d1.2 project & quality management manual - operando.eu · d1.2 – project & quality...

© 2015 Oxford Computer Consultants and other members of the OPERANDO consortium.

D1.2 – Project & Quality Management Manual

Author(s): Rachael Bartholomew

Responsible Partner: OCC

Version: 1.0

Date: 22/07/2015

Distribution level (CO, PU):

PU

D1.2 – Project & Quality Management Manual Version 1.0 22/07/15

[OPERANDO] www.operando.eu of 29 Contract No. H2020 - 653704

Project Number: H2020 - 653704

Project Title: OPERANDO

Title of Deliverable: Project & Quality Management Manual

Due Date of Delivery to the EC:

31/07/2015

Work Package: WP1

Contributor(s): Rachael Bartholomew (OCC)

Reviewer(s): Leire Orue-Echevarria (TCN)

Approved by: All Partners

Document Revision History

Version Date

Modifications Introduced

Modification Reason Modified by

0.1 13/07/2015 First draft Rachael Bartholomew (OCC)

0.2 13/07/2015 Updated draft following internal review

Rachael Bartholomew (OCC), Reynold Greenlaw (OCC)

0.3 16/07/2015 Review, minor changes Leire Orue-Echevarria (TCN)

0.4 22/07/2015 Amendments following review Rachael Bartholomew (OCC)

1.0 22/07/2015 Final version Rachael Bartholomew



OPERANDO Consortium Partners and Acronyms

Initials Name

OCC Oxford Computer Consultants

AVO Arteevo Technologies

PDI Progetti di Impresa

STL Stelar

RMS RomSoft

TCN Tecnalia

ITI IT Innovation Centre, University of Southampton

UPRC Piraeus University Research Center

FCSR Fondazione Centro San Raffaele

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Abbreviation

CA Consortium Agreement

D Deliverable

UAB User Advisory Board

EMC Ethics Management Board

EC European Commission

GA Grant Agreement

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

MS Milestone

NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement

PGA Project General Assembly

PCO Project Coordinator

PO Project Officer



QA Quality Assurance

T Task

TC Technical Committee

TL Task Leader

WP Work Package

WPL Work Package Leader



Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 7

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Abstract .......................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Purpose of the document .................................................................................. 8

2.3 Target audience ............................................................................................... 8

3 Management Structure ............................................................................................. 9

3.1 Project Coordinator .......................................................................................... 9

3.2 Project General Assembly ................................................................................ 10

3.3 Work Package Leaders .................................................................................... 10

3.4 Technical Committee ....................................................................................... 11

3.5 Exploitation Committee.................................................................................... 12

3.6 User Advisory Board ........................................................................................ 12

3.7 Ethics Advisory Board ...................................................................................... 12

4 Project Meetings and Reviews ................................................................................ 13

4.1 PGA meetings ................................................................................................. 13

4.2 Review sessions .............................................................................................. 15

4.3 Fortnightly Progress Meeting ............................................................................ 15

5 Communication ..................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Decisions and Conflict Resolution ..................................................................... 15

5.2 Internal Communication and Information Flow .................................................. 16

5.3 Workspace for Collaboration ............................................................................ 16

6 Reporting .............................................................................................................. 17

6.1 Quality Assurance ........................................................................................... 17

6.2 Project Reports ............................................................................................... 18

7 Budget ................................................................................................................. 19

7.1 Timesheets ..................................................................................................... 19

7.2 Re-distribution of Budget ................................................................................. 19

8 Project Presentation ............................................................................................... 20

8.1 Logo .............................................................................................................. 20

8.2 Press Releases ................................................................................................ 20

8.3 Website ......................................................................................................... 21

8.4 Social Media Channels ..................................................................................... 21

8.5 Scientific Papers ............................................................................................. 21

8.6 Deliverables and Publications ........................................................................... 22



9 Templates ............................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A. Project Milestones ................................................................................. 23

Appendix B. Project Milestone Components ............................................................... 25



1 Executive Summary

This document summarises the management structures and procedures for the OPERANDO project. This includes templates, guidelines and standards for the deliverables, including a quality assurance workflow and communication approaches within the consortium. As its role as a manual, this document is to be used as a guide if a specific issue needs to be solved or a question needs to be answered. This manual represents a key deliverable for WP1 to provide effective management and coordination for the project, and sets out the project management reporting deliverables (D1.6, D1.8, D1.11) for this work package will be produced and how we will run consortium meetings (D1.4, D1.5, D1.7, D1.9).



2 Introduction The OPERANDO project is a collaborative project involving 9 partners from different countries in Europe. Management structures and procedures are necessary to facilitate effective and efficient work. Such kind of management information is included in the Grant Agreement (GA) and its annexes, the Consortium Agreement (CA) and minutes of Project Board meetings.

