Ubiquitous Process Modelling Tool (Template and examples for usage) provided by: Dr. Thomas Richter, TELIT, University of Duisburg-Essen for usage of particular.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Guy Duchossois, Work Plan Manager Report on 2006 Work Plan.
Advertisements

Analytical Evidence on Research & Innovation in the Danube Region Progress of WP4 Vienna, Béla Kardon, PhD; RCISD
1 IEEE m-09/0019r Work Plan for IEEE m Standard & IMT-Advanced Submission.
October  A Web Portal recognized as the authoritative source for national interagency wildland fire information is needed to.
24/25 March 2015 Reykjavik “From Gaps to Caps – Risk Management Capability Based on Gaps Identification in the BSR” TASK D COMPARISON OF EVALUATIONS OF.
1 As Class Convenes u Find your team u Pick up your team’s folder; Becoming an Expert u Remove any old work and Class Process Check for Becoming an Expert.
UGDIE PROJECT MEETING Kranjska Gora – April WP8 - Project Management 3 rd Amendment formalised –Budget transfer request –Time extension request.
Supported by Project Administration Second Project Meeting London, 10/11 March 2009 Liv Becker / Veit Bürger, Öko-Institut e.V.
Compliance Monitoring Audit Tutorial Version 1.0 April 2013.
Work Package 4 Learning Process for Reflective Policy Making 3rd TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING 18 Sept – Thessaloniki.
JCN, Justice Cooperation Network European Treatment and Transition Management of High Risk Offenders Tallin, 13 March 2013 Second Steering Committee Meeting.
Reporting Guidelines (FP5) Karen Fabbri Scientific Officer Natural & Technological Hazards DG Research European Commission Brussels
FP OntoGrid: Paving the way for Knowledgeable Grid Services and Systems Communication in the consortium Review meeting Delft,
Co-ordination meeting Anna Soci An agenda for the future Crete, October 13/14, 2006.
NET-SHARE Kick-off meeting Matosinhos, Portugal April 15 h 2008 ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) WPs and ACTION POINTS.
Work package 7 Dissemination and Concertation EuropeanaConnect Plenary Meeting Berlin, May 2010 Monika Segbert, Eremo srl.
HiLumi LHC is co-funded by the EU FP7 Capacities Programme, Grant Agreement Svet Stavrev (EU Projects Office, CERN) Administrative Manager 17.
EU BON Meeting, Joensuu, March 2015 WP2 Task 2.3: Data sharing tools – Action Point MS232 : Technical workshop, review of documents, test versions of data.
LEONARDO TRANSFER OF INNOVATION PROJECT “MEDIA TECH: The future of media industry using innovative technologies ” No. LLP-LdV-ToI-11-CY Kick-off.
DEX Publication Project OASIS PLCS Telecon 27 November 2007 Trine Hansen.
FROM GAPS TO CAPS Risk Management Capability Based on Gaps Identification in the BSR Project Lead Partner: Fire and Rescue Department under the Ministry.
Orientation and Summer Institutes Implementer’s Forum October 2005 Susan Barrett PBIS Maryland.
1 ITU-R Liaison Group Report - Session #72 Opening Plenary IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE L /0006.
Agriculture and Rural Development SFC2014 structured approach DG Agriculture and Rural Development G.2 - Unit "Financial coordination of Rural development"
JCN, Justice Cooperation Network European treatment and Transition management of High Risk Offenders.
Gabriela Macoveiu North-East RDA, Romania PP11 – WP responsible Cluster Policy Learning Platform WP3 Description Smarter Cluster Policies for South-East.
