1. [WP1/Project Management]
Better Software for Better Science.
[Luciano Gaido, INFN]
[WP1 leader]
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
Brussels, 16-17/11/2017
RIA

2. WP1/Project Management
Outline
WP1 Overview
Objectives and tasks
Amendments
Risk assessment
Use of resources
Summary
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

3. WP1 Objectives and Tasks/1
WP1 objectives (from the DoA):
“Overall project administration including definition of the project Quality Assurance plan.
The objectives include the overall efficient operation of the consortium, careful monitoring of resource and financial expenditures, fulfillment of contractual obligations, periodic reporting and relationship with the European Commission.”
Tasks
Project Objectives/Activities
T1.1
[Consortium coordination and Project Management]
To deliver on the scientific and technical objectives of the project within the time and budget constraints.
To ensure that there is clear and effective communication between partners; to detect management and technical issues as early as possible and bring them to resolution.
Preparing the periodic activity reports requested by the EC.
Guidance concerning IPR issues.
Support to the preparation of the EC reviews.
Establishment of intra-project communication and information networks.
Relationship with subcontractors, other initiatives and projects.
Meeting support and follow-up (e.g. recorder of minutes).
Conflict resolution.
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

4. WP1 Objectives and Tasks/2
Project Objectives/Activities
T1.2
[Financial Management]
Monitoring of resources and financial expenditures, including distribution of the Community contribution
Preparation of the periodic financial reports to be delivered to the EC. They will include:
Individual financial statement for each beneficiary and for the reporting period concerned;
Explanation of the use of the resources;
Periodic summary financial statement consolidating the claimed Community contribution of all the beneficiaries.
T1.3
[Project Quality Assurance and Activities Oversight]
Definition of a Quality Plan (tools and metrics), including specific measures to follow up the fulfilment of KPIs.
Encouraging and verifying that standards, procedures and metrics are defined, applied and evaluated
Definition of the process and procedures to:
Assess the work and achievements of the different WPs
Review deliverables and reports o Verify fulfilment of Milestones
Monitoring the risk and develop contingency plans
Monitoring ethics and gender equality
T1.4
[Communication]
This task has been subcontracted to an external partner (Trust-IT)
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

5. WP1/Project Management
Amendments
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

6. WP1/Project Management
Amendments/1
As a result of the continuous monitoring of the project activities performed by the Project Office and WP1, by the technical oversight of the PMB, some needs for changes to the DoA arose, in addition to a few specific requests by some partners.
These have been resulted in two requests for amendments (both were accepted):
First amendment (end of 2016). Objectives:
fix some clerical errors (wrong responsible for two deliverables and two milestones; 3 PMs not allocated to any task for ICCU) ;
transfer budget from EGI.eu (63.7 K€), with a personnel cost lower than expected, to AGH/UST, to perform additional activities not foreseen at the beginning in task T5.4 (10 PMs more);
add the SET linked third party to INGV, which was experiencing serious problems in hiring expert people in-house to carry on the assigned activities;
increase the allocated effort, without any budget variation, to CMCC and CIRMMP, because they had to rely on less expert people than foreseen, due to the difficulty of hiring experienced personnel;
add the ATOS IT linked third party to ATOS, to allow for the contribution of an ATOS IT (part of the same ATOS group) expert employee.
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

7. WP1/Project Management
Amendments/2
Second amendment (Spring 2017).
Objectives:
internal shift of some effort for CSIC (10 PMs from WP1 to WP2) and CNRS (4 PMs from T6.1 to T4.1) in order to better address activities more demanding than foreseen;
allocation of part (89.4 K€) of the KIT budget (available due to a lower personnel cost at KIT than expected) to CSIC, UPV and INFN, in order to better address and support important requirements coming from several user communities;
Adding a linked third party (T-Systems GEI GmbH) to T-Systems International
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

8. WP1/Project Management
Risk Assessment
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

9. WP1/Project Management
Risk Assessment/1
Risk assessment activities have been performed according to the procedures defined in deliverable D1.4. Critical risks were already described in the project proposal, however some additional risks have been identified during the first months of the project. They are reported in deliverable D1.5, together with the results of the first risk assessment (July 2016). In D1.5 the risk assessment procedure has been improved in order to make it more effective, the main change is the involvement of the PMB, in addition to the Technical Board. The results of the final assessment (as of September 2017) are reported in deliverable D1.12 (details in Appendix 1).
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

10. WP1/Project Management
Risk Assessment/2
The only risk worth mentioning is R8 (Some data ingestion components are not easily supported by the INDIGO framework), specifically with respect to the Quality of Service. Indeed the project focused on federating the IaaS QoS endpoints, exposing them in a simple and user-friendly interface to end users, because this was the main requirement coming from user communities. Implementing a full federated storage QoS at the PaaS level was replaced by the requirements (not originally foreseen) to support high-level metadata functionalities, such as distributed queries and automatic metadata management, which were implemented in T5.4 and adopted in several use cases presented by WP2. A full implementation of the support for federated storage QoS is planned in the INDIGO follow-on eXtreme-DataCloud (XDC) project.
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