2.1 Abstract

This document summarises all regulations and guidelines regarding management structures and procedures. It aggregates information from the GA and its annexes, the CA and further decisions within the consortium.

2.2 Purpose of the document

The main purpose of this document is to simplify access to these information resources. Regarding its definition as a ‘project management manual’, this deliverable has to be used as an entry point in case a specific issue needs to be solved or a question needs to be answered. Regarding ‘project presentation’, procedures to publish and present material have to be described in a comprehensive way and avoid any Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) issues. Additionally, this deliverable summarises all templates available to create OPERANDO content.

2.3 Target audience

The deliverable is written primarily for all consortium members being involved in the structures and procedures. At a secondary stage, the document might help board members to understand the roles within the consortium and to understand procedures (e. g. in case of the publication of a press article). Access for board members is only possible after having signed an NDA.



3 Management Structure The OPERANDO project management is based on experiences gathered during previous national and international research projects. It is using approved methods applied in successful EC projects in which the consortium partners have been involved in order to assure an efficient decision making process, a rapid information flow and high quality reports.

The management structure is described in the Grant Agreement (GA) [Chapter 5, page 59-61]. The role descriptions are complemented in the Consortium Agreement (CA) [section 6, pages 7-11], especially for their responsibilities in the interaction with other beneficiaries:

The project management is designed as a lean organisation. But since the consortium with nine participants is a large organisation, several boards and backup solutions have been implemented in order to allow co-determination to every partner and to assure a smooth project coordination and administration without unnecessary delays. The project management has a simple structure that achieves an efficient project control at four levels:

At the operational level the team of the project coordinator (PCO) conducts the daily business and coordinates regular meetings and deadlines.

The Project General Assembly (PGA) decides on the overall strategy, agrees on plans, monitors milestones and approves results.

An Ethics Management Board (EMB) is the guardian of the correct governance practices which reviews at regular intervals (set out in deliverable 3.6 document, “D3.6 - Ethics Committee Approvals)).

The Technical Committee (TC) includes the leaders of the technical work packages and is chaired by the Technical Manager.

Figure 1 Management Structure of OPERANDO

The overall management structure is shown in Figure 1. The following sections describe each of these roles.

3.1 Project Coordinator

The Project Coordinator, OCC, has the overall responsibility for the project, acting as the executive of the PGA. The PCO is accountable for:

day-to-day management of the project

tracking progress made relative to schedules



maintaining common agreement in the project

liaising with the Commission representing the consortium

coordinating the preparation and distribution of all deliverables

maintaining tracking of costs, resources and scheduling

scheduling and arrange periodic meetings

chair of the PGA

maintaining the quality assurance of the technical reports & deliverables

supporting the technical coordination between the work packages

organising the project reviews with the European Commission

performing risk management

3.2 Project General Assembly

The PCO chairs the Project General Assembly (PGA). A single representative from each partner, including WP leaders, will form the PGA. The PGA is the main technical and management organism for project coordination; it is the highest body of the project consortium.

The PCO shall convene ordinary meetings of the PGA every 4-6 months and shall also convene extraordinary meetings upon written request of any Member. However, the PGA members stay in contact with each other and try to fix problems via telecommunication means, hopefully rendering such extraordinary meetings unlikely. The PGA is responsible for:

deciding on strategy and assessing the progress of the project

authorising any corrective actions recommended by the Technical Manager in order to meet the objectives of the contract;

monitoring the progress of the whole project and the achievement of the defined milestones.

reviewing exploitation and dissemination strategies and authorize revisions as necessary. o Exploitation strategy is developed by the Exploitation Manager and the Exploitation

Committee; Exploitation, dissemination and IPR issues will be coordinated at the Consortium level by the Exploitation Manager.

assessing and responding to any change to the contract suggested by the European Commission

resolving all conflicts not solved at Technical Committee or Work Package level

In taking decisions the PGA will firstly seek consensus, then secondly a majority (each partner having one vote).

3.3 Work Package Leaders

The Work Package Leader (WPL):

coordinates the activities of a given work package (WP)

is responsible for the technical management of the work package

performs risk management on WP level, in particular assess risks based on deviations from the scheduled work plan



reports to the PGA for all technical coordination and progress descriptions

sends the final drafts of deliverables to the PCO

The leaders of each work package are shown below:

WP No. Work Package Title Leader

1 Project Management OCC

2 Market Analysis and Product Management AVO

3 Law, Ethics and Standardization STL

4 Privacy Architectures and Algorithms PRS

5 Interfaces and User Management OCC

6 Server Side Architecture and Implementation

TCN

7 Client Side Architecture and Implementation

RMS

8 Testing and Validation ITI

9 Communication and Dissemination PDI

10 Exploitation and Business Planning AVO

The WPL is supported by a number of task leaders who are responsible for a specific task within the work package (WP). Each Task Leader (TL):

is responsible for the technical management of the task

coordinates all consortium partners’ activities within this task

cooperates with the WPL

3.4 Technical Committee

The Technical Committee is made up of the leaders of the technical work packages and chaired by the Technical Manager. The committee determines the technical direction needed to meet the aims of the project and its members, seeks technical consensus and recommends amendments to the work programme as necessary to mitigate risk or as corrective actions. Differences within the Technical Committee will be resolved by the PGA.