Project management and communication structure Nataša Urbančíková Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice.
Number: TR/06/B/F/PP/ WASTE-TRAIN VOCATIONAL TRAINING, EDUCATION, CONVEYING INFORMATION ON UP-TO-DATE WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO DECISION MAKERS/STAFF.
1 ITU-R Liaison Group Report - Session #71 Opening Plenary IEEE Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: IEEE L /0127.
Mathias DEPRETZ – EuroVO-DCA Project Manager Work Package 1 – Management First Board Meeting – 2&3 october 2006 WP1 Management EuroVO-DCA Project FIRST.
Research and Innovation REPORTING and PAYMENT (in practice) v
Task Stakeholder engagement and communication Presentation of the task.
IEEE /r5 Submission November 2008 John Notor, Cadence Design Systems, Inc.Slide 1 IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process Date:
WP2: Consolidation of existing state of the art Dr. Ognjen Prnjat, GRNET.
2050AP Project WP5: “Conclusions” UPM Madrid 11 de Octubre 2013.
Review Preparation Meeting of the FP7 Project J-AGE Vienna 25th March 2015.
J-AGE I Status/Closing Report JPI MYBL - GA Meeting Brussels 21th January 2016.
WP2 and WP5 work in progress Tallinn - September
K. Long, 25 June, 2016 IDR: structure and overall timeline: Slides are to introduce discussion of how we prepare IDR. Propose to revise slides as we discuss.
DESIRE – Desertification Mitigation and Remediation of Land DESIRE Work Block 3: Gudrun Schwilch / CDE 1 October 2007 / WB3 Training Workshop Murcia, Spain.
FISCO2 – Financial and Scientific Coordination Work Package dedicated to ENSAR2 management WP leader: Ketel Turzó WP deputy: Sandrine Dubromel ENSAR2 Management.
WP6 – Monitoring and Evaluation 17th November 2014 Rome.
NPA eMS application – Project Information Joint Secretariat 1st June 2016 – Cork, Ireland.
ICT Smartcities 2013 FP7-SMARTCITIES-2013 WP6 – Project Management OPTIMising the energy USe in cities with smart decision support system (OPTIMUS) Objective.
Brussels, January 16th, Overview and status of the project.
ARIES WP2 Task 2.2 kick-off Coordination, support and enhancement of communication/outreach activities for accelerators in Europe Jennifer Toes (CERN),
Guidance on the new Pathway IT System for Candidates
Report to RMS July 14, 2004.
Recommendation of Texas Test Plan Team to RMS
Suggestion to update Work Plan for IEEE m Standard
Presenter name affiliation
Venue: WIIW, Vienna Loredana Marmora and Margaret Pesuit, ISIS
Dr Sally Priest, Flood Hazard Research Centre
Recommendation of Texas Test Plan Team to RMS
Updates to the Pathway to Chartership Online System
Updates to the Pathway to Chartership Online System
Overview of the FEPAC Accreditation Process
HITSP Project 2007 Work Plan and Schedule Contract HHSP EC
Activities of the UNECE-UNODC Task Force on Victimization Surveys
West Essex Business Planning Process
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
Comments on IMT-Advanced Review Process
Technical and Financial Reporting
The Estonian experience with ex-ante evaluation – set-up and progress
IEEE IMT-Advanced Review Process
Green Infrastructure: Working method
Presentation title Conclusions of 13th meeting of lead reviewers of GHG inventories –follow-up 14th meeting of GHG Inventory Lead Reviewers Bonn, Germany,
Presentation transcript:

