top of page

HR Excellence in Research

Action plan

Adoc Talent Management

Case number: 2024FR241415

Name Organisation under review: Adoc Talent Management

Organisation’s contact details: 21 rue du Faubourg Saint Antoine, Paris, 75011, France

Strengths and weaknesses of the current practice
Ethics, integrity, gender, and open science
Strengths and Weaknesses

In order to analyze our strengths and areas for improvement regarding each of the principles, we developed a questionnaire toward the researchers of the laboratory. This questionnaire aimed to gather their own perceptions of how each principle is applied within Adoc Talent Management. Each principle was addressed through a question scored from 1 to 5 (with 5 being the highest score). Once the researchers had completed the questionnaire, the working group (WG) analyzed the responses. Overall, the questions related to each of the principles received very positive evaluations, with an average score of 4.1 out of 5. Consequently, we chose to focus our initial action plan on the principles that received a score below the overall average of 4.1 among researchers.


Adoc Talent Management places ethics, scientific integrity, and professional responsibility at the heart of its research environment. Research freedom is respected: researchers are recruited based on research projects they establish themselves. This approach promotes intellectual autonomy, creativity, and strong personal engagement in the research conducted. This is confirmed by the results of the internal consultation, with a high average score (4.1/5) regarding the perception of freedom in choosing research topics and methods.


Adoc Talent Management also promotes the principles of Open Science through a research culture based on transparency, collaboration and broad dissemination of scientific knowledge. Researchers are encouraged to publish in open-access journals
whenever possible, to use persistent researcher identifiers (e.g. ORCID), and to disseminate their work through both scientific and nonacademic channels. Open access to research outputs is considered an important lever for increasing the visibility, accessibility and societal impact of the laboratory's research activities.


Scientific and ethical integrity is ensured through a structured project validation process involving two steps: an initial peer scientific review, which also assesses ethical integrity to ensure projects meet basic ethical standards, followed by a dedicated ethical review conducted by an appropriate evaluation committee. This committee includes members from various departments within the organization who have received specific training in research ethics, as well as external experts, ensuring both diversity of perspectives and independence of evaluations. This system allows projects to be examined in all their dimensions, both scientific and ethical. In addition, all laboratory members complete a certified MOOC on research ethics, valid for two years. This mandatory training serves as a shared foundation, providing fundamental principles upon the arrival of the researchers in the laboratory. As a result, researchers feel wellfamiliarized with the ethical principles relevant to their research (score: 4.5/5).


Compliance with contractual and legal obligations is also well established. All researchers have formal contracts governed by the
applicable collective agreement, which clearly outlines objectives, expected deliverables, rights, and responsibilities. Researchers report a good understanding of current regulations, including those related to intellectual property, personal data protection, and funders' requirements. Furthermore, a dedicated data protection officer is in place. However, some practices concerning data backup and access security are still not standardized across the laboratory. Likewise, while Open Science values are broadly shared, institutional practices related to FAIR data principles, data management planning, long-term preservation of research outputs and the formalization of Open Science guidelines remain under development. Strengthening these practices represents an important opportunity to further align the laboratory with the evolving European Charter for Researchers.

 

Other areas require improvement. The perceived link between research and societal impact could be enhanced for some researchers (average score: 3.6/5), which may suggest the need for support in better understanding and showcasing the societal relevance of their research. While the publication charter and the presence of a valorization officer already support scientific dissemination, broader societal dissemination of research remains underdeveloped or insufficiently addressed within the laboratory.

​

In summary, Adoc Talent Management has a structured and rigorous framework for ethics and professionalism, recognized by its
members. While the foundations are strong (especially due to formalized mechanisms related to ethics and contracting), some practices require improvement, particularly in data management, societal valorization of research, and broader audience communication.

Researchers assessment, recruitment, and progression
Strengths and Weaknesses

At Adoc Talent Management, the recruitment of researchers is based on a structured, competency-based process. The selection process is built around two complementary interviews. The first interview focuses primarily on scientific aspects and is conducted by researchers, while the second assesses the candidate's alignment with Adoc Talent Management’s values and is conducted by two recruiters from the recruitment department. While this distribution offers diverse perspectives on candidates, the specific composition of the interviewers and their respective roles are not yet clearly communicated to candidates through a formal framework or protocol, which may prevent their full understanding of the process. The interviews are based on a common framework and result in an objective and quantitative evaluation based on defined criteria. The approach adopted favors a whole view of candidates, integrating their skills, diverse career paths, intersectoral experiences, and motivation. Career interruptions and non-linear trajectories are fully acknowledged as potential sources of wealth, which is highly appreciated by surveyed researchers (score of 4.6/5 for the recognition of career breaks and mobility).