The Technical Manager, TM, represents the Technical Committee at the PGA meetings without voting rights and will submit the technical work programme or any change to it for endorsement by the PGA. The Technical Manager:

establishes and maintains a technical plan of the project

reports to the PGA on the technical status of the project

organises the internal workshops of the project



3.5 Exploitation Committee

The Exploitation Committee will establish and implement (given PGA approval) the dissemination and exploitation strategies. Each proposing organization will nominate a representative to the Exploitation Committee who will be responsible for its company’s exploitation of the project results.

The Exploitation Committee will be chaired by the Exploitation Manager who will be elected by the PGA. Their main responsibilities will be to:

establish the exploitation strategy

submit it to the PGA for approval

propose amendments as necessary.

Further details and strategy for the exploitation will be set out in deliverable D10.2 – exploitation plan.

3.6 User Advisory Board

The UAB consists of the PGA interested and invited advisors from different end-user organisations. The objective is to integrate and involve end-users to achieve validated and useful results. A list of advisory board members and testing and validation partners is shown below:

The UAB will assist in pre-validation of OPERANDO by providing market requirements and highlighting user, OSP, ethical and regulatory needs, and providing essential inputs into the market analysis and specification processes of the project. UAB members will also contribute to a dedicated workshop organised by the OPERANDO consortium to address the key stakeholder groups. Test results, updates concerning OPERANDO development, and feedback to OPERANDO from UAB members will continue throughout the project on an ad hoc basis.

3.7 Ethics Advisory Board

Ethical oversight of the OPERANDO trials will be implemented through review by an Ethics Management Board (EMB). The EMB will be responsible for ethical oversight for the OPERANDO trials, and ensuring they are addressing correctly ethical concerns. The EMB will report about its work to the Project General Assembly. The EMB will include:

an overall chair, rotated bi-annually between the partners;



external Ethics Experts, who may come from within partner organizations or from outside, but in either case will not be directly involved in OPERANDO research;

each work package leader.

The first chair pf the EMB will be Dr. Mike Surridge from the IT Innovation Centre. The board will also include 2 experts in the respective field to ensure it has an independent view. The external EMB members are:

1- Ing. Simone Lightwood, Chief Information Officer at IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini with special focus on national and EU privacy requirements.

2- A member of the OSR Ethical Committee, with a healthcare expertise in line with the FCSR Healthcare trials scenarios

The EMB will meet quarterly [online / face-to-face] to discuss any issues arising and agree on an appropriate action plan. They will:

review and approve any proposed data collection before they take place, and evaluate in terms of appropriate legal and ethical considerations

review any data collection once complete, with a view to identifying actions or procedures which need to be put in place prior to the next such collection

review any planned processing of such data

approve the processing and transfer of data between partners

review any requests to withdraw data

validate that such requests have been actioned appropriately.

A detailed description of the EAB and the procedures is defined in D3.6 (“Ethics Committee Approvals”).

4 Project Meetings and Reviews

4.1 PGA meetings

The OPERANDO project consortium meets for physical ordinary meetings every 4-6 months. The partners agreed that each partner is open to host one of these meetings throughout the project duration. Thereby the consortium supports the European idea of sharing and collaborating with a side-effect on local dissemination activities. If possible, the location of the meeting should be aligned to tasks actually running. If possible, the PGA meetings will take place before a planned milestone (see appendices A and B).

Throughout the course of the project, members may be asked to host general project meetings. Main tasks involved in hosting a meeting are:

Provide precise details about how to reach the venue and recommended accommodation

Provide meeting rooms for accomplishing the agenda plenary and parallel sessions



Provide audio-visual equipment necessary for the presentations

Provide suitable refreshments during the meeting and breaks

Provide Internet connection

The agenda and minutes will be always provided by the Project Coordinator. The agenda will have to be agreed by the Technical Committee at least one month in advance. The overall meeting is conducted by Project Coordinator. Specific sessions are moderated by respective WP leaders or other managers in the project.

Planned consortium meetings:

Meeting Month Planned

Host What

Kick-off 1

(May-15) OCC

Discuss the work plan, the structure of the project organization, the flows of information to promote creativity and cooperation. Plan exploitation and

dissemination activities. Will include PGA, Exploitation and Technical Committee meetings.

Advisory Board Workshop

5 (Sep-15)

PDI

Discuss OPERANDO concepts and planned functionality (following earlier presentations and discussions with UAB

members). Gain insights and requirements from UAB members. To be held just before and back-to-back with the

Definitions and Specifications meeting (same location).

