Test Case A. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art Rationale What is...

Test Case A Test Case A

B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art

Rationale


Rationale

• What is the problem to be solved?

– Cumbersome back-office processes in the Public Authorities (PA)

– Loss of critical knowledge assets during the lifecycle (conception, modelling, implementation, updating, withdrawal) of e-Gov services


B1.1 Structure


B1.1 Structure

Possible Solutions

Statement of the Problem

Goal #1 +

Means

Goal #2 +

Means…..

Goal #n +

Means

Level 1 Technical Level

The Test Case A-specifc SOLUTION

Core Test Case A Objective

Level 2 End-user Level

Level 2 EU Policy Level


B1.2 State-of-the art


B1.2 State-of-the art

• E-Gov is a major priority

– Currently: Attempts for the modernization of the front office through (sometimes fragmented and/or departmentalized) e-Gov portals

• Frequent law and legislation changes

– Do not propagate seamlessly into the services


B1.2 Presentation


B1.2 Presentation

• Concise, to-the-point overview of state of the art and current limitations in

– Thematic focus area (e-government)

– Technical focus area (semantic web technologies)

– Existing projects, initiatives and applications in both thematic and technical areas

Project contribution is presented in terms of present shortcomings in state of the art

B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority

Key Statistics,…


Key Statistics,…

• Case covers ALL core objectives of IST FP6 agenda, and also

– Core objective of thematic priority objective

– 3 out of the 5 2nd-level specific foci of thematic priority objective

– All STREP-specific approaches of thematic priority objective

– All key IST societal and economic challenges


…, Some More Details,…


…, Some More Details,…

• The proposal is in line with the IST thematic priority “Networked Businesses and Governments”

– HOW: Deeply integrated into the everyday environment of Public Administration

• Compliance with the STREP-specific Priority guidelines

– HOW: Focused innovation

– Pilot tested in 3 EU Member State public bodies

• The proposal addresses three out of five foci of the priority

– HOW: Collaborative environments

– Interoperable eGov platforms

– Managing knowledge to support innovation


…, And The Evaluators View


…, And The Evaluators View

“The proposal addresses the objectives of the work program in specifying, developing and deploying a holistic framework, in addressing reorganization of administrations and the full life cycle of work processes and in making new technology available to the users” Mark 4/5

B3 – Potential Impact Key Points

B3 – Potential Impact Key Points

• Strong strategic impact at a range of levels and societal groups

• Innovation at both the technical AND application areas

• Well-laid out exploitation scheme involving public administrations in 3 different European countries and specific dissemination plans per Consortium AND per partner

• Important contributions to the EU, FP6 IST priorities, EU stakeholders and STANDARDS; strong knowledge of relevant initiatives

• Synergies with existing EU projects

B3 ― Potential ImpactBreakdown of User Groups

B3 ― Potential ImpactBreakdown of User Groups

• Public Administration officers – Direct users of the platform – Facilities

• Have an overview of their service configuration model • Be able to re-configure the services

• Technological successors – Open source tools leveraged – Platform provided as open source

• End-users– Indirect users of the platform – Provided with knowledge enhanced eGov services

B4 – The Consortium and Project Resources

Key Points (1/5)


Key Points (1/5)

• High-quality consortium with already very experienced partners

• Each partner is allocated a clearly defined and convincing role

– Roles cover all administrative, technical and user aspects of the project

– There is NO cannibalism

• Due to discrete roles

• Clear elaboration of why a participating organisation is a subcontractor (as opposed to partner)

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7

WP1 9 9 12 0 6 3 9

WP2 12 6 0 0 6 6 9

WP3 12 18 3 9 6 6 9

WP4 2 12 24 6 0 0 0

WP5 2 24 6 36 0 0 0

WP6 0 18 3 9 6 6 6

WP7 16 9 3 3 3 6 8

WP8 9 6 3 9 3 6 6

WP9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 76 102 54 72 30 33 47

PartnerWP


Key Points (2/5)


Key Points (2/5)

• Strong complementarity between partners; well-scaled mix of

– Research institutions

• A German institute with distinctions in Knowledge Management (KM)