​

However, a key area for improvement is the traceability of candidate feedback. Although oral feedback is provided after interviews, most researchers did not perceive having received structured feedback on their strengths and areas for development. This perception is reflected in a low score on this criterion (2.2/5). This lack of formalization reduces the formative scope of the recruitment experience and represents a missed opportunity to promote professional growth from the outset. It should be noted, however, that this perception was collected only from current researchers (i.e. those who succeeded in the recruitment process) and may not reflect the feedback given to unsuccessful researcher candidates.

 

While published job descriptions contain clearly defined selection criteria (which are then used during interviews in the form of
quantitative evaluations), some key elements such as information on the number of open positions or career development opportunities are not detailed (average score of 3.4/5). Although the interview process was considered professional and respectful, this lack of initial information may impact candidates’ perception of transparency.

​

Finally, although the process values diverse experiences (score: 4.7/5) and could improve in recognizing the full range of qualifications (3.9/5), certain skills (such as teaching, supervision, or science communication) are not yet formally integrated into the evaluation criteria. While the ability to deliver training is generally discussed during interviews, it is not explicitly listed in job descriptions or evaluation grids, which may limit its recognition as a structuring criterion in the selection process.

​

In summary, the recruitment process at Adoc Talent Management is overall perceived as rigorous. However, it could be strengthened by better formalizing the role of those involved in the recruitment process, more comprehensive communication, and structured feedback for candidates to support their professional development.​

Working conditions and practices
Strengths and Weaknesses

At Adoc Talent Management, all researchers (excluding PhD candidates) benefit from a clear and secure contractual framework, based on permanent contracts, which ensures valued professional stability (4.3/5). Their status is fully recognized from the moment they join the organization during recruitment and is continuously valued throughout their career path (4.4/5). The research environment is perceived as stimulating (4.1/5), although material resources may be limited. Nevertheless, strategic collaborations help enrich this environment through access to external expertise.

​

Working conditions are marked by high flexibility. Remote work is allowed several days a week, and working hours are adaptable,
allowing for good work-life balance (4.4/5). A structured salary grid ensures fairness in terms of remuneration, but perceptions of the fairness of salaries and benefits remain mixed (3.9/5, with a high standard deviation).

 

Gender equality is a well-integrated topic, although not formally codified. The laboratory currently has 4 women and 5 men among its members, reflecting a good gender balanced environment. Moreover, several internal research projects are dedicated to inclusion and gender. This awareness is perceived very positively (4.7/5).

​

Concerning teaching, training activities are part of researchers’ responsibilities. Each researcher is involved in delivering sessions aligned with their expertise, and these responsibilities are considered well-balanced and well-supported (4.6/5).

 

Interestingly, the value placed on intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility, also emphasized in recruitment criteria, is well embedded in among researcher’s perceptions on the question related to the principle (4.1/5).

​

Regarding intellectual property, an internal publication charter clearly regulates publication practices, particularly in terms of authorship recognition, contributing to a very favorable perception of this aspect (4.6/5).

​

However, several areas for improvement have been identified. Although there is a designated contact person for intellectual property matters within the laboratory, there is still room for improvement in terms of raising awareness on this topic, as the average score for the question related to this aspect (3.4/5) stands below the overall average.

​

Moreover, there is no formal career development strategy. The results indicate that some researchers expect more information about progression opportunities (3.4/5) and support for their professional development (3.2/5). This score can be partially explained by the high level of expectations of researchers in career development, given their awareness on this topic provided both by their research questions focus and by their activity of training delivered on these specific topics.

​

Finally, some organizational aspects need to be strengthened. Mediation or conflict resolution procedures are currently formalized only for PhD candidates (via the Individual Monitoring Committee that occurs every year), leaving a gap for R2 to R4 researchers (3/5). Similarly, while participation in decision-making is generally appreciated (3.7/5), some feel it could be expanded. Dedicated exchange spaces do exist for certain profiles, such as the College of Managers.

 

In summary, while Adoc Talent Management offers a generally favorable working environment, marked by contractual stability, flexibility, and strong sensitivity to inclusion, some aspects should be reinforced, particularly regarding career development, intellectual property awareness, conflict resolution procedures, and participation in decision making body.

