Notes for meeting with PO 20120303

Notes recording the meeting are here.


  • Two deliverables (D44.1 (Communication Plan) and D45.1 (Stakeholder identification and communication strategy) ) were submitted in draft form. The final versions need to take into account the comments made in the review report before final submission.
    • planned update: additional detail to be added to D44.1, including information on communications efforts of all Spreading Excellence WPs. The reworked deliverable will cover all communication activities in the project, external and internal. A chapter will be included giving more details on liaison with stakeholders and clear reference to D45.1 will be given.
    • D45.1 will include a clear definiton of APARSEN stakeholders, their roles and degrees of involvement in APARSEN and how the involvement will be covered by work packages mainly in stream spreading excellence. see Stream_4_Stakeholder_Onion_image.pptx attached to this site
  • There is inconsistency in the deliverables list as presented in part A and B of the DoW. The two lists need to be unified and harmonised and any missing deliverables delivered.
    • consistent list of deliverables to be produced. Should this be put into NEF?
    • providing intermediate deliverables
  • The P1 progress report needs to be redrafted and resubmitted.
    • being updated

focusing on issues mentioned in the recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7

  • Recommendation 1:
    • The panel strongly recommends a project checkpoint review at M16, to assess the eleven deliverables due at M14 (including the ones mentioned in part B D1101; D1102; D1301; D4101; D4301), the availability of details requested to the project management, and the implementation of some of the recommendations provided. By this time the project should also be able to show a common vision for the project including a clear description of what the end goals of the project will be with particular emphasis on the implementation, post-project management and sustainability of the VCoE.
    • D1101 (Collection of partners' digital preservation research plans) - in preparation
    • D1102 (Report on a Common Vision of Digital Preservation) - being agreed by consortium - see here and partner comments here
    • D4101 (Workshops planning and summary report) - being updated; D41.1 will provide evidence of the effectiveness of the APARSEN efforts in spreading excellence. The overall strategy is (1) to use conferences and workshops organised by others and (2) APARSEN/APA specific workshops and conferences to disseminate APARSEN results. The latter will also serve as consultation for presenting, and correcting, our findings on the major areas of Trust, Sustainablity, Usability and Access. In addition the plans for the VCoE will be presented, as will those for training and formal qualifications. Currently work is undertaken on a table which will list all relevant conferences for APARSEN. Planning of Events This table will serve as instrument for internal communication to discuss at which conferences APARSEN presence is recommended.
    • D4301 (Survey for the assessment of training material/ Assessment of digital curation requirements) - updates planned
    • D13.1 (Report about standardisation activities) - in preparation
  • Recommendation 2:
    • The panel recommends that all M14 deliverables are completed and made available for the M16 checkpoint review (see Recommendation 1). This includes all deliverables mentioned in DoW Part B (D1101; D1102; D1301; D4101; D4301) of which no draft or presentation have yet been provided for review.
  • Recommendation 3:
    • The panel recommends that a more thorough description of the Year 2 plan is completed and made available for the M16 checkpoint review than was available to the Year 1 review, and across all work packages. This should include a clear description of how all work packages align with the newly articulated vision of Recommendation 1. The plan should also provide a clear focus on integration activities in Year 2. It is important to be able to see that all work packages are directed to the overall vision of the project. Where they are not, then clear justification for any divergence should be provided. It is important that Year 2 clearly articulates what the NoE will produce and will have to offer, especially for its participants including clear differentiation from other research consortia and clear indications of organisational model and governance to be applied. For example, in 4 years’ time, will Airbus, will the BL or KB (etc.) discard their current practices and all start to adopt APARSEN’s new ‘shared vision and framework for a sustainable digital information infrastructure providing permanent access to digitally encoded information’?
    • P1 report being updated to add Y2 details
    • D11.2 being prepared
  • Recommendation 4:
    • The panel recommends that a formal explanation is made to the Project Officer regarding the changes to WP43 and WP12 on training and staff exchanges including a full explanation of how budget has been spent to date and a clear description of the current status of these work packages, both of which clearly deviate from what was expected from the DoW. This explanation is to be provided also for the M16 checkpoint review (see Recommendation 1).
    • Being made clear we are aligned with DoW: Exchanges extended to at least one month and additional information added to http://www.aparsenexchanges.net. Link between Audit and Certification and training reduced, will focus more broadly on main themes of APARSEN, reflecting DoW.
    • In WP12 the management effort has been shifted to DPC so all other partners can concentrate on the exchange programme.

  • Recommendation 6:
    • The panel recommends that certification, accreditation and self-assessment tools and various types of testbeds be impartially and consistently described within APARSEN, so that both internal and external stakeholders can have access to all relevant information and details to choose the one most suitable tool for their needs. It is strongly recommended that a mapping of such tools is developed and incorporated within the Year 2 reporting period, and that an overview of this work and document is provided at the M16 checkpoint review. More precisely, this mapping should be carried out in WP14, WP16 and WP33, starting with a documented overview to be presented in D14.1, D16.1 and D33.1B. This activity will be evaluated in the checkpoint review at M16. The mapping should be completed by the end of Year 2, and updated on a rolling basis.
    • D14.1, D16.1, D33.1B will be consistent

  • Recommendation 7:
    • The panel recommends that issues relating to development are surfaced fully within the project and the implications for these resolved during Year 2, and that an operational plan to achieve this is provided at M16 checkpoint review. Too often the panel were told that development would not be undertaken as part of the APARSEN project or that discussions with Scidip-es would be had regarding development. This means that activities such as the test environment (WP14) and the Persistent Identifier Interoperability Framework (WP22) will remain at purely report level and provide no meaningful advance on the state-of-the-art and contribute no practical benefit to the VCoE.
    • D11.2 covers this
    • There is a link to WP14 Common testing environment - the structure of WP16 will follow from this.
    • Maurizio Lunghi is investigating the effort needed to develop a prototype in WP22 in order to test the Interoperability Framework and demonstrate some basic services.
  • Other issues to raise
    • Postponement of deliverables D14.1 and D26.1 is requested.
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r14 < r13 < r12 < r11 < r10 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r14 - 2012-04-22 - VeronikaPraendlZika
 
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