1. www.ist-muse.eu MUSE: Challenges to Integrate the Multi-Disciplinary Field of BB Access in One Project Peter.Vetter@Alcatel.be ECOC 2006 Cannes, 24-28.09.2006

2. ECOC 2006 — 2 www.ist-muse.eu Outline  Introduction to MUSE  Project organisation  Standardisation  Dissemination  Some lessons learned  Summary

3. ECOC 2006 — 3 www.ist-muse.eu MUSE Overall Objective Multi service access network that provides  secure connectivity between end-user terminals and edge  in a multi-provider environment  at a low cost for every European citizen. Multi service access network that provides  secure connectivity between end-user terminals and edge  in a multi-provider environment  at a low cost for every European citizen. Customer Premises Network Service Provider Internet Service Provider Application Service Provider Network Access Provider Access Node Residential Gateway Edge Node Aggregation network First Mile

4. ECOC 2006 — 4 www.ist-muse.eu Partners System vendors SME Aarhus BB society Operators Research Inst. & Universities IBBT Inria TU Eindhoven Budapest University (BUTE) ICCS/NTUA HHI Lund Institute of Technology (LTH) ACREO Univ. Carlos III de Madrid University of Essex Component vendors Phase I: 2004-2005 Phase II: 2006-2007 36 partners -100 PY/year (*) (**) (*) Only in phase I (**) Only in phase II

5. ECOC 2006 — 5 www.ist-muse.eu MUSE by numbers 50Sessions at consortium meeting 900Addressees of public newsletter >80Individual standards contributions >40Co-signed standards contributions >100Number of publications 64Deliverable documents 49Milestones 120 Attendees per consortium meeting 300People involved 34 M€Budget

6. ECOC 2006 — 6 www.ist-muse.eu TF4 Lab trials TF1 Access architecture & platforms TF3 Residential Gateways TF2 First mile solutions SP B MMBB SP C FMC SP D Distributed nodes WP B1WP C1WP D1 WP B2 WP C2 (DSL) WP D2 WP B3WP C3WP D3 WP B4WP C4WP D4 WP A.3 Techno-Economics WP A.4 Standardisation SP A Technical Steering and Consensus Project organisation Consensus Standards contributions Exchange of info in same area Proto and trial of E2E deployment scenarios SP E Node consolid. WP E1 WP E2 (Optical) WP E3 WP E4

7. ECOC 2006 — 7 www.ist-muse.eu Quarterly consortium meetings SP and TF meetings collocated 120 Attendees Plenary + up to 8 parallel sessions

8. ECOC 2006 — 8 www.ist-muse.eu Project website Project document repository SP confidential FTP servers Project internal website as main communication tool Who-is-who Mail exploders Discussion forum Conf. call calendar Events …

9. ECOC 2006 — 9 www.ist-muse.eu Standardisation  Why in an integrated project ? Project objective: Interoperability, economies of scale Feedback to research (realism) Motivation to aim at consensus with real company positions  Focus on selected bodies with sufficient critical mass IP should not create a new forum that competes with existing initiatives  Co-signed contributions

10. ECOC 2006 — 10 www.ist-muse.eu Dissemination  MUSE public website: www.ist-muse.org  Public Newsletter  MUSE Summer School  Papers in journals, conferences, workshops  Public demos Summer School – Autumn School IP has sufficient critical mass for effective dissimination Focus on a few existing events

11. ECOC 2006 — 11 www.ist-muse.eu Some lessons learned  Each partner should choose priority and focus resources Scope of IP is broad - every partner wants to be involved everywhere Total budget is large, but resources per partner are limited Minimum resources and justification per deliverable/per partner  Decisions Aim at consensus Proceed with majority if not possible  SP Confidential Deliverables Stimulate innovation among competitors IP Consortium Agreement stipulates access rights to IPR Public version (e.g. requirements, performance results)  Quality process Independent internal review of deliverables Assessment of partners with corrective actions in budget

12. ECOC 2006 — 12 www.ist-muse.eu Summary  Pros of integrated project Suited for research in multi-disciplinary field Suited for consensus and pre-standardisation work Good for consensus building, standardisation inputs Good network and exchange of info among research in same field Flexible adaptation of activities in fast changing environment within frame of objectives Powerful for dissemination  Cons of integrated project Overhead for management (but 100% funded) Overhead for all partners to stay up to date with all information Slow consensus and decisions Presence of competitors (but reasonably solved in Subprojects)

13. ECOC 2006 — 13 www.ist-muse.eu Muse confidential Thank you for your attention