Review Report Skema 1 st Periodic Review

Transcription

1 Review Report Skema 1 st Periodic Review The review meeting was held in Brussels on 2 nd October The review panel and platform the review meeting was presented by the project officer. There were no objections to the review panel by the project team. At the end of the review the preliminary findings of the review panel were conveyed to the project to confirm that they were understood and that there was no additional information which should influence the outcome of the review. Consensus Report Skema 2 nd Oct 2009

2 TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT Grant Agreement number: Project Acronym: SKEMA Project title: Sustainable Knowledge Platform for the European Maritime and Logistics Industry Funding Scheme: SST 2007 TREN 1 Project starting date: 16th June 2008 Project duration: 35 months (to 15th May 2011) Name of the scientific representative of the project's coordinator and organisation: Period covered by the report, from 16 th June 2008 to June 2009 Date of review meeting (if applicable): 2 nd October 2009 Name(s) of epert(s): - M Fontanet - P Lancellotti - C Henderson Name of epert drafting the report: C M Henderson Individual report Consolidated report 2

3 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT a. Eecutive summary, in particular highlighting the scientific/technical achievements of the project, its contribution to the State of the Art and its impact: The project consists of 4 key thematic activities: the generation of a sustainable Knowledge platform; the eecution of a series of periodic studies; the production of a set of Consolidation studies; and the generation and support of a Thematic Network. The Knowledge base was demonstrated in Riga on 11 June and was completed according to the plan. The project appears to have made good progress although it has clearly found some tasks more challenging than originally estimated which has led to a clearer establishment of priorities for year 2 and some refinements in the way the work is organised. The project has epended more resources than planned on Consolidation Studies. There does not appear to have been any unacceptable compromise on time cost or quality which confirms that the project is well managed. However looking towards the sustainable objectives of the project a more careful consideration of delivery style might be in order and a centralised collation of risks and issues, in the form of the project log might help in prioritisation and efficient collaboration. Some elements of the plan appear to be a little further behind from the documentation review than is presented in the Annual Report. The project appears to be tight on resources for the work remaining, it appears to be quite achievable and within the competence of the consortium to deliver but will require team cooperation and best project management skills to fulfil. This may also require further prioritisation to ensure that the key objectives of the project are delivered. The project portal was demonstrated effectively to the review meeting and was well received. However overall the Dissemination Workpackage needs to catch up with the overall project. In summary the project has performed well in its first year making good progress and delivering close to the original plan. A small number of recommendations are made to help the project to maintain on track. X Ecellent progress (the project has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period and has even eceeded epectations). Very Good progress (the project has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period with relatively minor deviations). Unsatisfactory progress (the project has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule). 3

4 b. Overall recommendations (e.g. on overall modifications, corrective actions at WP level, or re-tuning the objectives to optimise the impact or keep up with the State of the Art, or for other reasons, like best use of resources, re-focusing ). Better Quality control on deliverables for consistency and future proofing would help the project to avoid rework on content. Central log of risks and issues in delivery would help identify outstanding tasks and ownership without ecessive progress chasing. Report of performance metrics in the annual report including Network development would give the Commission better visibility of progress. Dissemination activities to be reported in more detail to show progress against the sustainability objective. Elaborate the Dissemination and Communication plan as a priority action. Annual Report by the project manager should provide commentary to eplain any possible significant deviations from planned resource usage and any proposed corrective actions for the net review. Annual Report should record formally the transfer of resources between partners for the net review and to clarify the reporting of resource utilisation by partner. The project should eplore the use of Wikipedia to inform its go public strategy. Forward plans for workshops to be developed in discussion with the EC and stakeholders to ensure good attendance. The Trade Associations associated with Maritime and Logistics could be invited to contribute by comment on the studies to ensure that all stakeholder perspectives have been included and references used are complete. The Database of Eperts and stakeholders being developed should be put under quality control and registered appropriately with the potential usages envisaged in mind. 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN a. Have the objectives for the period been achieved? In particular, has the project as a whole been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Anne I to the grant agreement)? X 4

5 The Annual progress report is clear and comprehensive indicating good project control and concerns for managing to time, cost and quality. There are indications that the beneficiaries are cooperating well and developing the understandings and relationship that are needed to drive the project through the net phase. The Project Web Site is clean and accessible, looks appropriate and professional but will need development to make it easier to navigate and to add clarity to the contents as they develop, eg the ordering of deliverables is not intuitive. This is addressed well in the target on-line knowledge base. b. Has each work package (WP) been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Anne I of the grant agreement)? Yes X Partially No 5

