Notes on APARSEN MegaMeeting Thursday 28 March 2013


  • Simon Lambert
  • Stefan Proell
  • Olivier Rouchon
  • John Lindström
  • Andreas Hundsdörfer
  • Panos Georgiou
  • Kirnn Kaur
  • Orit Edelstein
  • William Kilbride
  • Frederic Darre
  • Barbara Bazzanella
  • Yannis Tzitzikas
  • Emanuele Bellini
  • Sabine Schrimpf
  • Juha Lehtonen
  • René van Horik
  • Hervé L'Hours
  • Giannis Tsakonas
  • Gerald Jäschke
  • Barbara Sierman
  • Sharon McMeekin

Feedback from the review meeting

ACTION: Simon to put the detailed notes from the review, taken by Sabine and Veronika during the meeting, on the wiki.

Simon went over the reviewers' feedback at the end of the meeting, as summarised by William. in general the review went much better than the previous one. Good progress was made in the second year but it is time to enter a new level of activity from now on. Integration of work and analysis/recommendations from deliverables need to be stronger, and outreach beyond the consortium needs to be strengthened.

Three deliverables were not accepted until further work has been done:

  • D14.1: though we had a feeling this deliverable was too harshly criticised and what is being asked is outside the DoW
  • D21.1: needs completing with more services and empty fields filled in
  • D42.1: should have width of coverage increased, to give confidence in findings (though there is a question how much can realistically be done)

Some other deliverables were considered borderline, though since they are followed by further deliverables they were accepted. The deliverables on common vision/VCoE are problematic - see recommendations below.

Seven recommendations were made by the reviewers:

  1. There should be a document describing the methodology to achieve the common vision (by end of April) and a first draft common vision (in September).
  2. There should be a description of the VCoE for the end of year 3, and continuation plans beyond year 3 at the same time.
  3. There must be a clear strategy for launch of the VCoE; propose a task force to work on this.
  4. Do not advance alone, must discuss with other centres of competence.
  5. Need a stronger process to get feedback from outside into project and into deliverables.
  6. Quality and analysis needs to be strengthened, especially in those deliverables that gather information.
  7. Trust needs should be extended in survey on training matters (D42.1)

At the end of the first day the review team feared serious difficulties concerning the common vision/VCoE, so the second day was turned into more of an open discussionfor the reviewers' input. We admitted that we are behind schedule with the common vision.

The really urgent task is the methodology document required by the end of April. Kirnn suggested that the PMB and others present at the review should work on integration quickly. The workshop in April could deal with the methodology as well as the VCoE. It was agreed to hold a MegaMeeting early next week to kick-start this process.

ACTION: Simon to find date for MegaMeeting on methodology for common vision.

Yannis said that a key step is identifying what are the "product types" of the common vision. The process then defines steps with dates and target groups. He suggested that the PMB propose process, but it should be iterative and involve the relevant parties (WP leaders etc.).

René noted that we have huge resources for the common vision but the person-months need to be directed to specific tasks: for example one partner to concentrate on say research data archives. The meeting in April could be a valuable part of that process.

-- SimonLambert - 2013-03-28

Topic revision: r1 - 2013-03-28 - SimonLambert
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback