Minutes of APARSEN General Assembly Meeting Friday 9 November 2012

Attendees

See signed attendance sheet attached to main page for the meeting.

The meeting was chaired by Juan Bicarregui (STFC).

Minutes of previous meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved and accepted as an accurate record.

Coordinator's Report

SL circulated the report to the project members prior to the meeting and went through the points detailed in this document. Main points as follows:

Communications with the Project Officer

  • Re-constituting the review panel, retaining Perla Innocenti for continuity but introducing two new reviewers. The PO has invited Cal Lee (University of North Carolina) and requested suggestions from the consortium for the other reviewer - SL asked the GA to submit suggestions
  • The review meeting will take place week 4-9 March 2013 in Luxembourg. It is not yet clear who from APARSEN should attend (see below).
  • Pre-review meeeting - there will be an informal meeting on the 10 December 2012 with Manuela Speiser, the Project Officer, with the main purpose of presenting the revised Description of Work..

Revision of the DOW

  • The aim is to rationalise and re-focus the process - this ís being driven bottom-up with all the WP leaders editing the text of their respective work packages and all partners indicating their desired shifts of effort.
  • The PO has indicated that she is sympathtic to the re-assignment of the budget available with the departure of Philips and IKI-RAS to strengthen managmement and the role of the Stream Leaders.

Periodic Reporting and Cost Claims

  • The first year report was accepted by the EC.
  • The signed Form C's are now being collated and SL hopes to send them at the end of next week.
  • The second periodic report and cost claims will be due at the beginning of 2013.

Effort Booking

SL produced a graph of the effort booked against the projected man months and would deal with any questions at the end of the presentation. There are some possible problems with underbooking on some of the WPs in the second year.

Inactive Partners

At the GA in June, it was agreed that a procedure would be put in place for partners perceived as inactive. This procedure has not yet been put into operation.

Management Issues

A new Stream 3 leader will be elected at the meeting, following the resignation of Christoph Bruch and Hans Pfeiffenberger. Simon thanked Christoph and Hans for their contributions as Stream Leaders and members of the PMB.

Important Forthcoming Happenings

1. Completion of revision of the DOW by the end of the year

2. Submission of a large number of deliverables due in Month 26 (end of Feb)

3. Review meeting in Luxembourg at the beginning March

Management of the Network

Composition of the PMB

There was an unresolved issue of the correct composition of the Management Board. It was proposed that the PMB should be defined as the Administrative and Technical Coordinators plus the Stream Leaders (that is, without WP leaders). If approved, this would be written into the revised DOW.

MOTION: The General Assembly is invited to authorise the Project Management Board, now defined as Stream Leaders plus Administrative and Technical Coordinators, to take responsibility for the day-to-day management of APARSEN, and for this definition to be incorporated in the revised Description of Work.

The motion was approved with one against and one abstention.

Re-election of Stream Leaders

This was discussed within the PMB and, although there are advantages in continuity, the current Stream Leaders and PMB members were in agreement this should be subject to annual election and propose starting in April 2013. However, after discussion a different motion was proposed:

MOTION: The current Stream Leaders will remain in place for the duration of the project and not be subject to re-election unless they wish to resign. If a Stream Leader wishes to step down, then the coordinators will seek a replacement ASAP.

The GA agreed to this proposal with three members voting against and one abstention from IBM in absence. It was therefore agreed to go forward on this basis.

Reporting Procedures

The PMB wishes to introduce brief monthly reports in a simple standard template produced by the WP leaders to the Stream Leaders. These reports will be easily re-usable to produce the yearly periodic reports. SS would like to see the standard template before it is approved. SL advised that it is a monthly report that will consist of:

  • Highlights on progress
  • Meetings held
  • External contacts
  • Dissemination
  • Deliverables status
  • Risks and problems

SS asked what they will do with the information. ML replied that the reports would be read and discussed with the WP leaders and pointed out that the Stream Leaders could not effectively do their job without the information provided by the WP leaders. KK felt that having this discipline helps to keep the project team informed. RM said we need to think about how this is done within the respective teams. JB confirmed that this information will be shared amongst the consortium.

G. Jaschke is concerned that we may be duplicating the reporting. JB said the effort reporting is effectively a progress report and a way of recording issues that come up formally. S. Reilly felt this was normal practice and risks can be identified and registered early. RR felt it was useful to see as this is the work plan and shows how the work is being carried out. CB said that we do have a way of assessing how the work package is progressing and this addresses that problem. CB said that we should trust the PMB to come up with a simple template for monthly reporting.

MOTION: The General Assembly is invited to endorse these proposals for reporting, and to give its backing to the coordinator and Stream Leaders in obtaining the required information.

The motion was approved.

Election of new Stream Leader for Stream 3

Ruben Riestra and Sabine Schrimpf put themselves forward for this position. KG said that the two candidates brought different skill sets and strengths to the PMB and and suggested that RR should act as consultant to the PMB advising on strategy for the preparation of reviews and SS should undertake the role as leader of Stream 3 as she is already heavily involved in this work. JB said that it is perfectly feasible to have an additional person on the PMB who can be charged with preparation for the reviews. CB said that in addition to the core management board, the PMB has an option to add expertise to the board, in addition to the Stream Leaders.

JB suggested having a discussion about the roles and asked each of the candidates to address the GA and give reasons as to why they should be considered. RR said he is happy to assist and use his extensive experience to strengthen the board, SS felt that she has a good deal of experience within projects and can find the resources needed to do this work. JB said we coud have someone on the PMB informally who can be charged with the preparation for the reviews.