Research careers and talent development
Strengths and Weaknesses

At Adoc Talent Management, researchers benefit from regular and structured supervision. Each researcher is supported by a clearly identified manager with whom they hold weekly meetings, prepared using a standardized questionnaire. These meetings promote individualized follow-up, provide constructive feedback, and ensure active support in achieving the defined research objectives. This system is viewed very positively by researchers, who believe their managers have the necessary skills to effectively support them in their work (rating: 4.7/5) and provide active support for their professional development (4.4/5).

 

An additional space for exchange is organized every three months through the College of Managers, which brings together individuals responsible for managerial and supervisory roles. This initiative encourages the sharing of best practices, collective reflection on therole of supervisors, and the development of a shared management culture.

​

However, while operational monitoring is well structured, long-term skills development remains more heterogenous. Researchers can attend conferences and scientific events to enhance their knowledge and networks, but formal training opportunities (workshops, e-learning, upskilling programs) remain limited. A few internal workshops are held every two to three months, often led by the management team, cross department workshops are held every week and training workshops every month but all these workshops are not systematically adjusted to individual needs or career objectives. This is reflected in an overall positive perception, though with room for improvement regarding development opportunities ( 3.8/5), as well as a shared view that regular meetings could more explicitly include a long-term strategic component (also 3.8/5).

 

Structured access to continuing training and better identification of individual researchers’ needs are not sufficiently formalized. As such, current systems only partially meet the expectations expressed in the Charter and Code, particularly concerning equal access to training, regardless of career level or contractual status. Indeed, it’s necessary to specify that in France private companies employees hold a Compte Personnel de Formation (CPF), personnel training account credited annually allowing employees in France to finance certified training, throughout their careers. The scores associated with development and training opportunities could reflect a lack of awareness about the use and /or existence of this account.

​

In summary, Adoc Talent Management provides structured, well-regarded, and effective support for researchers’ day-to-day supervision. However, training programs, strategic support, and long-term skills development mechanisms should be strengthened to more fully address individual expectations and meet professional development demands.

Action plan

The list of all individual actions to be undertaken in our organisation's HR Excellence in Research strategy to address the weaknesses or strengths identified in the gap analysis is provided below.