Ubiquitous Process Modelling Tool (Template and examples for usage) provided by: Dr. Thomas Richter, TELIT, University of Duisburg-Essen for usage of particular examples, simply copy & paste into your form and complete data Please cite this model/tool as: “Richter, T. (2015). The Ubiquitous Process Modelling Tool. TELIT, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.”

Detailed Process Planning for “Deliverable/Task Name” Considering: Dn.m/Tn.m (deliverable/task number) Deliverable/Task Name (slide number/of total slides) Document purpose: Deliverable Planning, Part 1; Leading Partner: acronym of responsible leader Contributing Partners: acronyms of all contributing partners; To be reported to: acronym responsible partner Deliverable starting time: YYYY, Month DD Deliverable ending time: YYYY, Month DD Deliverable needs to be ready for review by latest: YYYY, Month DD (at least 1 month before official deadline because of reviewing) Input # - Status of Input (Initial/interim, a.o.): Name of Input Type of Input: e.g., Document, raw data, evaluated data, final deliverable version, draft deliverable version, … For Activity: Name of direct following activity that requires input Contributor: Name of partner that provides input Input needed by date: YYYY, Month, DD (Mn (project month) Activity number – Activity: name of activity and dedicated output Requires/bases on: (If there is an initial input for the activity, name it here, else, “n.a.”. Contributor(s): Partner Output of this Activity needed by: YYYY, Month DD Type of output: (descriptive document, software, questionnaire data, interview data, desk research data, meeting data, event organization, …) Final reviewed/reworked version needed by: YYYY, Month DD Start of Activity: YYYY, Month DD End of Activity: YYYY, Month DD (Project month, e.g., “M1“) I - Output: name and type of the output a.Needed for: Activity or Deliverable/Task number From: (Acronym Partner Name) Draft Version needed by: YYYY, Month DD Deadline for Output: YYYY, Month DD (Project month, e.g., “M1“) All Inputs are referenced with large letters, starting by “A” (A, B, C, … Z, ZA, ZB, … All activities start with “A” and afterwards are numbered with ongoing numbers: A01, A02, A10, … An All outputs are referenced by Roman numbers, I, II,.. IV,.., X, …) If an output is not further used but “just” a deliverable, the “production of the final deliverable version” shall be the activity documented here If for further steps a draft version may be sufficient, please document this here, else delete the line

M12M8M9M10 M11 M4M3M5M6M7M1M2 MM ‘YY Yearly Schedule Overview Title: Deliverable/Task Number, Deliverable/ Task Name (slide n/N slides) Document purpose: Deliverable Planning in a Nutshell Leading Partner: Partner acronym Activities within the WP/Deliverable/Task From: DX.Y, Deliverable responsible partner Name of needed Input,/activity # by YYYY, Month DD For DX.Y Name of Deliverable//Task/Activity by YYYY, Month DD (Output Activity #A1, …, Output Activity #An, …) A(Activity Number) Name of activity or activity # (Start Month DD) Input required for own work within the task/deliverable (required from other partners) Output from own task/deliverable for other tasks/deliverables (required by other partners) MM ‘YY

Example for Simple activity with Pre and Post condition A: Type of Input: Consolidated & Evaluated Results SWOT Analysis Contributor: XXX Complete input needed by date: M8-9 A01: Activity: Implement Delphi Study Contributor: XXX Output of this Activity needed for: Conduct Delphi Study Type of Output: online questionnaire When to be completed: M9-10 I: Outcome: Invitation to Participate w. Link to Delphi Study (to all partners) Needed for: periodical check for project improvement potential Example for simple activity with several Pre conditions (and a post condition) A: Type of Input: Report Tool Implementation Progress B: Type of Input: Report Meeting Questionnaire (all meeting(s) within period of reporting) C: Type of Input: Report on DRM (just first year and final report) D: Type of Input: Report on GRAQ Results (all versions in period of reporting and development) E: Type of Input: Reports on DPM/SRAQ/CAM results per WP (all reports from within reporting period & development H: Type of Input: Statistical Report on Participants in the various activities I: Type of Input: Report on SWOT Analysis Results J: Type of Input: Report on Project Improvement Potential K: Type of Input (for Final QM Report only): Interim QM Report Contributor: XXX inputs needed by date: M9/21/33 A01: Activity: Write Interim QM Report A02: Activity: Write Final QM Report Contributor: XXX Output of this Activity needed for: reporting (coordinator) Type of Output: document (MS Word) When to be completed: M10 & M22 (Interim); M34 (Final) I: Outcome: Interim Progress Report To be transmitted to: coordinator Example for several inputs joined in a single field H: Type of Input: Completed SRAQ Tx.1-Tx.n from Task Leaders & Work Package Leader WPx I: Type of Input: Completed DPM Dx.1-Dx.n from Work Package Leader WPx Provided by: (automatically online, notification by Work Package Leader WPx) By when: asap after completion, latest 1 week after link sent out Recipient: XXX A07: Activity: Evaluate Results DPM/SRAQ WPx Data to be used: Data from Online Questionnaire Who responsible to complete: XXX When to be completed: asap (after notification) A08: Activity: Report on Progress & Risk Status WPx Input to be used: Results from Activity 1 Who responsible to complete: XXX When to be completed: within 7 days after data reception