Requirements, Architecture,

Procedures and Guidelines

5 (Sep-15)

PDI

Finalize initial functional, legal and technical specifications and guidelines. Prepare for the launch of software

development activities in M6. Discuss early exploitation activities and finalize the exploitation plan. Will include

PGA, Exploitation and Technical Committee meeting.

Sync before 1st prototype

11 (Mar-16)

AVO

Discuss progress and close gaps among the technical implementation team members in preparation for 1st

prototype release in M12. Monitor progress of exploitation activities. Will include Technical Committee meeting.

Mid-Project, Sync before 2nd prototype

17 (Sep-16)

RMS

Discuss internal test results of 1st prototype and agile prototypes tested in M12-M17. Presentation and

discussion of the interim Business Plan. Discuss interim exploitation, dissemination and standardization activities and results. Explore early Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

release to select T&V partners. Will include PGA, Exploitation and Technical Committee meetings.

Sync before 3rd prototype and T&V

23 (Mar-17)

TCN

Discuss results of interim agile prototypes testing between M18 and M23. Prepare for release of the 3rd prototype for full testing at all T&V partner sites. Will include Technical

and Exploitation Committee meetings.

Prepare for OPERANDO

Release

29 (Sep-17)

UPRC

Discuss results and feedbacks of T&V, Exploitation and Dissemination activities and results, and plan for

enhancement of the activities in the last ½ year of the project. Present and review the Business Plan. Discuss commercial exploitation plans, including joint venture.



Monitor legal environment and standardization activities progress. Summarize remaining g activities and

deliverables. Will include PGA and all committee meetings.

4.2 Review sessions

A ‘Review session’ is a session where the EC takes its right to perform a review during the project duration. This is planned annually and will be held in Brussels. During this session, progress will be reviewed by external experts (i. e. reviewers) with respect to:

“the degree of fulfilment of the project work plan for the relevant period and of the related deliverables

the continued relevance of the objectives and breakthrough potential with respect to the scientific and industrial state of the art

the resources planned and utilised in relation to the achieved progress, in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness;

the management procedures and methods of the project

the beneficiaries’ contributions and integration within the project

the expected potential impact in economic, competition and social terms, and the beneficiaries' plan for the use and dissemination of foreground.

4.3 Fortnightly Progress Meeting

All partners meet for a fortnightly telephone conference every Tuesday at 10.30 BST (11:30 CET). The discussion focusses around open action items, and specific topics raised by partners. This fortnightly call can also be used for an extraordinary PGA meeting. These meetings are possible at any time upon written request.

5 Communication

The communication strategy keeps partners fully informed about project status, planning and all issues which are important in order to maximize transparency and co-operation. Interactive management meetings and technical meetings play an important role in the communication strategy. All information (minutes of meetings, reports of visits, relevant publications etc.) will be communicated to the PCO, who will be responsible for channelling this information to the other partners, where appropriate. The communication strategy effectively communicates with external parties including other European project consortia and standardisation committees. The strategy includes planning publications, presentations and conferences.

5.1 Decisions and Conflict Resolution

Any decision made within the PGA shall require a quorum of 2/3 of the Voting Parties present or represented. Each Party shall have one vote and defaulting Parties shall not vote. In taking decisions the PGA will firstly seek consensus, then secondly a majority (each partner having one vote). In this



case, decisions shall require a 2/3 majority. Only representatives of PGA Members have votes; the PCO, Exploitation Manager and any other invited participant do not have voting rights.

If necessary, the Project Coordinator will organise a conflict resolution meeting within 30 days following the receipt of a written request from a project partner. Arbitration will be performed in increasing order of authority:

within the team of each work package under the management of the WP Leader

within the Technical Committee under the management of the Technical Manager

within the PGA under management of the Project Manager

within the PGA

If necessary, a meeting will be held with all representatives of the respective level. Agreements are searched for through dialogue and mutual concession. In the case of failure, a meeting at upper level will be arranged. Requests for meetings must include hints for potential solutions; replies must be

given within a stated time.

5.2 Internal Communication and Information Flow

All regular meetings of the PGA for the first 6 months were scheduled at the kick-off meeting. The upcoming meetings will be planned at each PGA meeting, a first draft of the scheduled meetings and locations for the whole project can be found in section 3.1. Emergency meetings may be initiated at short notice (minimum a week in advance). An appropriate agenda, proposed resolutions and decisions and possible solutions, where applicable, are distributed to all board members at least a week before the meeting. The meeting itself is logged and the minutes distributed within a week.

In order to reduce expenses communication is mainly organised via telecommunication, e. g. e-mail, telephone, messengers (Skype) and online platforms. PGA meetings are realised as personal meetings in order to intensify the personal relationships and discuss problems in an adequate ambiance. In exceptional cases (especially when there is short-notice) emergency board meetings might be held as telephone/video conferences.

5.3 Workspace for Collaboration

For internal communication and documents distribution an exclusive online platform was initialised: OwnCloud. This is an enterprise file sync and share hosted by OCC. All partners have been provided with an individual login.

Besides document management, OwnCloud provides calendars for project dates and dissemination activities and a contact list of all team members.

Additionally, there are mailing lists for each work package, and an overall group mailing list supports information exchange for the whole project:

overall mailing list: [email protected]

For external communication a public web site will be used (www.operando.eu) where project and consortium information, flyers and news is published. Project based publications and research studies are disseminated over this platform, too. The website promotes the whole project and provides a platform to get in contact with other interested parties. Social networks are also used in order to get in touch with ordinary citizens and associations (see section 7.4).

http://www.operando.eu/



6 Reporting

Four types of reporting apply to all consortium members:

Reporting to EC in terms of submitting deliverables (through the PCO). Official documents will be PDFs, digitally signed if required. All deliverables will also be stored in OwnCloud and will be updated by the PCO.

Technical Progress/Status Reports will be completed by WP Leaders, communicated to the PCO and distributed to all participants. Reports will be the basis of WP meetings and +advise all members of technological progress, changes to work plan and accomplishments to assist them in planning and facilitate risk management.

Administrative and Financial Milestone/Deliverable Reports to the PGA for the assessment of progress. The PGA distributes this report to all participants. It will also provide the basis for EC communications including annual reports.

Document publication will communicate effectively with external parties, including other European projects and potential users. These documents will be available on the web.

6.1 Quality Assurance

Successful project management requires an integrated quality management system. The PCO establishes an independent quality assurance (QA) and self-assessment process within the consortium that supports a consistent creation and evaluation of deliverables. The self-assessment review process for each deliverable ensures that each deliverable is of a high quality.

In order to ensure quality, each deliverable shall be reviewed following a QA process. These QA reviewers are appointed by the PCO and may be employees of partners whose area of expertise should be unrelated to the respective deliverable. There is a list of assigned QA reviewers for each deliverable on OwnCloud to ensure that this is followed for all documents.

The deliverable process is extended for a QA review: 4 weeks before its due date, a deliverable needs to be sent to the PCO and all partners of the corresponding WP. All these partners perform an ‘internal QA review’. Three weeks before due date, the deliverable needs to be sent to an appointed QA reviewer. The QA review is mandatory for each deliverable. The QA reviewer performs her/his review within one week according to the QA review template. Within another week, the responsible authors revise the deliverable by accepting (and changing) or declining (with justification) the recommendations. One week before delivery date the revised deliverable has to be sent to the project coordinator. The PCO has to check if all organisational requirements are met and send the deliverable to the EC (i.e. the PO). This process is shown in figure 2.

In case of significant issues in the timeline (e.g., for deliverables which are due already in M1 or M3), these need to be notified to the PCO who will find a solution based on the generic strategy to find a consensus among partners

Figure 2 – Review process for deliverables



These efforts lead to the following aspects:

The QA review is performed using set criteria. A template is provided from the PCO for the QA review of all documents covering:

o Objectives: Assess the satisfaction of the objectives of the document

o Technical Completeness: Rate the technical completeness of the document

o Presentation: Rate the presentation of contents

o QA confidence: Assess your confidence in reviewing this document

o Final recommendations

Deliverables are kept short and focused to the goals. Long descriptions of irrelevant issues are avoided.

The deliverables measure the progress against the objectives: Therefore, all deliverables need to include statements regarding their purpose and their contribution with regard to the overall OPERANDO objectives.

In compliance with engineering and quality assurance methods, goals and requirements are described SMART, that means:

o Specific: Goals must be defined precisely.

o Measurable: Goals must be measurable.

o Accepted: Goals must be adequately and accepted by partners/users.

o Relevant: Goals must be relevant and reachable.

o Timed: Goals must have a clear deadline.

All deliverables shall be submitted to the PCO in the following formats: MS Word (docx), or MS Excel (xlss), or MS PowerPoint (pptx) and in pdf format.

o Pictures, graphics, video and audio have to be submitted in formats which can be opened via standard software

6.2 Project Reports

The monitoring and reporting process will be facilitated through the management structure of the project. The PCO will be in regular contact with WP Leaders who will report progress against the project objectives following a 6-monthly report template. Information affecting the overall project will be communicated to the PGA. In addition to reporting on WP progress, the PCO will ensure information concerning the current costs of the project is up to date and related to the original cost statement. The PCO will ensure all monitoring is up to date and the project reports are completed and circulated to all partners prior to sending to the Commission.

The PCO will be responsible for preparation and distribution of Project Reports. These will include detailed annual reports, and the final report to the Commission and the partners, covering project management, deliverables, meetings, risk monitoring, IPR management, resources.

Every 12 months the PCO will prepare a consolidated overview of the project budget for submission to the Commission based on cost statements previously received from each participant. The impact



of any deviations from the original plan will be assessed. Corrective actions will be prepared and implemented if necessary, to ensure that the project remains on course.

Reports on the progress of the project and the partners’ exploitation strategy will be submitted before the end of M12, M24, and M36. An IPR registry of all the components created in OPERANDO will be kept in the context of the Exploitation WP, this will be reported in the management reports. The PCO will organize Annual Assessment meetings in M12, M24, and M36 with all partners and the Commission’s representative attending, in order to report on the progress to date.

7 Risk Management

The two main risks of the project are (1) not achieving the technical results, and (2) not creating sufficient market impact. OPERANDO risk management will be proactive with early risk identification, definition of proactive measures and monitoring the potential background causes. During the project regular risk assessments will be conducted by the PGA, the PCO, the Exploitation Manager, the Technical Manager and the WP leaders. Any risk which materialises will be added to the issue register for the project, also on OwnCloud.

A central risk register has been established (appendix C) and is stored on OwnCloud. This register will be updated in the regular project management reports (D1.7, D1.10, D1.12).

8 Budget

Funding and payment principles are regulated by the Grant Agreement and the Consortium Agreement. Payment modalities are specified by the EC including evaluation and approval processes, as well as by the consortium as a whole concerning distribution of budget among the partners.

To avoid any misunderstanding of these regulations, the texts are not copied to this deliverable. Nevertheless there are two aspects to be clarified in addition.

8.1 Timesheets

All individuals participating in the project need to track their efforts. Timesheets need be filled for the overall work load on a 6-monthly basis. The PCO provides a spreadsheet template to report effort and costs.

8.2 Re-distribution of Budget

In case of major deviations in the progress of the project or in the use of resources by partners, the PGA may include a discussion about the re-distribution of resources in the PGA. In case the PGA decides to modify the budget, the PCO needs to negotiate this with the EC.



9 Project Presentation

Different approaches and ways are defined to present the project to the public.

9.1 Logo

As a fundamental resource, the logo was designed and agreed at the kick-off meeting. There is both an extended logo, and a square logo to represent the OPERANDO consortium and the OPERANDO project:

Figure 3 Official OPERANDO extended logo

Figure 4 – Square OPERANDO logo

9.2 Press Releases

Press articles need to be based on material, which was categorised as ‘publishable’ by the PGA. This includes figures, texts, statistics etc. Generic content is prepared by the PCO and the dissemination WPL; partners may propose to add content. Fortnightly telephone conferences as well as the mailing list can be used to request feedback by all partners. The regular procedure foresees that a request is accompanied by a 2 week period of time in which all partners may send objections; after this period has ended, a positive feedback is assumed (a clear objection is expected in case somebody wants to object).

Press articles may be translated into other languages and may be adapted to the recipient group. There are templates which should be used by the other partners when publishing OPERANDO on e.g. their own website (see deliverable 9.1):

Short Abstract

Abstract

1-pager, including a figure



2-pager, including a figure

Each publication has to contain the EU-logo (including the specified sentence by the EC) and the link to the official OPERANDO website.

All press articles should be sent as a digital copy to the PCO.

9.3 Website The website for presenting the OPERANDO project contains an overview about the objectives and additional information. Moreover it includes an introduction of the consortium, the tasks and the description of each member. Additionally, there is current information about the status of the project and contact information for further questions and suggestions. Material with a dissemination character is accessible to every visitor. Flyers, news and project based publications and research studies are disseminated over this platform. Moreover the website provides a platform to get in touch with interested citizens and organisations.

9.4 Social Media Channels The consortium created social media and twitter accounts to disseminate information about the project and get in touch with ordinary citizens. The following accounts have been registered.

Twitter: @OperandoH2020

Facebook: OperandoH2020

LinkedIn: operandoh2020

Slideshare: OperandoH2020 Content can be sent on the social media channels via the PCO (OCC) or the Dissemination-WPL (PDI). Detailed information can be found in D9.1.

9.5 Scientific Papers

Scientific papers need to be notified to the PGA 2 weeks in advance of their first submission. After submission, the complete text needs to be sent to the PGA where all partners may veto against the content in correspondence with the CA (a clear objection is expected in case somebody wants to object).

As described in 5, the PGA needs to be notified prior to the first submission of the publication (in most cases this is the abstract submission deadline). Afterwards, the paper needs to be sent to the PGA

after acceptance of the paper and

at least 15 days before publication.

In case that the time period between acceptance notification and publication is less than 15 days, the paper needs to be sent to the PGA in advance of the acceptance notification already.

If the publication only contains information labelled as public within OPERANDO, a veto is not possible and the consortium should only be informed to create awareness.



