eSEE Initiative FP6 MENTORING WORKSHOP 21st of March 2006

1
eSEE Initiative FP6 MENTORING WORKSHOP21st of
March 2006

• PROPOSAL WRITING TEST CASES

2
Call 4 Open 17 November 2004, Closed 22 March
2005

3
FeasibilityFrom Ideas to Proposals
4
Proposal Development Proposal Structure

• Part A
• Administrative and statistical information
• A1 General information on proposal (title,
  abstract, etc)
• A2 Information on co-ordinator and other
  partners
• A3 Cost breakdown by type of cost categories
  and partner
• Part B
• Core (technical) proposal

5
Proposal Development Core Proposal Structure

• Technical Components I (Parts B1-B3)
• B1 Project Objectives
• B2 Relevance to IST
• B3 Potential Impact
• B4 Project Consortium and Resources
• B5 Project Management Structure
• B6 Technical Components II
• Project Workplan
• B7 Other Issues (Gender / Ethical)

ALL PARTNERS Need to provide monthly man-and
overhead rates cost model
ALL PARTNERS Need to describe management
procedures and agree on co-ordinator
6
Proposal DevelopmentFinalising

• Double-check with Evaluation Criteria
• Relevance (Threshold 3/5)
• Potential Impact (Threshold 3/5)
• ST Excellence / Quality of the Co-ordination
  Action / Quality of Integration (Threshold 4/5)
  !!!
• Quality of the Support Action (Threshold 3/5)
• Quality of the Consortium / Excellence of
  Participants (Threshold 3/5)
• Quality of the Management (Threshold 3/5)
• Mobilisation of Resources (Threshold 3/5)
• Overall Remarks

7
Test Case A
A Winning Proposal
8
Call 4 Open 17 November 2004, Closed 22 March
2005

9
From the idea to the proposal

• How we conceive the idea (studying the WP and the
  strategic objectives open)
• Decide the objective to target (relevance to the
  strategic research and business priorities -past
  experience of the Coordinator Company- network of
  partners with similar competences)
• How we start the preparation (definition of tasks
  allocation of tasks to the partners)
• Defining work allocation and Budget
• Writing the proposal according to the template

10
OntoGov the innovative idea

• Extend existing e-government service provision
  mechanisms to incorporate, and to a certain
  degree be driven by, semantics (i.e. knowledge,
  information) related to specific governmental
  domains.

11
OntoGov Context the need -B1 Scientific and
Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art

• Current state
• One-stop E-Government G2C portals provide
  central point of information which describes all
  required actions
• Service portals for providing G2C E-Gov services
• Shortcomings
• Redundancies
• Inconsistencies
• Outdated info and data
• Proposed approach
• Provide a platform for management of E-Gv
  services over longer period of time addressing
  all stakeholders
• a higher level of reconfigurability and
  on-the-fly changes of services
• a well-understood and technically supported
  knowledge logistics

12
B2 Relevance to the Objectives of the IST
Priority

• The proposal is in line with the IST thematic
  priority Networked Businesses and Governments
• HOW Deeply integrated into the everyday
  environment of Public Administration
• Compliance with the STREP-specific Priority
  guidelines
• HOW Focused innovation
• Pilot tested in 3 EU Member State public bodies
• The proposal addresses three out of five foci of
  the priority
• HOW Collaborative environments
• Interoperable eGov platforms
• Managing knowledge to support innovation

13
B2 Relevance to the Objectives of the IST
Priority , And The Evaluators View
The proposal addresses the objectives of the
work program in specifying, developing and
deploying a holistic framework, in addressing
reorganization of administrations and the full
life cycle of work processes and in making new
technology available to the users ? Mark 4/5
14
B3 Potential Impact Key Points

• Strong strategic impact at a range of levels and
  societal groups
• Innovation at both the technical AND application
  areas
• Well-laid out exploitation scheme involving
  public administrations in 3 different European
  countries and specific dissemination plans per
  Consortium AND per partner
• Important contributions to the EU, FP6 IST
  priorities, EU stakeholders and STANDARDS strong
  knowledge of relevant initiatives
• Synergies with existing EU projects

