JRC Implementation Review 2017 – Request for a detailed discussion after the COCO-JRC meeting

No comments

Dear Mr Šucha,

At the recent COCO-JRC meeting with staff representatives you expressed your great satisfaction with the positive JRC Implementation Review 2017, and invited us to pass this positive message to staff. Indeed, staff representatives were also pleased to find the JRC being seen in such a positive light externally, and are also ready to publicly make such recognition.

At the same time, the review must be read in its entirety. In the context of the COCO-JRC, time was too limited to allow for an in-depth discussion of concerns contained in the report that are also shared by us and many staff members. The overall concern may be summarised in a fear of losing scientific credibility in JRC's core business in the rush to Knowledge Management. This is aggravated by an excess of 'micro-management' and stifling bureaucracy.

The promises of the Strategy 2030 document are not being fully met.  R&D representatives, amongst others, drew your attention to parts of the Implementation Review that should not be brushed aside. In particular, staff continue to be confused about Knowledge Management (c.f. p.14 paragraph 4 of the review), and the JRC risks losing credibility as a world-class scientific institution (c.f. p.14 paragraph 6). The target for the subdivision between research projects in the Strategy aims for a 80/15/5 breakdown (core business, improvement of core business, and exploratory research) which still adds up to 100% research.  As the panel also observes, "Unless the JRC maintains its credibility as a world-class scientific institution, its mission as the science-for-policy service of the Commission will be compromised."

The report also says "The JRC can be complimented on maintaining this good record in producing scientific results that are highly ranked for their science as well as being relevant to policy". It should however be noted that the bibliometric analysis on which this excellent result is based refers to the period before the reorganisation.  Due to the concerns above, there may be a risk that we will not be able to maintain the same or a better level in the future.

We kindly request a further opportunity to address these issues with you, for an open and constructive exchange, before the JRC gives its formal reply to the review panel.

Yours Faithfully,
Gianfranco Selvagio
President R&D Ispra

No comments :

Post a Comment