Figure 5 Publication process in OPERANDO

9.6 Deliverables and Publications

All document deliverables for the project will follow the naming convention: DX.Y - <Title> vX.X

The version number system for the version appended to these file names follows the convention that all drafts will be 0.x, then final versions will be numbered 1.x. For any deliverables which are software deliverables, an accompanying technical specification document will be completed and submitted to the EC in addition to the binaries and the source code.

All deliverables and publications have to be cited as follows:

<AUTHOR(S)>: “OPERANDO D<X.Y> – <TITLE>”. Deliverable of EU H2020 project “OPERANDO – Online Privacy Enforcement, Rights Assurance and Optimization” (grant agreement 653704), Topic “DS-01-2014 Privacy”, <LOCATION>, <YYYY>.

All publications shall include the following statement:

The research leading to these results has received funding by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 Programme (H2020), as part of the OPERANDO project (GA no. 653704).

This statement will have to be translated into the language of the dissemination activity.

10 Templates

The PCO provides templates to be used for the aforementioned processes. These templates are available as MS Word (docx), MS PowerPoint (pptx) or MS Excel (xlsx) files.

Template for project presentations (internally and externally): Available in MS PowerPoint

Template for word documents (including deliverables): Available in MS Word

Template for QA reviews: Available in MS Word

Template for 6-monthly reports to be provided per partner and WP: Available in MS Word

Template for 12-monthly financial reports to be provided per partner: Available in MS Excel

These templates are available on OwnCloud and it is the responsibility of the PCO to keep the templates up-to-date.



Appendix A. Project Milestones

MS#

Title Lead

Beneficiary Due Date Description

Work Package

No.

M1 Communication

package PDI

2 (Jun-15)

Initial dissemination and communication package.

[Components: M9.1] 9

M2 Definition UPRC 6

Oct-15)

Initial design documents and guidelines to kick-start the

development work.[Components: M1.1, M2.1, M4.1, M5.1, M6.1,

M7.1, M8.1, M9.2, M10.1]

1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

M3 1st prototype OCC 12

(Apr-16)

Skeletal implementation of high-level architecture and modules of the work-package. Minimal, mock object (stub) implementation of all internal and external work-package

interfaces.[Components: M1.2, M4.2, M9.3]

1,4,9

M4 2nd prototype – Minimal Viable Product (MVP)

TCN 18

(Oct-16)

A full design and implementation of the underlying databases. Basic working implementation of core

engines, mechanisms and algorithms. Usable User-Agents and

external interfaces.[Components: M1.3, M2.2, M3.1, M4.3, M5.2,

M6.2, M7.2, M10.2]

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10

M5 Initial end-user

testing ITI

20 (Dec-16)

Initial end-user testing based on 2nd prototype [Components: M8.2]

8

M6 3rd prototype,

start T&V RMS

24 (Apr-17)

Complete implementation of all components according to

specifications. Fully integrated, usable platform ready to be tested

and validated. . [Components: M1.4, M8.3, M9.4]

1,8,9

M7 Finish T&V,

Release Candidate

ITI 30

(Oct-17)

Complete implementation of all components according to

specifications. Fully integrated, usable platform. This (agile) version

will be used to continue end-user trials and generate case studies until

the end of the project. [Components: M1.5, M5.3, M6.3,

M7.3]

1,5,6,7



M8 Finish project AVO 36

(Apr-18)

Full Solution: working, tested, and validated product. Implementation of all field trial feedbacks. Complete fix of all known bugs. [Components:

M1.6, M2.3, M3.2, M4.4, M5.4, M6.4, M7.4, M8.4, M9.5, M10.3]