15
B5 Description of Project Management

• Management structure in line with complexity of
  project
• IPR, knowledge management, quality control and
  conflict resolution issues all addressed (also in
  B3.3.5)
• Detailed risk management and contingency planning
• Sufficient reporting mechanisms
• Clear performance and success indicators

16
B4 The Consortium and Project Resources

• High-quality consortium with already very
  experienced partners
• Each partner is allocated a clearly defined and
  convincing role
• Roles cover all administrative, technical and
  user aspects of the project
• There is NO cannibalism
• Due to discrete roles
• Clear elaboration of why a participating
  organisation is a subcontractor (as opposed to
  partner)

17
B4 The Consortium and Project Resources

• Strong complementarity between partners
  well-scaled mix of
• Research institutions
• A German institute with distinctions in Knowledge
  Management (KM)
• A Swiss university, involved in eGov activities
• Two leading technology providers
• Greek eGov expert company
• A significant Spanish integrator

18
B4 The Consortium and Project Resources

• Three Public Administrations / Pilot users
• Municipality of a major Spanish city
• Municipality of a Greek city, heavily involved in
  the Olympics
• Municipality of a Swiss nodal Canton point
• Management support
• A leading Greek management consultancy with ample
  experience in FP6 participation

19
The OntoGov Consortium Structure and
Interrelations
RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT
MEDIATION DISSEMINATION
PILOT USERS
E-GOV END-USER SUPPORT
PLANET
ARCHETYPON
DETDA Greek user
INTEGRATED PLATFORM
ONTOLOGY EDITOR
Swiss Federal Chancellery
FHSO
FZI
ONTOLOGY LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
IMI Spanish user
INDRA
SERVICE CONFIGURATION SYSTEM
() 3 developer-user tandems
20
B5 Description of Project ManagementKey Points

• Management structure in line with complexity of
  project
• IPR, knowledge management, quality control and
  conflict resolution issues all addressed (also in
  B3.3.5)
• Detailed risk management and contingency planning
• Sufficient reporting mechanisms
• Clear performance and success indicators

21
B6 Work PlanKey Points

• Strong technical description supplemented with
  suitable illustrations
• Work allocation is evenly distributed amongst
  work-packages
• Clearly defined achievable objectives
• Overall approach is clear and focussed at both
  the horizontal and vertical levels and scales
• Research generally integrated into a coherent
  plan
• Well-determined base line and convincing end
  result
• Strong emphasis on tools and demonstrators
• Validation via pilot studies / usability trials

22
B6 Work PlanWorkpackage Distribution
Partner
WP
23
OntoGov expected results

• Tangible results
• (a) an ontology editor for modeling domain
  ontologies of public administrations,
• (b) an ontology management system for managing
  the life-cycle of domain ontologies.
• to be used by public authorities administrators
  in order to conceptually model and add semantics
  to specific governmental domains (e.g. urban
  planning) in terms of concepts (e.g.
  construction project, environmental permit)
  and relationships between concepts (e.g.
  construction project requires environmental
  permit).
• (c) a service configuration system for
  configuring and re-configuring service provision
  and for interconnecting the ontology management
  system with the existing applications and data
  sources of public administrations.
• To provide the public authorities administrators
  with a means that enables them to have an
  overview of their current service configuration
  model (in terms of workflow, task
  responsibilities, etc.) and easily re-configure
  it whenever for example there is a need due to
  changes in national and European legislation.
• To provide all stakeholders (citizens,
  businesses, employees at public authorities,
  decision makers, domain experts, managers, even
  politicians) with context-sensitive knowledge
  related to the e-government service to simplify
  the work all stakeholders need to perform (in
  case of semi-automated services) or to monitor
  and manage (in case of fully-automated services),
  throughout the life-cycle of the service.