Proposed action
Action 1
Improve scientific best practices: a. Draft an internal guide on scientific best practices b. Centralize all scientific best practice resources on the Confluence platform (dependent on Action 1).
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 3. Professional responsibility
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026
Responsible Unit 
Research Department Co-director
+ Researchers
+ Confluence Working Group
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Internal guide finalized by end of 2S 2026; 80% of researchers confirm integration into daily practices by survey; Platform shows more than 8 consultations per year (80% of researchers of the laboratory consult the document once a year) A working group is currently implementing a "Confluence" platform/workspace designed to connect content and context, to enhance daily productivity and collaboration.
Proposed action
Action 2
Create webinars to present ongoing research to a nonspecialist audience
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 3. Professional responsibility
(-/+) 9. Public engagement
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026 - 1S 2029
(continuously)
Responsible Unit 
Journal Club coordinator + Communication
Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
One webinar/ semester 75% satisfaction rate
Proposed action
Action 3
Promote open access publishing and formats accessible to the general public
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 3. Professional responsibility
(-/+) 9. Public engagement
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026 - 1S 2029
(continuously)
Responsible Unit 
Research Department and Communication Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
1 publication by year by researcher on LinkedIn on a study accessible to general public Number of views of the publication
Proposed action
Action 4
Enhance research valorization and awareness : a. Offer an internal training on research valorization b. Implement a valorization form to be completed at the end of each research project
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 8. Dissemination, exploitation of results
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
1S-2027 - 2S-2027
Responsible Unit 
Research Innovation Transfer Officer + Training Department + Communication Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
a. Achievement of the pedagogical objectives (80-100%) assessed by survey following the training
b. Valorizationform developed for the 2S 2027 90% of the projects complete a valorization form
Proposed action
Action 5
Organize a science vulgarisation training for researchers
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 9. Public engagement
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
​2S-2026
Responsible Unit 
Communication Department + Training Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
80% of researchers attending the training + achievement of the pedagogical objectives (80-100%) assessed by survey following the training
Proposed action
Action 6
Increase the visibility and accessibility of the performed research to the General Public a.Create videos/podcasts presenting LID’s research to the general public b. Design infographics summarizing key research results
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 9. Public engagement 
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026 - 1S 2029
(continuously)
Responsible Unit 
Research Department + Communication Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
a. At least 1 video/podcast produced and published per
semester + 70% of researchers participation
b. Infographics created for 50% of the publications
Proposed action
Action 7
Define a transparent evaluation framework with clear, accessible assessment criteria including mentoring, open science, leadership, societal engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge transfer
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 11. Evaluation/ appraisal systems
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Framework finalized by end of 2S 2026 Use of the framework in 100% of biannual interviews starting in 2S 2026 Survey to evaluate the awareness of the framework by researchers (80% of researchers aware of the framework by 1S 2027)
Proposed action
Action 8
Formalize an evaluation charter based on this framework
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 11. Evaluation/ appraisal systems
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Charter distributed to all researchers; 75% positive responses on equity perception on the annual survey monitoring the efficiency of actions implemented
Proposed action
Action 9
Establish transparent and structured career development and recruitment processes a. Develop a recruitment framework with defined selection criteria for each researcher level (R1–R4) b. Create a document on internal mobility with specific selection and evaluation criteria
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 12. Recruitment
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
a. 2S 2026
b. 2S 2027
Responsible Unit 
Recruitment Department + Laboratory Management
(director and co-director)
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
a. Survey of new candidates on understanding of criteria: 80% of new hires confirm understanding of criteria
b. Write a document shared across Research Department by the end of 2S 2027
Proposed action
Action 10
Provide systematic post-interview feedback included in the new arrival's report (report completed by the new arrival after 1 month of activity)
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 15. Transparency (Code)
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
1S 2027
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Feedback included in 100% of post-interview + Feedback discussed one month after arriving + 75% of satisfaction rate from recruited candidates via a consultation survey
Proposed action
Action 11
Plan a systematic review at the end of the trial period
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 15. Transparency (Code) 
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
1S 2027
Responsible Unit 
Admin + Recruitment Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
100% reviews after the trial period
Proposed action
Action 12
Adapt the portfolio ( https://www.portfolio-adoc-tm.com/ ) as a competency-based career development tool for researchers
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 19. Recognition of qualifications (Code)
(--) 28. Career development
(--) 39. Access to research training and continuous
development
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026 - 1S 2029
(continuously)
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers + external developers
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
80% of researchers use the portfolio + Tool base for bi annual interviews on competency and career development topics
Proposed action
Action 13
Include dedicated time for professional development in biannual reviews (researcher/manager)
GAP Principle(s)
(--) 28. Career development
(-/+) 30. Access to career advice
(--) 39. Access to research training and continuous
development
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
100% of bi annual interviews will have dedicated time to professional development
Proposed action
Action 14
Improve accessibility to professional-development tools