6 WP1 In line with DoW. WP2 This is reported by the coordinator as the biggest challenge in the project. A total of 38 study reports submitted for the review and over 40 reported as completed. These are generally of high quality but do not all appear to have had a consistent approach to quality assurance. Terms such as The new loan guarantee instrument ( D2.2.2 page 14) would be better epressed as The loan guarantee instrument introduced in order to assure the sustainability of the documents without ecessive resort to revisions. It is not clear from the Annual Report but this WP appears to be struggling to meet the schedule within the budget resource which appears to be limited for the work proposed. It is not clear from the written review documentation if sufficient resource remains to complete successfully. Resorce may need to be transferred from WP3 WP3 Deliverable 3.1 not eamined. Progress reported on D3.2. Two studies have been initiated and are reported as progressing without issues. They appear to be of good quality. Given the target of 10 in 35 months, 3 should have been completed in the first period and a 4 th initiated for the WP to be on track, this leads to the impression that this task is failing to achieve its target and needs careful monitoring. IT may not be feasible to deliver 10 studies of any significant scope. WP4 What eactly is D4.1 and how was it delivered and how will it be maintained is unclear from the DOW, Web and Annual Report. Two of the 3 workshops reported are recorded in deliverables which are of good quality. This is in line with the Dow, but there are no clearly identified plans for future workshops in the eamined deliverables. Activities under WP4 task 4 appear to have migrated to WP2, it is not clear how this is being accounted for. There is no evident progress on D4.5 which will become a crtical issue if not addressed soon. WP5 The activities to initialise the project and manage it during the 1 st period appear to have been well coordinated and managed. There is some question from the documentation concerning the rigour of quality review on deliverables but adherence to project standards and coherence appear to be good. c. Have planned milestones and deliverables been achieved for the reporting period? X There were 6 milestones during the reporting period identified in the DoW. (page 68) but these are not referenced in the Annual Report. These appear to have been met by inference from the Deliverables. A minor number of the planned deliverables have not been completed. All deliverables presented are Accepted with the following observations: No. Title Remarks D1.1 Maritime Transport and Review and Quality control 6

7 Logistics Domain Specification D1.1.1 SKEMA Subject Inde D1.1.2 EU Maritime Transport Policies Classification D5.1.2 SKEMA Handbook clearly identified, on time Use of future tense eg will creates an inconsistency. When delivered it either does or does not!. Needs revision to final form. Currently a meta document inde. Fully reviewed? Some indeing errors- not important What happened to the recommendations from the survey? Please check list of references PE3.1.6 in particular. Schedule of deliverables needs to be updated to reflect agreed changes Good. D5.2.1 Quality Plan D5.1 Progress Report Clear and consistent with Q Plan and Handbook. T Workshop Report Well recorded. Dublin T Workshop Report Well recorded (Riga, 11th June 2009) D3.1 Planning and Not presented for review preparation of Periodic Studies D4.1 SKEMA Network of Eperts and Practitioners D3.2.1(A) Periodic Study: Scoping the EU e-maritime initiative D3.2.2A Impact Study of the future requirements of Anne VI of the MARPOL Convention on Short Sea Shipping D2.1.1: The Maritime Transport Market SE Key influencing factors in the historical evolution of freight transport D Trade and Transport Flows - Review of modelling tools and EU projects D Feasibility of New RoRo / RoPa Services between Ireland and Not presented for review Document review process not followed Document review process not followed. Not consistent with D5 guidelines Good up to date reportage. The report does not refer to the purchasing of ships and equipment which might also be relevant. Could be further developed. Interesting and well written but limited in forward thinking. Rather inconclusive and recommendations could be better eplained. Delivered outside of the reporting period. Well written and detailed report. QA and review? 7

