1
Scoping and stakeholder prioritisation
Which stakeholder groups must be engaged first, and what does engaged mean for each?
Core Group; WG1, WG2, WG5 and WG6 leads; stakeholder lead (VM grantee)
Agreed critical-stakeholder list; validated priority tiers; this analysis signed off
Months 10 to 12, before the month 12 milestone cluster
Add a remark on this entry…
Round 2
Round 2
Standards and data anchors
How do the Action's definitions, SOPs and hub align with the standards and resources the field already uses?
Lipidomics Standard Initiative; LIPID MAPS; EMBL-EBI; ELIXIR national nodes; IFCC
Liaison agreed with the LSI; identifier cross-linking fixed as a D17 design requirement; hosting conversation opened
Months 10 to 18, before M1.1, M2.1 and M5.1 close
Add a remark on this entry…
Round 3
Round 3
Scientific societies and consensus legitimacy
What has to be true for the consensus definitions to be recognised outside the network?
EFIS; ESLM; IAIS; Eicosanoid Research Foundation; IUIS; ISSFAL; British Society for Immunology; named national societies
Survey distributed through at least five society channels; a World Congress of Inflammation session scoped for the draft definitions
Months 12 to 24, ahead of D06
Add a remark on this entry…
Round 4
Round 4
Industry and translation
What will make pharmaceutical, diagnostics and nutrition professionals engage with a guideline they did not commission?
Immunology and inflammation R&D leads; resolution biotech SMEs; instrumentation manufacturers; reference standard suppliers; drug development CROs; EATRIS; EMA
Named industry participants in the D13 drafting round; standards supply and pricing confirmed before the SOPs are fixed
Months 14 to 30, ahead of M4.2 and D07
Add a remark on this entry…
Round 5
Round 5
Clinical communities and patient voice
How do the Action's outputs reach practice, and what do patients need from them?
EULAR and PARE; ERS; ESC; EASL; UEG and ECCO; ERA; ESICM; European Patients Forum; disease-specific patient organisations; BBMRI-ERIC national nodes
One named contact and one agreed activity per disease constituency; patient input minuted against D02
Months 18 to 36
Add a remark on this entry…
Round 6
Round 6
Legacy, policy and the learned society
Through which structure do the Action's outputs continue after October 2029, and who founds it?
Core Group; ESLM; IAIS; Expert Centres; DG RTD; DG SANTE; IHI; EFSA; ELIXIR; EU HTA Coordination Group
D22 scoped as a governance instrument; founding interlocutors identified; successor funding pathway named
Months 24 to 42, decision point at month 30
Add a remark on this entry…
inactive in this view

The 23 deliverables

The MoU (COST 047/25) §4.1.2 lists 23 deliverables. Five of them (D01, D03, D10, D19, D20) are internal to the network and carry no external stakeholder dependency. The remaining 18 are the deliverables against which stakeholders are flagged deliverable-critical in this register.

CodeDeliverableLeadFormatMonthDependency
D01Management plan, reviewed and revised annuallyMCReport12, annuallyinternal
D02Joint research agenda identifying research priorities, reviewed and revised annuallyWG1/MCReport12, annuallyexternal dependency
D03Dissemination and exploitation plan, reviewed and revised annuallyWG6/MCReport12, annuallyinternal
D04Mobility and training plan, reviewed and revised annuallyWG6/MCReport12, annuallyexternal dependency
D05Management training, including YRIsALLTrainingAnnuallyexternal dependency
D06Consensus report on mechanisms in Resolution BiologyWG1, WG3Publication24external dependency
D07Community-wide SOPs for methodologies and techniquesWG2Report36external dependency
D08Educational video series, continuously updatedWG3, WG4, WG6Videos18, half-yearlyexternal dependency
D09Joint publication(s): regulation of mechanisms in Resolution BiologyWG3Publication42external dependency
D10Joint publication(s): crosstalk between distinct pathwaysWG3Publication42internal
D11Joint publication(s): characterisation of novel modelsWG3Publication42external dependency
D12Training in discovery scienceWG3TrainingAnnuallyexternal dependency
D13Guidelines for the development of Resolution Biology-based therapiesWG4Report36external dependency
D14Joint publication(s): novel Resolution Biology-based therapeutic leadsWG4Publication42external dependency
D15Joint publication(s): utility of Resolution Biology-based therapeutics in chronic diseaseWG4Publication42external dependency
D16Training in translational research and drug discoveryWG4TrainingAnnuallyexternal dependency
D17Open access curated knowledge hubWG5Webpage/database24, quarterlyexternal dependency
D18Training in database design and curationWG5TrainingAnnuallyexternal dependency
D19Website and social media accounts set up and availableWG6Website6internal
D20Schedule of networking events, training events and calls for STSMsWG6Report12, annuallyinternal
D21Report on knowledge sharing, training, communication, dissemination and exploitationWG6Report12, annuallyexternal dependency
D22Established Roadmap for European Resolution Research InfrastructureWG6Report/Publication42external dependency
D23Training in dissemination and public outreachWG6TrainingAnnuallyexternal dependency

Source: MoU COST 047/25, Technical Annex §4.1.2, Description of Deliverables and Timeframe

About the tools

About the analytical tools

Each lens comes from an established method. The definitions below are the ones used throughout the EU-RESOLVE analysis, with the original source and a plain-language explainer for each.