Example for several outcomes from different sources jointly forming input for activity A02: Activity: Identify Special (Task-related) Risk Factors for Tx.1-Tx.n Template to be used: SRIT Who responsible to complete: Work Package Leader WPx, involve Task Leaders Tx.1- Tx.n When to be completed: At the beginning of work on a deliverable (WP) D: Type of Input: Special Risk Identification Template (SRIT) Provided by: Quality Management (XXX) By when: August 2012 (WP-specific documents sent asap for those deliverables already started, others on demand) Recipient: Work Package Leader WPx I: Type of Outcome: Deliverable Planning Diagram Dx.1-Dx.n Recipient: QM (XXX) Who responsible to transmit: Work Package Leader WPx When to be sent: within 20 days after start of work II: Type of Outcome: Special Risk Identification Tables for Tx.1-Tx.n Recipient: QM (XXX) Who responsible to transmit: Work Package Leader WPx When to be sent: within 20 days after start of work E: Type of Input: Special Risk Identification Tables (Tx.1-Tx.n) & Deliverable Planning Diagram (Dx.1-Dx.n) Provided by: Work Package Leader WPx By when: (already started Ds): September 2012 (all):(20 days after start/reception of individualized template) Recipient: QM A01: Activity: Proceed Deliverable Planning Dx.1-n Template to be used: Deliverable Planning Template Who responsible to complete: Work Package Leader WPx, involve Task Leaders Tx.1- Tx.n When to be completed: At the beginning of work on a deliverable (WP) A: Type of Input: Deliverable Planning Template Provided by: Quality Management (XXX) By when: August 2012 (WP-specific documents sent asap for those deliverables already started, others on demand) Recipient: Work Package Leader WPx B: Type of Input: DoW Provided by: Coordinator XXX) By when: April 2012 Recipient: All C: Type of Input: Deliverable Relationship Matrix (DRM) Provided by: Quality Management (XXX) By when: July/Augsust 2012 Recipient: All Example for several inputs from different sources as accumulated precondition of one activity

Example for several outcomes from different sources jointly forming the future input for activity VII: Type of Outcome: Notification on overally completed SRAQ (Tx.1-Tx.n) and DPM (Dx.1-Dx.n) Recipient: UDE Who responsible to transmit: Work Package Leader WPx V: Type of Outcome: Notification on fin. SRAQ Tx.1 Recipient: Work Package Leader WPx Who responsible to transmit: Task Leader Tx.1 VI: Type of Outcome: Notification on fin. SRAQ Tx.n Recipient: Work Package Leader WPx Who responsible to transmit: Task Leader Tx.n … A07: Activity: Evaluate Results DPM/ WPx Data to be used: Data from Online Questionnaire Who responsible to complete: XXX When to be completed: asap (after notification) A08: Activity: Report on Progress & Risk Status WPx Input to be used: Results from Activity 1 Who responsible to complete: XXX When to be completed: within 7 days after data reception I: Type of Input: Completed DPM Dx.1-Dx.n from Work Package Leader WPx Provided by: (automatically online, notification by Work Package Leader WPx) By when: asap after completion, latest 1 week after link sent out by UDE Recipient: XXX VIII:Type of Outcome: Report on Results of current progress & risk status WPx Recipient: Coordinator, Cluster- & Work Package Leader WPx Who responsible to transmit: XXX When to be sent: within 7 days after SRAQ/DPM notified as completed Example for several activities jointly forming an output

