Researchers are increasingly working in large, integrated science programmes. This is supposed to lead to several benefits, including creating and enhancing synergies amongst projects, improving collaboration and knowledge exchanges amongst researchers from different disciplines, and generating a higher return on investments in R&D. In practice, though, these benefits are often not fully realised, and large-scale integrated programmes can become frustrating for researchers. Additionally, they can result in insufficient integration and collaboration, and incur high overhead costs. In the present paper, the authors share their experience and insights on how to structure, manage and govern integrated programmes more competently. They do so by reflecting on their own practical experience in designing an integrated programme, and by drawing valuable insights from the literature on governance, management studies and organisational economics. The authors suggest that many problems can be linked to the implementation of programme management systems and coordination mechanisms that are poorly aligned with the unique characteristics of integrated programmes. They provide guidelines for programme managers to use systems that are a better fit, which can help researchers collaborate in a more engaging and productive manner while reducing the overhead costs associated with programme administration.

@en

Researchers often lack critical information to decide what type of integrated research approach - multi-, inter- or transdisciplinary - is needed at the start of a project. In the present paper, we aim to contribute insights regarding these difficulties by discussing the case study of the ongoing development of shared information management systems (SIMSs). SIMSs form the backbone of state-of-the-art transparency schemes called 'hypertransparency' schemes. Such schemes offer small businesses the opportunity to establish more direct relationships with consumers and citizens. Developing a SIMS is complex, requiring collaboration between many different disciplines and practitioners. We discuss how our approach has evolved during the development process from a multidisciplinary towards a transdisciplinary approach. We outline the challenges that arise at the start of a project when the chosen approach does not match well with the research problem at hand. We discuss how we are planning to overcome these challenges. The case study presented here is relatively novel in the literature and thus should act as a valuable resource as the importance of integrated research grows.@en

To solve complex problems, researchers are increasingly working in large, integrated research programmes. Integration of projects within a single programme rather than supporting a range of individual, more autonomous projects, is supposed to lead to several benefits, including: creating and enhancing synergies amongst projects, improving collaboration and knowledge exchanges amongst researchers from different disciplines, realizing efficiency gains, and generating a higher return on investments in R&D. However, often these advantages are insufficiently realized in practice and large-scale integrated programs instead incur high overhead costs, frustrate researchers, and realize insufficient integration and collaboration. Why do integrated programmes sometimes fail to realize their lofty ambitions? In the present paper, we use the literature on governance, management studies, and organizational economics to analyse several key problems plaguing integrated programmes. We argue that these problems can be linked to the implementation of programme management systems and coordination mechanisms that are poorly aligned with the unique characteristics of integrated programmes. We develop guidelines for funding agencies and programme managers to implement systems and mechanisms that are a better fit for purpose and that enhance collaboration.

@en

Systemic risks are potentially harmful events, that could severely disrupt an entire industry or economy. Examples include the bankruptcy of keystone companies and biosecurity incursions. According to the United Nations, detecting and managing systemic risk represents one of the main challenges of the 21st century. Due to increasing complexity and interconnectedness of today's social-technological-biophysical systems, stakeholders relying on individual disciplines to systemic risk detection, or a combination of disciplines that are not well coordinated, will fail to promptly identify key early warning signals of threats. Our paper argues that transdisciplinary approaches are required to make comprehensive and integrative assessments of complex systems. To support stakeholders undertaking such assessments, we propose a framework that will assist them in: (1) better understanding their system and the risks to which it is exposed; (2) selecting complementary disciplines, theories and methods that are relevant to the system and risks in question; and (3) integrating knowledge from these different disciplines to detect a wide range of early warning signals of systemic risk. The framework can be used as a foundation to build transdisciplinary approaches to risk detection.

@en

Over the last decade, transparency schemes have started to undergo a radical transformation. This transformation is driven by advancements in cloud computing, cryptography and automated measurement technology, which have made it possible to develop shared information management systems (SIMS). These SIMS form the backbone of the latest, state-of-the-art in the transparency space: hyper-transparency schemes. These new transparency schemes and associated SIMS offer companies, both small and large, the opportunity to redesign their supply chains and to establish more direct relationships with their second- and third-tier trading partners, as well as with the consumer. However, the companies also face various challenges in implementing and operating such hyper-transparency schemes. There are legitimate concerns about privacy, ownership and access to data and, related to this, who controls the SIMS. The present paper discusses the ongoing development of a SIMS. The objective of this SIMS is to: (1), help empower smallholders in agri-food supply chains to establish more direct connections with the consumer; and (2), help empower consumers to get more direct insight into the manner in which their food stuff is being produced. The paper presents the design of the SIMS and discusses its transdisciplinary development processes.

@en