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10



Appendix B. Project Milestone Components

Milestone Component

number

Milestone Component name

Milestone Related

WP Month# Month

Means of verification

M9.1 Communication package M1 9 2 Jun-15 Visual

M1.1 Complete definition M2 1 6 Oct-15 D1.4

M2.1 Initial OPERANDO

specifications M2 2 6 Oct-15 D2.7

M4.1 Personal Data Repository

architecture M2 4 6 Oct-15 Report

M5.1 Initial PA platform interfaces

specification M2 5 6 Oct-15 D5.1

M6.1 PA - Architecture and

specifications M2 6 6 Oct-15 D6.1

M7.1 Requirements specification

and architecture M2 7 6 Oct-15 D7.1

M8.1 Trial protocols established

and support in place M2 8 6 Oct-15 D8.1

M9.2 Dissemination plan M2 9 6 Oct-15 D9.2

M10.1 Finalize exploitation plan M2 10 6 Oct-15 D10.3

M1.2 Year 1 Progress checkpoint

and 1st prototype M3 1 12 Apr-16 D1.6

M4.2 Characterization of

technologies M3 4 12 Apr-16 Report

M9.3 Dissemination report Y1 M3 9 12 Apr-16 D9.4

M1.3 Minimal Viable Product, 2nd

prototype M4 1 18 Oct-16 D1.8

M2.2 Mid-project definition and

specifications update M4 2 18 Oct-16 D2.9

M3.1 Guidelines on Privacy-by-

Design method legal aspects M4 3 18 Oct-16 D3.1

M4.3 Privacy and anonymization

specifications M4 4 18 Oct-16 Report

M5.2 MVP PA Interfaces and User

Management M4 5 18 Oct-16 D5.3

M6.2 PA – MVP M4 6 18 Oct-16 D6.3

M7.2 CS MVP - UPG as complete

set of UPP M4 7 18 Oct-16 D7.3

M10.2 Interim Business Plan review M4 10 18 Oct-16 D10.5

M8.2 Initial end-user testing based

on 2nd prototype M5 8 20 Dec-16 D8.5

M1.4 Year 2 Progress checkpoint,

3rd prototype M6 1 24 Apr-17 D1.9

M8.3 OSP integration and plans

for trials execution M6 8 24 Apr-17 D8.6




M1.5 Release Candidate M7 1 30 Oct-17 D1.11

M5.3 Release candidate PA Interfaces and User

Management M7 5 30 Oct-17 D5.5

M6.3 PA - Release Candidate M7 6 30 Oct-17 D6.11

M7.3 CS Release Candidate;

Technical documentation- draft

M7 7 30 Oct-17 D7.5

M1.6 Year 3 Progress checkpoint M8 1 36 Apr-18 D1.12

M2.3 Final definitions and specifications update

M8 2 36 Apr-18 D2.9

M3.2 Technical PbD

implementation and standardization

M8 3 36 Apr-18 D3.4

M4.4 Algorithm innovations

reports M8 4 36 Apr-18 Report

M5.4 Final product PA Interfaces

and User Management M8 5 36 Apr-18 D5.6

M6.4 PA- Final product version M8 6 36 Apr-18 D6.12

M7.4 CS Final Product; Technical

documentation final version M8 7 36 Apr-18 D7.7

M8.4 Final trial results M8 8 36 Apr-18 D8.8


M10.3 Final exploitation review and

Business Plan M8 2, 10 ,36 Apr-18 D10.6



Appendix C. Project Risk Register

Risk ID

Type & WP Risk Description Risk Mitigation

Measures Probability Impact

Open/ Closed?

Issue Register

Reference

R001 Exploitation

WP10

The project results do not achieve

sufficient industrial relevance. The project will not

achieve the planned impact and subsequent exploitation

The included OSP end-users doing T&V support generation of relevant results.

The included software and service

providers are interested in gaining new business based on the results and

thus direct the project to impact

creation

L H open

R002 Exploitation & Dissemination WP9 & WP10

The dissemination of the project results is

not sufficient to create impact. The

project will not achieve the planned

impact and subsequent exploitation.

A specific WP has been created to take

care of the dissemination and

impact creation actions. Also, there is a dedicated WP for

exploitation. A sketch of the

potential business model for

OPERANDO has already been

identified

L L open

R003 T&V WP8

Committed OSP testing partners renege on their

promise

OPERANDO has more commitments than necessary. WP8

will fall back on other committed

partners.

M L open



R004 Market

analysis WP2

Incomplete understanding of use cases requirements which will cause an

unsatisfactory definition of

business challenges and consequently danger of misfit of the solution to the

users’ problem

Create a tight feedback loop

between the case providers and the

technical activities. Technical work

packages include activities to assess

progress and results to draw indications

for problem recovery. The case

studies run in parallel with

technical activities to allow for continuous

assessment of the results. We will also run workshops with the advisory board to review market

requirements

L L open

R005 Legal WP3

Lack of commitment by relevant policy

units of the European

Commission to issue a standardization

request (mandate) for our Privacy-by-

Design method

In parallel to the recommendations

for a standardization mandate, apply for a

so-called Project Liaison with CEN and

the relevant Technical Committee (CEN-CENELEC Guide 2554), e.g., CEN/TC 391 ‘Societal and

citizen security’. This enables us to

propose a new standard and attend

meetings with the EU standards bodies without having to be

nominated by a national standards

body.

L H open



R006 Technical

WP4-7

Lacking of consensus on the technological approach between competences. The development work

could be delayed and lead to

inconsistencies and integration problems

The decision making mechanism will be activated, with a

majority vote determining the

approach taken. The approach has been fully agreed in the

proposal preparation phase, so this is

unlikely.

L L open

R007 Technical WP6

Performance bottlenecks

identified in the course of

development

OPERANDO architecture allows

for replication of data nodes, add

nodes to eliminate the problem

H M open

R008 Technical WP7

Unexpected difficulties in client

side iOS implementation

Create dual HTML5/native app

implementation strategy, fall back on

HTML5 if needed somewhat reduced functionality for iOS

M L open

d1.2 project & quality management manual - operando.eu · d1.2 – project & quality...

Documents