The RISCAPE work was built on work phases:
1) European engagement, where the diciplinary RISCAPE teams collected information from the European RIs in their cluster projects and other major European facilities. This information
2) Methods development was a key part of the preparatory phase of the project, where the selected methodology (controlled interviews) was developed. This work was also directed on defining many of the details associated on methods, information to be collected, and terminological issues (including the definition of a research infrastructure), together with the the Stakeholder panel.
3) International engagement, where the previously identified potential RIs were contacted and, if considered potentially interesting, interviewed
4) Consolidation and quality control, where the results from the engagement were then consolidated to a consistent report and contact list
5) Analysis of the landscape and finalisation of the report.
The overall results of the action can be summarised as
1) The RISCAPE landscape survey was created, together with detailed contact information of the found RIs
2) The detailed information of the contacted RIs was collected and available on specified request (due to personal data involved)
3) The RISCAPE methodology was defined and documented. An additional publication is being prepared (non-paid part of the project work), but even the current deliverables create a potential for re-using the methodology
The Report itself consisted of many critical findings, of which the most crucial were
1) The found RIs were clearly concentrated on major world economical powers. However, potentially due to the difficulties finding and contacting, only a few facilities in Russia and China were analysed. There are many developments in new areas though, and few initiatives in S. America and Africa were also found
2) Most found facilities are concentrated in the fields were RIs are traditional, such as Physics, Energy, and Astronomy. Few or none were found in the areas of Social sciences and digital humanities, cultural heritage, and languages. Part of this is due to definition of an RI used, but there is a clear uniqueness to approach these facilities as RIs in Europe, not found in other parts of the world
3) The organisational modes of the RIs were highly different in different countries, ranging from loose networks to government agencies. This heterogeneity was even more clear in the distributed facilities. The funding models were also generally heteroneous, and significant part of the analysed RIs did not have concrete funding models for medium term sustainability
4) Access to facilities was often excellence based, or in the case of data - open. However, this was not generally true, especially for international scientists.
5) The indicators for success for RIs were a challenge in almost all countries, particularly in the socio-economical impact of the facilities.