8 Continental Europe D2.1.2 Practices, trends and fiscal implications of publicly financing transport services and infrastructure D Maritime Operational Services (MOS) D Information Management D Practicalities of using SSN and safety / security support systems in Latvia D2.3.2 Methods for assessing safety and security performance D Review of collision and grounding risk analysis methods which can utilize the historical AIS data and traffic patterns in seawaters WP D Evaluation of methods to estimate the consequence costs of an oil spill D2.4.1 Ship technologies D Navigation systems including developments in e-navigation D Environmental Ship technologies D SE4.2 Port Technologies D2.4.3 Technologies deployed to improve visibility and operational risk management within supply chains D Overview of automated identification technologies advantages and selection criteria D Sensor technology Clear. Local references should be supplemented with baseline reference sources for controlled documents and legislation. This should be referred to as a case study. Does not address eplicitly the review and update elements of S&S management. No critical appraisal or evaluation. Strange that GPS is not mentioned or ship roll stabilisation? No mention of materials Well written and detailed. Not completed. Some graphs need additional eplanation. Missing Sections. This report covers 3 sections of the database. It appears to be detailed and well structured. Version 2. Accurate and unbiased Version 2. I wonder how persistent some of the web references are? Version 2. LANL? Needs 8

9 combined RFID to monitor shipments and transport units D Practical eamples and eperiences of visibility systems deployments QA Review. Interesting case studies but could benefit from a critical appraisal of performance and lessons learnt (ie output based) d. Are the objectives for the coming period(s) i) still relevant and ii) still achievable within the time and resources available to the project? i ii The project is still relevant and the products no doubt useful in meeting the project objectives. Within the remaining project resources delivery is possible but could be challenging for the partners. e. For Networks of Ecellence (NoEs) only: Has the Joint Programme of Activities been realised for the period, with all activities foreseen satisfactorily completed? Not Applicable 9

10 3. RESOURCES a. To the best of your estimate, have resources used, i.e. personnel resources and other major cost items, been (i) utilised for achieving the progress, (ii) in a manner consistent with the principle of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Note that both aspects (i) and (ii) have to be covered in the answer. i ii The activities and deliverables reported are consistent with the resource utilisation recorded and have been used to achieve the deliverables within the project. b. If applicable, please comment on large deviations with respect to the planned resources. Some reallocation of activities between partners and workpackages has been proposed. 10

11 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT a. Has the project management been performed as required? Project management appears to be appropriate for the partnership and the objectives of the project. b. Has the collaboration between the beneficiaries been effective? X Cooperation appears to have been generally effective but there are inconsistencies in style and gaps in document review which are not eplained by the documentation. c. Do you identify evidence of underperforming beneficiaries, lack of commitment or change of interest of any beneficiaries? Yes Partially No There is no eplicit evidence of underperformance but there are some differences in working practice across the partnership. These do not appear to be significant to the output objectives of the project. 11

12 5. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF FOREGROUND a. Is there evidence that the project has/will produce significant scientific, technical, commercial, social, or environmental impacts (where applicable)? The project Web site looks to be well laid out and responsive but it could benefit from minor improvements. The target knowledge store portal looks very good. b. Is the plan for the use of foreground, including any update, appropriate? Namely, please comment on the plan for the eploitation and use of foreground for the consortium as a whole, or for individual beneficiary or groups of beneficiaries and its progress to date. D&E activities are reported in line with the DoW and the long term sustaining of the output is being considered with rational options identified. See recommendations. 12

13 c. Have the beneficiaries disseminated project results and information adequately (publications, conferences )? The project reports two successes with the IP projects e-freight and SUPPORT and 3 workshops during the first project year. Little detail is provided in the Annual Report of the deliberations in this area but progress looks to be appropriate for the stage of the project. d. Are potential users and other stakeholders (outside the consortium) suitably involved (if applicable)? Yes Partially No The etent of the networking activity is not clearly documented but can be inferred from the Workshop reports. There is potential for improving the reporting of this. e. Is the consortium interacting in a satisfactory manner with other related Framework Programme projects or other R&D national/international programmes, standardisation bodies (if relevant)? The project is clearly interacting with appropriate stakeholders and other projects in this domain. 13

14 6. OTHER ISSUES a. Have policy-related and/or regulatory issues been properly handled (if applicable)? b. Have ethical issues been appropriately handled (if applicable)? There are no eplicit ethical issues to consider. c. Have safety issues been properly handled (if applicable)? Not applicable. d. Has progress on Gender Equality Actions been satisfactory (if applicable for this reporting period)? No issues to be reported. 14

15 Name (s) of the epert(s): M Fontanet P Lancellotti C Henderson Date: 2 Oct 2009 Signature(s): 15