a. Inventory all existing professional development tool
b. Make this inventory accessible to all researchers via Confluence tool
GAP Principle(s)
(--) 28. Career development
(-/+) 30. Access to career advice
(--) 39. Access to research training and continuous
development
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
a. 2S 2026
b. 1S 2027
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers Confluence Working Group
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
a. Inventory completed by by 2S 2026 70% of satisfaction rate on the development support
b. 50% researchers access to the tools
Proposed action
Action 15
Organize group workshops on professional development
GAP Principle(s)
(--) 28. Career development
(-/+) 30. Access to career advice
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2027
Responsible Unit 
College of Managers + Recruitment Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
1 workshop a year+ Participation rate higher than 60% of researchers / Assessment on better understanding following the workshop
Proposed action
Action 16
Hold an annual info session on rights, benefits, company status, and updates
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 26. Funding and salaries
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
1S 2027; 1S 2028; 1S 2029
Responsible Unit 
Management + Admin
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
One session a year with 90% of researchers attending
Proposed action
Action 17
Make meeting reports internally public and written in a comprehensive language
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 35. Participation in decision-making bodies
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026-1S 2029
(continuously)
Responsible Unit 
Management
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
70% of reports published/ workshop dedicated once every semester to Q&A
Proposed action
Action 18
Develop conflict management tools and awareness
a. Develop a questionnaire to assess conflict management needs
b. Based on the needs identified, create a conflict management workshop
c. Create a summary slide outlining the internal conflict resolution procedures
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 34. Complains/ appeals
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
a. 2S 2026
b. 1S 2027
c. 2S 2027
Responsible Unit 
a. College of Managers
b. Management + Training department
c. Training Department + Communication
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
a. Survey designed by December 2026/ Response rate superior to 80% / relevance of feedback
b. Evaluation via an anonymous survey at the post-session + achievement of the pedagogical objectives+ 60% of researchers attendees
c. Slide produced by June 2027/ Understanding of the process via an anonymous test using tools such as Kahoot to evaluate the attendees
Proposed action
Action 19
Improve access to intellectual property information and resources
a. Draft a clear and accessible factsheet on intellectual property rights
b. Centralize IP-related resources on Confluence
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 31. Intellectual Property Rights
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
a. 2S 2027
b. 1S 2028
Responsible Unit 
a. Research Innovation Transfer Officer + Management
b. Research Innovation Transfer Officer + Confluence team
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
a. Factsheet published by 1S 2027 and post-read quiz with 80% average correct Completed factsheet / increased knowledge of IP rights
b. Consultation rate of 70% / perceived usefulness via a survey
Proposed action
Action 20
Develop, approve and implement an institutional OTM-R policy covering all researcher recruitment.
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 14. Selection (Code)
(+/-) 15. Transparency (Code)
(+/-) 16. Judging merit (Code)
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026
Responsible Unit 
Recruitment Department + Research Department  + Direction
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
R1-R2 by 2S 2026 and R3-R4 by 1S 2027 / Questionnaire-based evaluation for candidates on the three aspects of the OTM-R policy: publication of job offers , clear and transparent description of evaluation and selection criteria, and interviews. Feed back from researchers and management.
Proposed action
Action 21
Publish Adoc Talent Management's OTM-R policy online in French and English
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 12. Recruitment
(+/-) 13. Recruitment (Code)
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
2S 2026
Responsible Unit 
Communication Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Web link available by 2S 2026
Proposed action
Action 22
Write an internal guide describing recruitment procedures and OTM-R practices for all research positions
GAP Principle(s)
(+/-) 12. Recruitment
(+/-) 13. Recruitment (Code)
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
1S 2027
Responsible Unit 
Recruitment Department + Research Department + Management
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Guide finalized by 2S 2026 / Questionnaire assessing awareness of the guide, incorporated into the S2 2027 annual actionefficiency survey
Proposed action
Action 23
Develop and implement an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Framework
a. Diagnostic and drafting of the framework
b.  Validation and adoption
c. Awareness activities and first monitoring cycle
d : First annual review
GAP Principle(s)
(++) 10. Non discrimination
(++) 24. Working conditions
(+/-) 27. Gender balance
(+/-) 35. Participation in decision-making bodies
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
a. 1S 2027
b. 2S 2027
c. 1S 2028
d. 2S 2028
Responsible Unit 
Recruitment Department + Research
Department + Management + Communication
Department
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Gender balance monitored annually across R1–R4 positions. Diversity
indicators reviewed annually (gender, nationality, career stage, where legally permissible). Equal participation of women and men in recruitment and promotion committees whenever possible. Increase in
researchers' perception of fairness and inclusion from 4.0/5 to 4.5/5 by the next HRS4R assessment. No substantiated cases of discrimination without formal investigation and follow-up.
Proposed action
Action 24
Develop and implement an Open Science and Research Data Management Framework
a. assess current practices and draft the framework
b. consultation and validation
c. publication and awareness activities
d. first implementation and monitoring cycle
GAP Principle(s)
(-/+) 3. Professional responsibility
(+/-) 8. Dissemination, exploitation of results
(-/+) 9. Public engagement
(+/-) 31. Intellectual Property Rights
Timing (at least by year’s quarter/semester)
a. 2S 2026
b. 1S 2027
c. 2S 2027
d. 2028
Responsible Unit 
Research Department + Management
Indicator(s) / Target(s)
Increase the proportion of Open Access publications. Increase the proportion of publications deposited in an institutional or disciplinary repository. 100% of researchers have an ORCID identifier linked to their publications. FAIR principles considered for all new research projects involving research data. Open Science practices discussed during annual career development reviews. Number of datasets made openly available (where legally and ethically possible).