Loop and if-conditions shown at the example of a standard (internal) review process A01: Activity: Final Review of Dx.y Input to be used: review-ready version of Dx.y Who responsible to complete: 2 external reviewers Activity starts: asap after review versions are delivered When to be completed: within 2 weeks I: Type of Outcome: Review Report Dx.y Needed for: Final version Dx.y Recipient: Work Package leader WPx, Coordinator, QM team Who responsible to transmit: 2 external reviewers A: Type of Input: Deliverable Dx.y in review-ready (Pre-final) Version Provided by: Work Package Leader WPx By when: latest 1 month before official (DoW) delivery date Recipient: 2 external reviewers The following activity is case-sensitive, depending of the review results (1) no changes required (2) minor changes required (3) major changes required B: Type of Input: Review Report Dx.y Provided by: 2 external reviewers By when: asap after review is completed, latest 2 weeks after review version has been received Recipient: Work Package leader WPx, Coordinator, QM team A02a: Activity: Rename Dx.y to final version and deliver to coordinator Who responsible to complete: Work Package leader WPx When to be completed: asap, latest within 2 weeks (official delivery date (DoW) If review result was (1) no changes required If review result was (3) major changes required If review result was (2) minor changes required A02b: Activity: Implement recommended changes, rename Dx.y to final version and deliver to coordinator Who responsible to complete: Work Package leader WPx When to be completed: asap, latest within 2 weeks (official delivery date (DoW) A02b: Activity: Implement recommended changes, rename Dx.y to final version and deliver to coordinator Who responsible to complete: Work Package leader WPx When to be completed: asap, latest within 2 weeks (official delivery date (DoW) Further steps and decisions are required and not determinable at this point! To be considered: Are the Work Package leader WPx and related partners able to deliver the final version in time; (2 weeks)? To which extent is support by others required; who can do it? Do follow-up steps need to be shifted in schedule (dependencies)? Does the EC need to be informed (amendment)? Does the Work Package leader WPx or a partner need to be substituted? further … In all decisions, the QM team (informative) shall be involved. The full final review process is to be repeated after the major changes have been implemented. IIa: Type of Outcome: Final Version Dx.y Recipient: Coordinator Who responsible to transmit: Work Package leader WPx IIa: Type of Outcome: Final Version Dx.y Recipient: Coordinator Who responsible to transmit: Work Package leader WPx

Deliverable (Process) Planning in a nutshell using the example of QM/RA activities in ODS (1. year) M12M8M9M10 M11 M4M3M5M6M7M1M2 April ‘12May ‘12June ‘12July ‘12Sept. ‘12Aug. ‘12Oct. ‘12Nov. ‘12Dec. ‘12Jan. ‘13Feb. ‘13Mar. ‘13 A1 Concept on QA & RA, A2 Meeting Questionnaire A8 SWOT Analysis Template A9 Delphi Study Concept & Online Survey A6 Risk Questionnaire Template A11 D14.5 QA & RA Plan; Guidelines & Tools Version 2.0” (Deliverable Review Version) A12 Final Version of D14.5 QA & RA Plan; Guidelines & Tools Version 2.0; Activities within the WP/Deliverable/Task Input required for own work within the task/deliverable (required from other partners) Output from own task/deliverable for other tasks/deliverables (required by other partners) A7 Document Final Review Template A3 DRD Template A4 Risk Identification Template A5 Deliverable Planning Template A10 Document Content Review Template A1 requires (DoW) A2 requires (A1) A11 requires (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10) A12 requires (D14.5 Reviewers Comments) A2 for D14.6, A1 for D14.5 QM/RA A5 for D14.6, A4 for D14.6, A3 for D14.6, A6 for D14.6, A7 for D14.6, A8 for D14.6, A9 for D14.6, A10 for D14.6, A11 for Review A12 or D14.2, 01.31