24
Overall Impression

• Apparent existing expertise by ALL partners
• First-level analysis
• State of the art
• User clarification
• User requirements
• Description of major developments in the area
• Standardization
• Existing tools and platforms

• Clear results
• Ontologies (specific kinds)
• Platform
• Modelling
• (Re- ) Configuring
• Deployment

25
Test Case B
An Unequal Comparison
26
Call 5 Strategic Objectives
C L O S E D
27
B1 Objectives of the Proposed Project Test Case
B Objectives

• The adoption of GMES (Global Monitoring for
  Environment and Security) info and service
  architecture in the field of coastal and marine
  anthropogenic environment risk, in areas such as
  marine eutrophication or oil spills
• And some passepartout targets
• Review of info sources
• Identify best practices
• Develop a roadmap

28
B1 Objectives of the Proposed ProjectB1
Section Key Points

• Lengthy introduction core objective is reached
  after a whole page of text
• Weak knowledge of subject matter field a lot of
  verbiage, but no punchy text
• Weak definitions of
• Goals
• Addressed RTD and stakeholder groups
• End-user groups
• Practical relevance of benefits to end-user
  groups uncertain

29
B2 Relevance to the Objectives of the IST
Priority Key Points (1/3)

• Like Test Case A, test Case B addresses the main
  areas of concern of IST in FP6
• But
• Lacks conviction
• Contains a number of non-persuasive claims
  there is no in-depth addressing of specific
  challenges in the field
• There is some awareness of past and present
  initiatives But
• No grounding on specific shortcomings and ways to
  address these
• No references to specific maritime organisations,
  academic groups, etc

30
B2 Relevance to the Objectives of the IST
Priority Key Points (3/3)

• Moreover, SSAs are supported in
• the 3rd focal area
• Adoption of common architectures by
• Extending work on environmental risk and
  emergency management
• Early adoption of GMES information and service
  architecture
• Convergence in the field of public safety
  communication

But SSAs as a horizontal instrument solicit a
generalized view, while this proposal seems to
focus TOO NARROWLY Evaluators View The
relevance is not sufficient () The objectives
are concentrated exclusively on marine and
coastal risks 3/5 ? below threshold
31
B3 Strategic ImpactKey Points

• Who will be the next user who will use the
  project results?
• Results
• Provision of an integrated observing system for
  coastal and marine ecosystems
• Dissemination
• Portal, newsletter, conferences, journals etc
  all the means are available
• Difficult to disseminate, if a small part of the
  consortium has pertinent activities

32
B4 Consortium ResourcesKey Points (1/2)

• Consortium has a good range of management and IT
  skills and expertise
• 1 Technology Provider
• An SME with expertise in the development of
  environmental Information Systems (IS)
• 2 non-profit organizations
• An institute of a well-known Research Centre,
  with expertise on the development of
  environmental policies
• A German institute with participation in the area
  of environmental Knowledge Management
• 1 Management consulting firm experienced in FP6
  RTD

33
B4 Consortium ResourcesKey Points (2/2)

• However, there is no direct experience or
  intimate knowledge pertinent to marine GIS
  standardisation consortium is thus not fully
  representative of European best-practice in this
  area
• Missing key players, namely
• Maritime organisations or other stakeholder
  groups
• Unclear how consultation with beneficiary groups
  will be achieved / corresponding level of
  stakeholder acceptance questionable
• No defined end-user group / no pertinent group to
  carry through the exploitation scheme

34
B5 Description of Project ManagementKey Points

• Management structure credible and convincing
• Clear performance, quality control and success
  indicators
• Good quality risk and contingency planning
• Detailed financial plan
• Even distribution of tasks and financial
  resources amidst existing partners, but
• Resources rather overevaluated (72 PM!)

35
?6 Work PlanKey Points

• Coherent workplan but 18 month timescale
  insufficient given the need for information
  collection project scope overly ambitious given
  the chosen time frame, BUT
• Rather limited number of deliverables (16)
• Sampling scheme weak WP2 approach probably
  inefficient in achieving stated goals and
  deliverables
• Very many unspecified information sources and
  beneficiaries RTD players, PAs, maritime
  stakeholder groups, etc
• Poor match between dissemination and impact
  claims and activities foreseen no specific
  exploitation scheme

36
Overall Impression

• Not apparent existing expertise by ALL partners
• Administrative approach
• Limited description of major developments in the
  area
• No reference to existing tools and platforms
• Unclear results
• Dissemination (but WHERE? and to WHOM?)