The Toolkit

1 Define the problem

What to do

Start with a clear, evidence-based articulation of the problem you are trying to solve. This sounds obvious, but many coordination initiatives fail because the problem is described too vaguely (“we need better data infrastructure”) or too narrowly (“our lab needs more GPU hours”). The problem is rarely just about hardware or platforms — it typically spans infrastructure, training, workforce capacity, and institutional culture.

• Write a one-page problem statement that describes the systemic issue, not just your local experience
• Test it informally with 5-10 people across different institutions and career stages
• Be specific about who is affected, what the consequences are, and why existing arrangements are insufficient
• Distinguish between symptoms (e.g. slow access) and root causes (e.g. no coordination mechanism)

Key lessons

• Your personal frustration is a valid starting point, but it must be validated as a shared experience before you can build a coalition around it
• Framing matters enormously. “I need better compute” is a request. “Publicly funded research capability is going underutilised because the systems to connect infrastructure, training, and expertise across institutions do not exist — at a time when universities can least afford the duplication” is a systemic challenge that justifies collective action

Common pitfalls

• Jumping to solutions before the problem is clearly defined
• Assuming everyone shares your understanding of the problem
• Defining the problem in terms that only resonate with your own discipline or career stage

Practical tips

• Frame the problem in terms of public benefit, national competitiveness, and financial sustainability — not just researcher convenience. At a time of severe financial pressure on universities, the economic case for coordination (overhead savings, reduced duplication, shared specialist expertise) can be as compelling as the scientific case
• Include at least one concrete example, e.g. of institutional costs or cases of scientific opporutnity loss, that makes the abstract problem tangible

2 Gather evidence

What to do

Before you can advocate for change, you need data. This phase is about building the evidence base that will give your initiative credibility with senior stakeholders, funders, and policymakers.

• Run a survey across target institutions asking about current infrastructure, training provision, workforce capacity, unmet needs, barriers, and capabilities
• Collect institutional snapshots — structured profiles of what each institution currently provides in compute, storage, platforms, training, and specialist staffing — and at what cost
• Review comparators — how have other countries, regions, or domains approached similar challenges in coordinating research resources, training, and people?

Key lesson

• The evidence base does not need to be perfect. It needs to be good enough to be credible and to shift the conversation from “is there a problem?” to “what do we do about it?”

Common pitfalls

• Over-investing in evidence gathering and never moving to action
• Sharing surveys only with people within your network as opposed to working with national communities who have a broader reach

Practical tips

• Present evidence visually using charts and anonymised quotes
• Keep a running “evidence log” — you will need to assemble it quickly when opportunities arise
• Work with national communities, e.g. SULSA in my case, to reach a wider segment of the biomedical research community when gathering evidence

3 Engage stakeholders

What to do

Identify and engage the full ecosystem of people who need to be part of the solution. This is broader than you think.

Your stakeholder map should include:

Category	Examples
Researchers	Bench scientists, data scientists, bioinformaticians, early-career researchers, senior researchers
Infrastructure providers	HPC centres, cloud services, platform teams
Institutional leadership	VPs of Research, Heads of College/School, Deans
Funders	National and devolved
National bodies	Research data organisations, domain-specific networks
Industry	SMEs, representative networks
Professional services	Legal teams, contracts offices, research data managers
Training providers	Skills programmes, facility managers
Policymakers	Government science advisors

Key lessons

• Start with a virtual roundtable — it is a low-cost way to test whether others share your problem and to co-design the workshop agenda.
• Institutional leaders are essential but hard to reach. Their buy-in determines whether key members of their communities engage and whether anything actually changes.
• Industry should be included from the start, not bolted on later. Their requirements and constraints will differ significantly from those of academic colleagues.
• Early-career researchers are your most honest critics — they will tell you what is actually broken in ways that senior figures may not.

Common pitfalls

• Engaging only people who already agree with you
• Treating engagement as a one-off event rather than an ongoing relationship
• Failing to reach the people with actual decision-making authority
• Not providing a clear ask — people need to know specifically what you want from them

Practical tips

• Use existing networks and convening bodies rather than building from scratch
• Prepare a one-page briefing you can send to anyone — problem, evidence, what you are proposing, what you are asking them to do
• Track your stakeholder engagement in a simple spreadsheet: who, when, what was discussed, what they committed to, follow-up needed

4 Build momentum

What to do

There is a critical period between “people agree there is a problem” and “people are willing to act.” This phase is about converting agreement into commitment.

• Secure a champion — ideally someone senior enough to open doors and credible enough to be taken seriously. Better yet, secure several
• Find or create a funding hook — use existing fellowship development funds, network grants, or institutional strategic initiatives to cover coordination costs
• Build a coalition of the willing — not everyone needs to be on board at once. Start with 3-5 committed organisations and expand from there
• Create visible milestones — provide regular updates to key stakeholders in writing and as part of scheduled meetings

Key lessons

• Momentum is fragile. A 3-month gap in communication can kill enthusiasm. Aim to provide regular updates to key stakeholders.
• The transfer of ownership is an important moment. At some point, the initiative must move from being “your project” to being “our project.” Design for this transition — and ensure that the breadth of the initiative (infrastructure, training, and people) is reflected in who takes ownership.
• Senior leadership buy-in often requires a different pitch than peer-level engagement. Leaders care about strategic positioning, competitiveness, and risk — bring in the expertise of senior funding body representatives to help you with engagement of this group of stakeholders.

