Implementation is a crucial step for the GEPGB’s success since it involves a concrete approach to realise what has been planned, and it represents a test for good planning. Determination, endurance, organisation, patience, persistence, and focus are all skills that must be deployed daily by those in charge of promoting the implementation and monitoring of its progress.

Defining at least a unit for monitoring and building the RPO capacity to report on GEPGB advancement based on gender indicators is a significant challenge in this phase. Those responsible for implementing the GEPGB should work together with other units of RPOs, achieving a final output with the contribution of an articulated effort of RPOs’ stakeholders. Therefore, the strength of the implementation process always lies in the participatory process.

Implementing GEPGB requires the goodwill of different stakeholders within each RPO and enough resources to implement the measures themselves. Furthermore, the implementation phase may change the expected impact of some measures due to a change in conditions or a wrong initial evaluation that does not pass the implementation test. These problems are part of the process, and, mainly during the first year of implementation, they are to be expected.

However, when properly investigated, unsuccessful measures for refining the following GEPGB can offer a good source of information and inspiration to improve the next implementation strategy.

Among the main problems that may be encountered while supporting the implementation process there could be:

a) Resistance to institutional change

In the first year, the main challenge is passing the message to the decision makers that the GEPGB implementation must be ‘institutionalised’.

Implementing structural changes always carries the risk of reluctance from the people involved and significant organisational change at RPOs during implementation may be a further obstacle.

Actions to mitigate this risk might be individual engagement strategy, training sessions and experience exchange to ensure a mutual learning process, motivation through constant communication of the project goals and awareness raising towards the GE challenge and the benefits of overcoming it, formal engagement from higher management levels, like for example, signed letters of commitment.

b) After the GEPGB design, resistance to going on with the actual implementation

Since implementation involves many departments of RPOs – if not all – the team in charge shall expect different levels of involvement, participation and collaboration from them. Sometimes, there can be disregard, opposition, or conflict.

To prevent resistance, mitigating actions should include online and/or face-to-face workshops to ensure that a continuous internal mutual learning process is managed

c) Difficulties in the GEPs implementation due to RPOs’ inexperience

Another problem is the lack of human resources and experience, particularly in mentoring and integrating the gender dimension into research. Actions to avoid this risk include the presence of expert external mentors and appropriate training activities.

d) Difficulties in GB implementation

Retrieving data necessary to implement GB both in the audit phase and as part of the GEPGB implementation phase can be challenging. Finding someone with the appropriate skills to prepare for the first GB attempt could also be problematic.

Actions to avoid these difficulties include the engagement of higher management levels (i.e., signed letters of commitment), specific training on GB for RPOs’ teams in charge of the GEPGB process, and external expertise for training and counselling, at
least for the first year.

e) Difficulties in the collection of gender data

Other problems in GEPGB implementation may refer to cross-cutting issues involving the institution.

For instance, the complexity of an organisation may make it challenging to access some data. Coordinating data collection is crucial for several measures and actions, such as GB and Gender Pay Gap. Problems with the data on wages and salaries that would be useful for GB might arise too. Despite the formal commitment to the GEPGB, arranging meetings with the responsible units in charge of specific actions might be problematic.

Another challenge is to find gender data to integrate the gender dimension into research content when there are research items concerning natural sciences, ICT or other fi elds of research that are not strictly linked to people and may therefore appear gender-neutral.

Look at details of the implementation process of a GEPGB in LeTSGEPs Handbook, available in open access here in English and in the national languages of LeTSGEPs partners (Albanian, French, German, Italian, Serbian, Spanish). There is also a version in English for people with visual impairments, so that nobody is left behind.