• A Swiss university, involved in eGov activities

– Two leading technology providers

• Greek eGov expert company

• A significant Spanish integrator


Key Points (3/5)


Key Points (3/5)

– Three Public Administrations / Pilot users

• Municipality of a major Spanish city

• Municipality of a Greek city, heavily involved in the Olympics

• Municipality of a Swiss nodal Canton point

– Management support

• A leading Greek management consultancy with ample experience in FP6 participation


Key Points (4/5)


Key Points (4/5)

• Clear and balanced financial plan

• Consistent and justified resource distribution for all partners and parts of the work; the management cost is kept within the 7% limit

7%

93%

Total Cost (%)

138• Management

1,839• RTD

Total Cost (€)Activity

7%

93%

Total Cost (%)

138• Management

1,839• RTD

Total Cost (€)Activity


Key Points (5/5)


Key Points (5/5)

B5 – Description of Project Management

Key Points

B5 – Description of Project Management

Key Points

• Management structure in line with complexity of project

• IPR, knowledge management, quality control and conflict resolution issues all addressed (also in § B3.3.5)

• Detailed risk management and contingency planning

• Sufficient reporting mechanisms

• Clear performance and success indicators

B6 – Work PlanKey Points

B6 – Work PlanKey Points

• Strong technical description supplemented with suitable illustrations

• Work allocation is evenly distributed amongst work-packages

• Clearly defined achievable objectives

– Overall approach is clear and focussed at both the horizontal and vertical levels and scales

– Research generally integrated into a coherent plan

– Well-determined base line and convincing end result

• Strong emphasis on tools and demonstrators

• Validation via pilot studies / usability trials

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 TOTAL

WP1 9 9 12 0 6 3 9 48

WP2 12 6 0 0 6 6 9 39

WP3 12 18 3 9 6 6 9 63

WP4 2 12 24 6 0 0 0 44

WP5 2 24 6 36 0 0 0 68

WP6 0 18 3 9 6 6 6 48

WP7 16 9 3 3 3 6 8 48

WP8 9 6 3 9 3 6 6 42

WP9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

PartnerWP

B6 – Work PlanWorkpackage Distribution

B6 – Work PlanWorkpackage Distribution

• How will the proposed project enhance the state-of-the-art in its area?– Define a generic ontology for eGov service lifecycle

and low-level domain-specific ontologies – Develop a semantically-enriched platform for

modelling, composing, re-configuring and evolving e-Gov services

– Pilot and evaluate (technically, organizationally and socially) the platform in three EU Public Administration

B6 – Work PlanOverview of Technical Approach

B6 – Work PlanOverview of Technical Approach

B6 – Work Plan Clear Results and Evaluation

B6 – Work Plan Clear Results and Evaluation

• Additional ontologies to incorporate lifecycle aspects

• User friendliness

– Measured with user interviews

• Performance metrics (size of the ontology, computing overhead)

Overall Impression Overall Impression

• Apparent existing expertise by ALL partners

• First-level analysis – State of the art– User clarification – User requirements

• Description of major developments in the area– Standardization – Existing tools and

platforms

• Clear results – Ontologies (specific kinds) – Platform

• Modelling

• (Re- ) Configuring

• Deployment

Test Case B Test Case B

B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project Test Case B Objectives

B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project Test Case B Objectives

• “The adoption of GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) info and service architecture in the field of coastal and marine anthropogenic environment risk, in areas such as marine eutrophication or oil spills”

• And some “passepartout” targets:

– Review of info sources

– Identify best practices

– Develop a roadmap

B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project B1 Section Structure

B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project B1 Section Structure

Possible Solutions

Statement of the Problem

Goal #1 +

Means

Goal #2 +

Means…..