Unselected principles:
(++) 1. Research freedom (++) 2. Ethical principles (++) 4. Professional attitude (++) 5. Contractual and legal obligations (+/-) 6. Accountability (+/-) 7. Good practice in research (+/-) 17. Variations in the chronological order of CVs (Code) (++) 18. Recognition of mobility experience (Code) (++) 20. Seniority (Code) (+/-) 21. Postdoctoral appointments (Code) (++) 22. Recognition of the profession (+/-) 23. Research environment (++) 25. Stability and permanence of employment (++) 29. Value of mobility (++) 32. Co-authorship (++) 33. Teaching (++) 36. Relation with supervisors (++) 37. Supervision and managerial duties (+/-) 38. Continuing Professional Development (++) 40. Supervision

How our organisation will use the OTM-R toolkit and how we intend to implement / are implementing the principles of OTM-R?

The implementation of an Open, Transparent, and Merit-Based Recruitment (OTM-R) policy is a strategic priority for Adoc Talent Management within the framework of the HRS4R process. In order to strengthen our recruitment practices for all researcher profiles (Research Officers and R1 to R4), we are committed to adopting a fair, clear, and inclusive OTM-R policy.

​

We will use the OTM-R Toolkit as a reference to align our practices with European standards. In particular, we will ensure that all our job offers include the recommended key elements (evaluation criteria, working conditions, training and career development opportunities, etc.) and are systematically published on EURAXESS, as well as on other relevant platforms. An indicative timeline and clear information on the selection process will also be provided to candidates.

 

In this perspective, a specific OTM-R policy for each researcher profile (R1 to R4) (Action 20) will be developed, along with an internal guide describing recruitment procedures and good practices for all research positions (Action 22). This guide will be accessible to all recruiters and researchers via a shared platform. Our OTM-R policy will be published online in both French and English to ensure transparency and accessibility (Action 21).

​

To evaluate and improve our practices, we will implement a candidate questionnaire to collect feedback on the three core aspects of the OTM-R Toolkit: clarity of job advertisements, transparency of selection criteria, and quality of the interview process. This feedback will be analyzed regularly to inform improvements to our procedures. 

​

There is a direct link between our OTM-R checklist analysis and our action plan: Actions 20, 21, and 22 specifically address identified gaps (absence of a published policy, partial formalization of procedures, and the need for evaluation tools). Additional improvements will also be progressively introduced, such as formalizing the composition of selection committees and enhancing feedback to candidates.

 

Through this structured approach, Adoc Talent Management aims to ensure a fair, transparent, and high-quality recruitment process for all researchers.​

Implementation of the action plan
General overview of the expected overall implementation process of the action plan

To ensure the effective implementation of the process, a steering committee and an implementation committee will be established to monitor the progress of actions and evaluate their outcomes against the defined objectives. This approach follows a logic of continuous improvement. The Communication Department, the Research Valorization Officer, the Human Resources Department, the Research Department, the Training Department and management will be actively involved in the implementation of all the actions. This approach will ensure close alignment with the company's overall strategy, particularly through the direct involvement of the management team.

​

Although the HRS4R process primarily focuses on researchers and research-related activities, Adoc Talent Management considers it as an opportunity to strengthen human resources practices across the entire organisation. Whenever relevant, the principles, tools and procedures developed through the implementation of the Action Plan will progressively be extended to non-research staff, fostering a coherent organisational culture based on transparency, fairness, professional development and continuous improvement. This broader deployment will contribute to harmonising HR practices throughout the company while maintaining the specificities of different professional roles.

​

The implementation will also capitalize on Adoc Talent Management's own internal expertise. Researchers will contribute their scientific knowledge and evidence-based approaches, while the Training Department will support the design, delivery and evaluation of awareness sessions, workshops and competency development initiatives. Likewise, the Recruitment and HR consulting teams will contribute their expertise in recruitment, assessment, career development and organisational practices. This cross-fertilisation between research, training and HR expertise reflects Adoc Talent Management's unique organisational model and will enable the continuous improvement of internal practices while reinforcing the quality of the services delivered externally.

​

Actions will be implemented according to a multi-year roadmap with clearly identified responsibilities, milestones and indicators. Progress will be monitored through semester-based implementation reviews, allowing corrective measures to be introduced whenever necessary. The Action Plan will remain a living document that may be adjusted in response to organisational evolution, researchers' feedback, changes in European policies or emerging institutional priorities.

​

Researchers from all career stages (R1-R4) will actively contribute throughout the implementation phase. They will participate in the Implementation Committee, annual consultation surveys, thematic working groups and dedicated discussion sessions organised within the Research Department. Particular attention will be paid to ensuring that researchers at different career stages are represented in decisionmaking processes and that their feedback directly informs future priorities. Survey results, committee discussions and annual implementation reports will be systematically analysed before any revision of the Action Plan.

​

Monitoring will rely on both implementation and impact indicators. Beyond measuring the completion of planned actions, Adoc Talent Management will progressively assess their effects on researchers' professional experience. Indicators will therefore cover implementation progress (deliverables produced, participation rates, publication of policies), behavioural changes (use of career development tools, participation in training, adoption of Open Science practices) and organisational outcomes (career development, recruitment transparency, participation in international collaborations, researcher satisfaction and organisational learning). This progressive evolution towards impactoriented monitoring is fully consistent with the principles promoted by the European Charter for Researchers.