Salience — Power, Legitimacy, Urgency
POWER 1 Dormant URGENCY 3 Demanding LEGITIMACY 2 Discretionary 5 Dangerous 4 Dominant 6 Dependent 7 DEFINITIVE 8 Latent Eight classes: the mix of attributes sets priority, not the total.
Classifies each stakeholder by which of three attributes they hold: Power (can they affect the Action?), Legitimacy (is their claim proper?) and Urgency (does it demand attention now?). Each is rated 1 to 5 and counts as present at 3 or above. The combination yields eight classes from Definitive to Latent; the class, not the sum, drives strategy. Definitive stakeholders are engaged first; Dependent stakeholders have a legitimate, urgent claim but no power, so they need an ally.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. & Wood, D.J. (1997), Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853-886.

Learn more ↗

Interest — the Power-Interest grid
Keep Satisfied Manage Closely Monitor Keep Informed POWER INTEREST high high
Interest is how much the stakeholder cares about the Action's outcome. Paired with Power (from Salience) it gives the classic 2x2: Manage Closely, Keep Satisfied, Keep Informed, Monitor. Both are 1 to 5 and count as high at 3 or above. Keep Satisfied are powerful but currently disengaged, and are the ones most worth converting.

Mendelow, A. (1981); popularised in Johnson, Scholes & Whittington, Exploring Strategy.

Learn more ↗

Influence & Impact
Meet Their Needs Key Players Least Important Show Consideration IMPACT INFLUENCE
Influence is the stakeholder's sway over the wider field, independent of this Action, judged directly on 0 to 100 (90+ sets EU rules; 75-89 pan-European reach; 60-74 national weight; 40-59 niche; below 40 marginal). Impact is how much the Action depends on them, 1 to 5, where 5 means a deliverable cannot be produced or taken up without them. Together they separate Critical Players from High-Dependence stakeholders who must be secured early.

Standard project stakeholder analysis; influence/impact grid as used in project stakeholder practice.

Learn more ↗

Engagement — the IAP2 ladder
1 Inform2 Consult3 Involve 4 Collaborate5 Empower NOW TARGET the gap to close Where the relationship is now, against where it needs to be Increasing influence on the decision, left to right
Places each stakeholder on the IAP2 ladder (1 Inform, 2 Consult, 3 Involve, 4 Collaborate, 5 Empower), current against target. The gap is target minus current. This lens is inverted: a large gap is a distance still to be closed, not a strength, yet it raises priority because a powerful, legitimate stakeholder we are merely informing is where effort pays off.

International Association for Public Participation, IAP2 Spectrum (2018 revision).

Learn more ↗

SWOT — per stakeholder
S Strengths W Weaknesses O Opportunities T Threats Internal External
Each stakeholder seen from the Action's side: Strengths (what they bring), Weaknesses (what limits them), Opportunities (what engaging them unlocks), Threats (what it risks). The four ratings combine into a 0 to 1 score weighted so Opportunity counts most (1.4S - W + 1.6O - T). Strong ally at 0.78+, Favourable 0.70-0.77, Mixed 0.60-0.69, Difficult below 0.60.

Originating in Stanford Research Institute planning (1960s); Learned et al. (1965), Business Policy.

Learn more ↗

Combined Priority (Admin)
Brings all six instruments onto one 0 to 100 scale and combines them through editable weights into an Overall Score, with automatic tiering. The weights and thresholds are the Admin's to set: adjust them and the whole ranking re-orders. Effort-Value pairs the effort implied by the engagement gap against the value implied by the score.

GSS framework 'From Mapping to Impact: A Strategic Stakeholder Framework' (Zacharis).

Learn more ↗

READ-ONLY VIEW. The full EU-RESOLVE (COST Action CA24138) stakeholder analysis presented in the From Mapping to Impact scoring workspace, generated 25 August 2026. It contains no scoring engine and no script: every figure shown was computed when the page was built and written in as text. Controls are displayed as they appear in the live instrument and do not respond.
Published analysis: the published EU-RESOLVE Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement Plan is released under CC BY 4.0, consistent with COST and Open Science requirements, and is available through the analysis page. Methodologies: From Mapping to Impact: A Strategic Stakeholder Framework and From MoU to Legacy are GSS-authored methodologies. All rights reserved. Scoring instrument: this scoring instrument is GSS-authored. GSS grants permission, free of charge, for non-commercial use by research consortia and the scientific community upon written request to contact@greek-scientists-society.org. Attribution to the Greek Scientists Society is required for all permitted use.
Suggested citation: Zacharis, T. (2026). EU-RESOLVE (COST Action CA24138) Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement Plan. Greek Scientists Society. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22066520.
© 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Prepared under a COST Virtual Mobility Grant for the EU-RESOLVE Stakeholder & Impact Task Force as a basis for further refinement.