Common pitfalls

• Treating momentum-building as less important than evidence gathering or workshop design
• Burning out by trying to do everything yourself

Practical tips

• Send brief monthly updates to your stakeholder list, even when progress is slow. Silence is worse than “we are still working on X”
• When someone senior expresses support, immediately ask: “Would you be willing to partake in the workshop and help me connect to key stakeholders?”

5 Design the workshop

What to do

If a workshop is part of your approach, design it to produce decisions, not just discussion.

Before the workshop:

• Define target outcomes — what specifically must the room agree on by the end of the day? Ensure these span the full scope of the challenge (infrastructure, training, people, governance) rather than defaulting to the most tangible dimension alone
• Prepare evidence summaries for the table — participants should not spend the day rediscovering the problem
• Design structured discussion templates with specific questions and required output formats
• Include decision points — votes, rankings, named commitments, deadlines
• Curate attendance carefully — every seat should serve a purpose
• Recruit a skilled Facilitator with prior experience with higher education insitutions and research policy
• Ensure practical requirements are in place for the day, including name badges and flipcharts

Discussion design that works:

• Each discussion should have a defined question and a required deliverable
• Force binary or ranked choices where possible (e.g. “Support in principle: Yes / Yes with conditions / Not yet”)
• Include questions that prevent vague answers: “What specifically do we need funding for?” not “Should we seek funding?”
• Build discussions sequentially so each one builds on the outputs of the previous

Key lessons

• The quality of the workshop is determined before the workshop. Preparation of materials, curation of attendance, and design of discussions matter more than what happens on the day
• Decision-oriented questions produce decisions. “What do you think about governance?” produces opinions. “Which governance principles are essential for phase 1 and which can wait?” produces a prioritised list
• One full day is the right length for this kind of event — enough time for depth, short enough to maintain energy and ensure attendance

Common pitfalls

• Designing an “open discussion” format that produces interesting conversation but no commitments
• Inviting too many people from similar backgrounds and not enough diversity of perspective
• Failing to prepare materials that allow the room to start from a shared evidence base
• Not having a clear plan for how outputs will be captured and used

Practical tips

• Test your discussion templates with 2-3 people before the event.
• Assign a dedicated note-taker for each discussion table — do not rely on participants to self-document
• Print materials professionally — it signals that this is serious and has been thought through
• Plan the room layout deliberately: café-style table groups of 6-8 people with diverse expertise at each table
• Have a facilitator who is not the content lead — separating facilitation from advocacy is important

6 Deliver effectively

What to do

On the day itself, execution matters. A well-designed workshop can still fail if the logistics, facilitation, and energy management are poor.

On the day:

• Open with a crisp summary of the evidence — no more than 15 minutes. The room should feel informed and motivated to act
• Use the structured templates — they keep discussions focused and ensure every table produces comparable outputs
• Time-box ruthlessly — if a discussion is scheduled for 30 minutes, it gets 30 minutes. Stick to time and allow for plenty of breaks
• Capture everything — photographs of flipcharts, completed templates, sticky notes. Assign someone to this role
• Close with a clear articulation of what was agreed and what happens next

Key lessons

• Energy management is key. Schedule the most important discussions for the morning; after lunch, energy drops so use that slot for smaller group work.
• The facilitator sets the tone. A good facilitator creates coordination and maintains pace.
• Sticky notes and flipcharts still work. Do not over-engineer the capture mechanism.
• The post-workshop follow-up is as important as the event. Circulate outputs within two weeks.

Common pitfalls

• Allowing one or two voices to dominate table discussions
• Running over time on early sessions and rushing later (often more important) ones
• Not photographing outputs — handwritten notes on flipcharts are lost if not captured
• Ending without a clear statement of next steps and named owners

Practical tips

• Build in 20-30-minute buffer slots between sessions for informal networking — these help to sustain energy levels throughout the day
• Provide pre-printed templates at each table so outputs are consistent and legible
• End with a round of commitments: who will do what by when?

7 Sustain impact

What to do

This phase determines whether the initiative has lasting impact or becomes another well-intentioned report. This phase has yet to be completed in our case, but the plan is as follows.

Immediately after:

• Synthesise all workshop outputs into a single, structured document
• Circulate to all participants with a clear summary and call to action
• Identify a convening organisation that can carry institutional weight
• Recruit working group members committed to engaging with the convening organisation

Short-term (1-12 months):

• Commission the landscape review identified at the workshop
• Assign named leads for each pillar or workstream
• Develop a costed plan for the coordination team
• Begin stakeholder engagement with government and funders
• Maintain regular communication with all participants

Medium-term (12-18 months):

• Complete gap analysis and business case — covering infrastructure, training, and workforce needs, and articulating the economic case for coordination under financial constraint
• Deliver a formal strategic pitch to government and funders
• Produce exemplar projects demonstrating the model in practice across infrastructure sharing, training coordination, and workforce development
• Establish governance for the initiative itself

Key lessons

• The transfer of ownership is the critical moment. If the initiative remains dependent on a the single person who started it, it will be fragile.
• Sustained impact requires a dedicated working group and funding. The initiative is best kept alive through an organisation with funding and convening power.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming the workshop created enough momentum to sustain itself without active maintenance
• Allowing the working group to become a talking shop without defined deliverables and deadlines
• Losing early-career voices as the initiative becomes more “official”

Practical tips

• Set 90-day deliverables for the working group to create urgency and accountability.
• Keep the evidence base alive — update survey data, track changes, document progress.