The GA was asked to vote for the proposal that Sabine Schrimpf is elected as Stream Leader for Stream 3 and Ruben Riestra will act as advisor to the PMB charged with preparation for all forthcoming reviews.

The GA voted in favour of this proposal with one abstention present and one abstention from IBM in absence.

Approval of changes to DOW

MOTION: The General Assembly is invited to approve the termination of work in WP12 ‘Staff and experience exchange’—accepting that some work was legitimately done in the first and second years—and the complete deletion of WP34 ‘Brokerage services’ (not yet started).

The GA voted in favour of this proposal with one abstention from IBM in their absence

It was agreed to discuss further the removal of WP46 (International liaison) by transferring its remaining work and budget into WP45.

There was discvussion of reallocation of the budget released by the departure of Philips and IKI-RAS. JB and RR recommend that the calculations should be made as agreed, showing the strengthening of the management of the project in person-months. They will also allocate the funds in money rather than man months and the details will be shown in the revised DOW.

MOTION: The General Assembly is invited to endorse the assignment of a part of the budget released by the departure of Philips and IKI-RAS thus: 2 pm/year for Stream Leaders plus €2000 travel per year, for the second, third and fourth years of the contract.

This motion was not formally voted, but the GA did approve the principle of the motion.

Withdrawal of partners

MOTION: The General Assembly is invited to recognise and retroactively approve the withdrawal of Philips Consumer Lifestyle and Microsoft Research Limited during the first year of the project.

Motion was approved by the GA

MOTION: The General Assembly is invited to approve the withdrawal of IKI-RAS at the end of the second year of the project.

Motion was approved by the GA

RR suggested that, in parallel with the changes in the DOW, we should make the Project Officer aware of the IKI-RAS situation. SL reported that IKI-RAS is intending to withdraw in the second year and advised the group that the IKI-RAS costs for the first year were accepted by the EC. He will also work out what has been accepted in the first year's costs and what is outstanding.


The formal part of the GA meeting ended at this point. What follows is a record of informal discussions concerning the review meeting.

Evaluation of Progress towards Next Review

We will be reviewed up to and including the Month 26 deliverables, and these must be delivered in time for the reviewers to read them.

Suggestions for the third reviewer

A discussion took place about the recommendations for a reviewer and a list of the names put forward by the group was discussed, resulting a short list in the choices as follows:

  • 1st choice - Dinesh Katre
  • 2nd choice - Daniel Teruggi
  • 3rd choice - Ross Wilkinson
  • 4th choice - Vittore Casarosi

Big messages/scenario

  • What we have achieved in the second year
  • We have done what was expected of us
  • We will not give the PO any more 'headaches'
  • We have taken into account all the first year's review recommendations
  • JvdH suggested we show how we have moved on from the Trust topic to the Sustainability element of the project.
  • ES offered the webinars on WP42/45. Webinars are being planned in January and February and ES asked the group to put themselves forward for this.
  • The Trust Brochure
  • Risks that have been identified and managed
  • VCoE and Common Vision - we plan to have had one out of three workshops towards the VCoE. VP-Z advised that there will be two groups working on the Common Vision and VCoE and a paper will be available by the end of January. The work is largely done and we have good processes in place to complete this.
  • Project management report
  • Need to explain to the new reviewers what is confusing - many WP's/tasks and how they are related. RR said that the first sentence should be "all that has been detailed in the DOW has been delivered".
  • Send an Executive Summary of the deliverables and how the WP's interlink
  • Produce this Executive Summary for each of the deliverables against the revised DOW by the end of November
  • This needs to be accompanied by a good Management Report

Who should attend from APARSEN?

Propose Administrative and Technical Coordinators and Stream Leaders

ACTIONS:

  • SL to send out the doodle poll to arrange a date for the VCoE Workshop.
  • SL to appoint internal reviewers for deliverables
  • SL to update the guidelines for the internal reviewers
  • SL to clarify timetable of submission ot deliverables with respect to date of review
  • PMB - spend the two weeks at the end of February to ensure we are well prepared for the review
  • PMB - Ensure there is time for a rehearsal 1-2 days prior to the review date

Meeting with the PO 10 December 2012

RR said that we should encourage the External Advisory Board to contribute to this pre-review and ensure we have the agenda for the review available for the meeting on the 10 December.

RR suggested an informal conversation on the telepone between JB and Manuela Speiser about what we intend to do and the preparations for the review meeting. Also say we would like to take up the offer of a pre-review in the second half of January 2013 as suggsted by Liina Munari, the previous PO.

RR said we need to ensure there is someone who know the DOW intimately to ensure we address any detailed questions from the reviewers.

ACTION:

  • PMB: Put together a draft for an agenda for the 10 December meeting

Schedule of activity/responsibilities of all/plenary preparation meeting

Pre-review meeting - second half of January 2013

Agreed as desirable - if no face to face meeting, then send the documents.

SM suggested we offer an educational session with the reviewers to bring the reviewers up to speed before the deliverables are submitted.

ACTION:

  • All WP leaders to give a short summary (1/2 - 1-page)in bullet-point form for each of the deliverables to be achieved in Year 2. These will go into the Management Report.

-- SimonLambert - 2012-11-20

Topic revision: r1 - 2012-11-20 - 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