Goal #n +

Means

Level 1 Technical Level

The Test Case A-specifc SOLUTION

Core Test Case A Objective

Level 2 End-user Level

Level 3 EU Policy + RTD

Level

Too generi

c

B1 – Objectives of the Proposed ProjectB1 Section Key Points

B1 – Objectives of the Proposed ProjectB1 Section Key Points

• Lengthy introduction – core objective is reached after a whole page of text

• Weak knowledge of subject matter field – a lot of verbiage, but no punchy text

• Weak definitions of

– Goals

– Addressed RTD and stakeholder groups

– End-user groups

• Practical relevance of benefits to end-user groups uncertain


Key Points (1/3)


Key Points (1/3)

• Like Test Case A, test Case B addresses the two main areas of concern of IST in FP6 and also

– Core 2.5.12 objective

– 1out of 3 2nd-level specific foci of thematic priority objective

– Some IST-related public sector and societal challenges


Key Points (2/3)


Key Points (2/3)

• The Test Case B strategic impact section– Lacks conviction– Contains a number of non-persuasive claims – there

is no in-depth addressing of specific challenges in the field

• There is some awareness of past and present initiatives but– No grounding on specific shortcomings and ways to

address these– No references to specific maritime organisations,

acedemic groups, etc

• Moreover, SSAs are supported in the 3rd focal area:

– Adoption of common architectures by • Extending work on environmental risk

and emergency management • Early adoption of GMES information

and service architecture • Convergence in the field of public

safety communication

But … SSAs as a horizontal instrument solicit a generalized view, while this proposal seems to focus TOO NARROWLY

Evaluators’ View: “The relevance is not sufficient (…) The objectives are concentrated exclusively on marine and coastal

risks” 3/5 below threshold


Key Points (3/3)


Key Points (3/3)

• Who will be the next user – who will use the project results?

• Results

– Provision of an integrated observing system for coastal and marine ecosystems

• Dissemination

– Portal, newsletter, conferences, journals etc: all the means are available

– Difficult to disseminate, if a small part of the consortium has pertinent activities

B3 – Strategic ImpactKey Points

B3 – Strategic ImpactKey Points

B4 – Consortium ResourcesKey Points (1/3)


• Consortium has a good range of management and IT skills and expertise

– 1 Technology Provider

• An SME with expertise in the development of environmental Information Systems (IS)

– 2 non-profit organizations

• An institute of a well-known Research Centre, with expertise on the development of environmental policies

• A German institute with participation in the area of environmental Knowledge Management

– 1 Management consulting firm experienced in FP6 RTD



• However, there is no direct experience or intimate knowledge pertinent to marine GIS standardisation; consortium is thus not fully representative of European best-practice in this area

• Missing key players, namely

– Maritime organisations or other stakeholder groups• Unclear how consultation with beneficiary groups will

be achieved / corresponding level of stakeholder acceptance questionable

• No defined end-user group / no pertinent group to carry through the exploitation scheme

P1 P2 P3 P4

WP1 5 0 0 0

WP2 2 4 6 2

WP3 2 2 6 2

WP4 3 6 2 4

WP5 4 6 2 4

WP6 4 2 2 2

TOTAL 20 20 18 14

PartnerWP



• Management structure credible and convincing

• Clear performance, quality control and success indicators

• Good quality risk and contingency planning

• Detailed financial plan

• Even distribution of tasks and financial resources amidst existing partners, but

– Resources rather overevaluated (72 PM!)

B5 – Description of Project ManagementKey Points

B5 – Description of Project ManagementKey Points

Β6 – Work PlanKey Points

Β6 – Work PlanKey Points

• Coherent workplan but 18 month timescale insufficient given the need for information collection; project scope overly ambitious given the chosen time frame, BUT

– Rather limited number of deliverables (16)

• Sampling scheme weak; WP2 approach probably inefficient in achieving stated goals and deliverables

• Very many unspecified information sources and beneficiaries – RTD players, PAs, maritime stakeholder groups, etc

• Poor match between dissemination and impact claims and activities foreseen; no specific exploitation scheme

Overall Impression Overall Impression

• Not apparent existing expertise by ALL partners

• Administrative approach

– Limited description of major developments in the area

– No reference to existing tools and platforms

• Unclear results

– Dissemination (but WHERE? and to WHOM?)

This Means That…This Means That…

The best possible approach to an unknown area may not be enough

Even if many hours have been dedicated to getting acquainted with the area

Before submitting we must stop to ask ourselves: “What can we offer to the Programme, based on our previous experience?”

SO…SO…

Test Case A. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art Rationale What is...

Documents

Transcript of Test Case A. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art Rationale What is...