​

The implementation process will also support the progressive formalisation of several strategic institutional frameworks identified during the Gap Analysis, including the Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment (OTM-R) policy, the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Framework, the Open Science and Research Data Management Framework, and the Individual Career Development Framework. These institutional policies will provide long-term governance beyond the implementation period and will become permanent components of Adoc Talent Management's human resources strategy. 

​

Transparency will constitute a central principle throughout the implementation process. The Action Plan, implementation reports, institutional policies and major deliverables will be progressively published on the organisation's HRS4R webpage in both English and French. Researchers will be regularly informed of progress through internal meetings, newsletters and dedicated communication channels. Public reporting will reinforce accountability and facilitate dialogue with external stakeholders.

​

Finally, Adoc Talent Management considers the HRS4R process as an opportunity for organisational learning rather than solely as a compliance exercise. The implementation period will strengthen the organisation's capacity to continuously improve its recruitment practices, career development, research environment, research assessment, Open Science practices, equality and diversity policies, and researcher support mechanisms. Through this iterative process, the organisation aims to progressively align all its activities with the principles of the European Charter for Researchers while maintaining the flexibility and innovation capacity that characterise a small private research organisation.

How will the implementation committee and/or steering group regularly oversee progress?

Two complementary governance bodies will oversee the implementation of the HRS4R Action Plan: an Implementation Committee responsible for the operational coordination of the actions and a Steering Committee responsible for strategic oversight and decisionmaking.

​

The Implementation Committee, coordinated by a dedicated project manager, will bring together researchers representing different career stages (R1–R4), recruitment consultants, a communications officer, and a research valorization officer. This multidisciplinary composition will ensure that the Action Plan benefits from the expertise of all key organisational functions while reflecting researchers' perspectives. The implementation committee will meet every trimester (four times a year) in accordance to the timeline developed for each action on a semester scale, which will allow monitoring mid-term progress of the focused actions undertaken during the implementation period. During these meetings, members will review the status of each action, discuss any delays or emerging challenges, agree on corrective measures where necessary and coordinate cross-departmental activities. Meeting minutes, action points and updated implementation dashboards will be shared internally to ensure transparency and accountability.

 

The steering committee will include a researcher representative, a representative from the training department, one of the two CEOs, and an external member.


The steering committee will meet once per year. During the annual meeting, the project manager will report on the progress of each action according to the timeline defined for each semester. Based on the progress reports prepared by the project manager and the Implementation Committee, it will assess the achievement of strategic objectives, validate major deliverables, approve any revisions to the Action Plan and ensure continued alignment with the organisation's overall strategy and the principles of the European Charter for Researchers.

​

Researchers will remain actively involved throughout the implementation process through their participation in the committees, annual consultation surveys and dedicated feedback sessions. Their recommendations will be systematically reviewed by the Implementation Committee and presented to the Steering Committee when strategic decisions are required. This governance structure ensures that implementation remains evidence-based, participatory and responsive to researchers' evolving needs.

​

Progress monitoring will follow a continuous improvement approach (Plan–Do–Check–Act). In addition to monitoring the completion of planned actions, both committees will review implementation indicators (completion of deliverables, participation rates, policy adoption) together with impact indicators (researcher satisfaction, uptake of career development tools, implementation of Open Science practices, recruitment transparency and organisational learning). The outcomes of these reviews will directly inform subsequent implementation priorities and, where appropriate, updates to institutional policies and the Action Plan itself.

How do we intend to involve the research community, our main stakeholders, in the implementation process?

Researchers will play an active role throughout the implementation of the HRS4R Action Plan and will be involved not only as
beneficiaries but also as contributors to its continuous improvement. Their participation will ensure that the implementation remains closely aligned with researchers' needs and with the evolving priorities of the organisation.

​

Several researchers will be directly involved in the implementation of actions by joining the Implementation Committee. The
Implementation Committee will include one researcher per career stage R1, R2, and R4 in order to guarantee both effective project delivery and large researcher representation. To select members, an open call by email to all researchers R1, R2 and R4 will be launched. Members will be renewed at mid-term of the implementation phase to ensure broader researchers involvement. Every S2 (second semester) the Implementation Committee will design and launch a survey to all researchers to assess the relevance and effectiveness of actions undertaken. Additionally, twice per year, the project manager will present progress updates during one of the monthly meetings gathering all Research Department members, ensuring transparency and allowing Q&A sessions.

 

More broadly, Adoc Talent Management intends to leverage the expertise of its entire research community throughout the  implementation process. Researchers will contribute not only through consultation but also by sharing evidence-based practices,
participating in the design of new institutional tools and evaluating their effectiveness. This participatory governance model reflects the organisation's commitment to continuous improvement, co-creation and researcher-centred decision-making in line with the principles of the European Charter for Researchers.