11. WP1/Project Management
Risk Assessment/3
As a summary:
many risks did not occur
for the other ones, the defined countermeasures have proven to be effective to mitigate their impact
The impact of the occurred risks on the project and its outcome has therefore been negligible.
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

12. WP1/Project Management
Use of Resources
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

13. Effort distribution among the WPs
The actual effort distribution is close to what was foreseen in the DoA The difference is less than 1%
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

14. Effort deviations WP
Effort
DoA
Actual %
deviation (actual - DoA)
deviation %
WP1
40.00
37.99
94.97%
-2.01
-5.03%
WP2
306.00
351.16
114.76%
45.16
14.76%
WP3
214.00
225.35
105.30%
11.35
5.30%
WP4
360.00
411.56
114.32%
51.56
14.32%
WP5
644.00
707.78
109.90%
63.78
9.90%
WP6
151.00
167.73
111.08%
16.73
11.08%
Total
1,715.00
110.88%
186.57
10.88%
The effort reported shows a general over-reporting for all WPs (less than 15%), with the exception of WP1 where there is a slight under-reporting (about 5%)
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

15. Effort deviations by partner/1
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

16. Effort deviations by partner/2
Two partners are under-reporting for more than 10%:
CERN (-16.14%) (add justification here)
T-Systems (-14.43%) (add justification here)  request to recover costs for resource provisioning
However the project has not been impacted by this because…..
In addition, some partners have been over-reporting (more than 10%):
- INFN (+12.22%) - LIP (+13.28%)
- DESY (+14.11%) - AGH/UST (+27.55%)
- UPV (+60.44%) - INGV (+15.63%)
- INAF (+16.87%) - RBI (+30.50%)
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

17. Effort deviations by partner/3
AGH/UST is a special case because the extra effort is due to unfunded effort (declared in the DoA after the first amendment)
The over-reporting of INFN, DESY, LIP corresponds partially to extra effort required for specific activities and partially to the coordination of the Work Packages which in such cases (WP1 and WP5 for INFN, WP3 for LIP and WP4 for DESY) required more effort than expected.
UPV has shown a remarkable over-reporting: this is due to….
INGV has shown a remarkable over-reporting: this is due to….
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

18. Costs distribution among categories
The actual costs distribution is close to what was foreseen in the DoA
As for the effort, the difference is less than 1%
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

19. Costs deviations
category
Costs
DoA
Actual
requested contribution %
diff (actual - DoA)
Costs deviation %
personnel
8,505,100.00
8,436,975.36
99.20%
-68,124.64
-0.80%
other direct costs
688,531.20
728,326.09
105.78%
39,794.89
5.78%
subcontracting
73,200.00
60,000.00
81.97%
-13,200.00
-18.03%
overheads
2,298,407.80
2,291,325.36
99.69%
-7,082.44
-0.31%
Total
11,565,239.00
11,516,626.81
11,042,015.95
99.58%
-48,612.19
-0.42%
All actual costs are well in line (less than 6%) with respect to the DoA, with the exception of subcontracting where there is an 18% lower cost due to….
Note that the requested contribution is 474 K€ less than the actual costs: this is due to the unfunded contribution provided by AGH/UST and CNR.
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

20. Costs deviations by partner/1
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

21. Costs deviations by partner/2
Most partners are in line with the foreseen costs
However there are some under-spending partners (we are considering only differences greater than 10%):
KIT (83.30%) : their actual cost is lower than expected, and the budget released with the second amendment was not enough
Utrecht University (88.79%): their actual cost is lower than expected
T-Systems (81.27%): they delivered less effort than expected in WP5 but they provided unforeseen resources for the testbed  a very valuable contribution
STFC (73.89%): their actual cost is lower than expected
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

22. WP1/Project Management
Summary
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

23. WP1/Project Management
Summary
No major issues
Although some partners have been under-reporting in some tasks, the project activities have been carried on with success, thanks also to other partners who devoted more effort than expected
There is some unspent budget which can be redistributed to partners who contributed with more effort to the success of the project
The PMB is going to define [to be replaced with “has defined”] priorities for the unspent budget allocation and define a proposal to be approved by the Collaboration Board (CB)
The CB will have a phone meeting in the second half of November to discuss and approve the PMB proposal
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management

24. https://www.indigo-datacloud.eu Better Software for Better Science.
Thank you
Better Software for Better Science.
@indigodatacloud
INDIGO-DataCloud Final Review
WP1/Project Management