Minutes of Project Management Board meeting, 17th October 2013

Present: Simon Lambert, David Giaretta, Maurizio Lunghi, Sabine Schrimpf, Ruben Riestra.

Follow-up from previous meeting and review of actions

The next review meeting is confirmed for 13th February 2014 in Frankfurt. Who apart from the PMB needs to attend? We might want people to present important deliverables, critical plans for the fourth year, and the common vision/!VCoE other than the WP/Stream lead. There is a trade-off between many and few people present; a "choral" presentation can be successful, as at the last review.

%ACTION{ closed="2013-11-22" closer="" created="2013-10-17" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-10-24" notify="" state="closed" uid="000225" who="Main.SimonLambert, DavidGiaretta, MatthiasHemmje, MaurizioLunghi, SabineSchrimpf, RubenRiestra" }% WP51 : think about which partners should be present at the review meeting - see here %ENDACTION%

Simon sent a reply to Manuela Speiser's comments on the common vision draft, and in response she stated that she will not send it to the reviewers at this time.

Meetings in Den Haag in December

The agenda has now been defined in outline. Ruben stressed the need to prepare a "battle plan" for the review meeting. We can recapitulate the Streams at the end of the first day to get an outline, and identify specific people from whom input is needed.

It was agreed that the Stream Leaders will run their own sessions on the first day.

%ACTION{ closed="2013-10-23" closer="Main.SimonLambert" created="2013-10-17" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-10-24" state="closed" uid="000226" who="Main.SimonLambert" }% WP51 : adapt timing of AHM agenda to reflect number of WPs per stream, and put Stream 4 first %ENDACTION%

Common vision and VCoE

The first of the weekly meetings on the vision was held this morning. There is an ongoing action on the PMB to look at draft D11.3 and identify areas of weakness.

Ruben argued that this deliverable and the VCoE is our "exploitation plan" for after the end of the project. There is a risk that partners will melt away when the project ends. Some kind of ongoing cooperation agreement might be desirable.

We need to know the real intentions of partners for the VCoE, but we understand that some (particularly large organisations) are not yet in a position to commit. Therefore we need a methodology to support them in making the decision. What does their management need to know to make them want to be part of it?

Maurizio was unclear whether the VCoE has yet been sufficiently defined for people to understand what it really is they are signing up for. David explained that the business plan describes what the VCoE will do; this is in draft and will be updated for the AHM. In fact the AHM is crucial in terms of timing, so we will need a lot of time for discussion.

It was agreed to produce a short summary from the business plan explaining what the VCoE really is: "a cooperation of expertise to launch a series of services to help your institution".

%ACTION{ closed="2014-01-08" closer="Main.SimonLambert" created="2013-10-17" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-10-24" state="closed" uid="000227" who="Main.DavidGiaretta" }% WP11 : produce draft of short summary of what the VCoE will be %ENDACTION%

Sustainability brochure

No discussion.

Next contract amendment

Simon will approach partners with major underspend to propose that some of their budget be reallocated in the next contract amendment. They might have plans for the budget, but any effort spent must be of value for the project.

%ACTION{ closed="2013-11-22" closer="Main.SimonLambert" created="2013-10-17" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-10-22" state="closed" uid="000228" who="Main.SimonLambert" }% WP51 : approach underspending partners about reallocation of budget %ENDACTION%

There is also the question of what to do with any budget released in this way. David argued that we should think in terms of results, not just spending effort, and particularly in terms of what outputs will be wanted at the end of the project.

Cooperation with other projects

%ACTION{ closed="2013-11-22" closer="Main.SimonLambert" created="2013-10-17" creator="Main.SimonLambert" due="2013-10-18" state="closed" uid="000229" who="Main.RubenRiestra" }% WP41 : send latest version of cooperation agreement, for final checking %ENDACTION%

Review of Risk Register

A review of the risk register was done online, editing the wiki page in real time.

Any other issues

Simon asked about representation of APARSEN at the ICT 2013 event. David, Ruben, Matthias and Hans-Ulrich Heidbrink will all be there. There is nformation on the wiki at Ict2013DetailedInfo.

David reported that the organisers have requested an updated description of the booth, which he will provide.

-- SimonLambert - 2013-10-17

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 2014-01-08 - 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