How do we proceed with the alignment of organisational policies with the HR Excellence in Research award process?

The HR Excellence in Research label provides a strategic framework for aligning our internal policies on recruitment, working conditions, ethics, and career development. Its principles are integrated into our HR and research strategies with support from the management. It serves as the main reference for all actions related to researchers, together with providing the organization an opportunity to reflect on its current practices and move toward better compliance with European standards.

​

Rather than being implemented as a stand-alone project, the principles of the European Charter for Researchers are progressively integrated into the organisation's research strategy, management practices and institutional policies.


The findings of the Gap Analysis and the Action Plan provide the roadmap for reviewing and strengthening existing organisational policies. During the implementation period, several institutional frameworks—including the Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment (OTM-R) Policy, the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Framework, the Open Science and Research Data Management Framework and the Individual Career Development Framework—will be developed or updated to ensure full consistency with the principles of the European Charter for Researchers. These policies will become permanent components of the organisation's HR governance and will be reviewed regularly as part of the continuous improvement process.

​

The HRS4R principles will also be integrated into the organisation's key HR processes, including recruitment, onboarding, performance and career reviews, professional development, supervision, researcher support and organisational governance. New procedures, guidance documents and internal training activities will ensure that these principles are consistently applied across the organisation.
 

Although the HRS4R process primarily focuses on researchers, Adoc Talent Management intends to use this initiative as an opportunity to strengthen human resources practices across the entire organisation. Whenever appropriate, the tools, procedures and good practices developed within the HRS4R framework will progressively be extended to non-research staff, promoting greater consistency, transparency and fairness across all professional groups.

 

This alignment will be supported by the complementary expertise available within Adoc Talent Management. Researchers will contribute evidence-based knowledge on research careers and organisational practices, while the Training Department will support the dissemination and implementation of new policies through dedicated learning activities. Recruitment and HR consulting teams will contribute their expertise in competency-based recruitment, career development and organisational transformation, ensuring that lessons learned through the HRS4R process continuously improve both internal practices and the services delivered to external clients.

How will we ensure that the proposed actions are implemented?

Implementation will be guided by rigorous monitoring, using specific indicators defined for each action. These indicators will measure both progress (timelines, deliverables, participation rates) and impact (satisfaction levels, practice changes, observable effects on beneficiaries). Regular progress reviews will be conducted by the Implementation Committee and shared with all LID members during biannual meetings. Furthermore, an annual survey will be conducted among researchers to collect feedback on the effectiveness of implemented actions, reinforcing a process of continuous improvement and iterative adjustment. The strong implication of the entire management line guarantees that proposed actions will be implemented.

How will we monitor progress (timeline)?

Progress will be tracked using a structured action-specific timeline. A shared monitoring table will be regularly updated by the Implementation Committee. Every six months, a progress review will be presented to the entire Research Department, ensuring transparency and early identification of any delays. The project manager will also conduct ongoing operational follow-up, enabling adjustments as needed. This system will ensure timely delivery and alignment with strategic objectives.

How will we measure progress (indicators) in view of the next assessment?

Progress will be measured through quantitative indicators (number of actions completed, participation rates, deliverables produced) and short surveys sent to researchers to assess their satisfaction and perceived usefulness every year. These monitoring metrics will be defined at the start of each action. A tracking table will monitor each action in relation to its initial goals and deadlines. In addition, annual evaluations will assess the real impact of the implemented actions and inform future planning in a continuous improvement logic.

It's crucial to notice that some actions are carried out continuously throughout the implementation period and will therefore require more time to be properly evaluated. However, indicators to assess the extent of tool-related action adoption and its stage of development may nevertheless be developed (Actions 6, 12 and 17 ).

Additional remarks/comments about the proposed implementation process

As a private company operating at the interface between academia and other professional sectors, Adoc Talent Management strives to strengthen the bridge between the public and private sectors, both through its research themes and its role in training and recruitment.


Our engagement in the HRS4R process reflects a strong commitment to aligning the organization’s practices with European standards in human resources for researchers at all stages of their careers. This commitment aims not only to continuously improve the quality of the professional environment offered to researchers within the company, but also to demonstrate that the principles promoted by the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers can be adopted and implemented within the private sector.


This approach reflects our firm belief that a research environment that is ethical, transparent, inclusive, and focused on professional development is beneficial, regardless of the institutional environment type.

bottom of page