1. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 1 FP6 IST “Broadband for all” Network of Excellence Project 027497 e-Photon/ONe+ “Optical Networks: Towards Bandwidth Manageability and Cost Efficiency” Final Review Meeting Brussels, 22 April 2007

2. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 2 PART 1 External visibility, contribution to concertation, and synergies with other projects

3. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 3 www.e-photon-one.org

4. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 4 e-Photon/ONe website The e-Photon/ONe website proved to play an important role to disseminate project achievements (in addition to fostering partners integration) A significant effort was devoted to designing the website, hosted at UPC, with support from PoliTO, UniBO, UEssex Advanced functionalities implemented in e- Photon/ONe+ Information uploading (and consistency checking) is a very demanding task

5. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 5 Concertation Meetings The EC contract requests to attend “cross- dissemination meetings together with other related projects … up to four [times] per year” Concertation Meetings of IST Communication and Network Technologies projects are regularly organized in Brussels The project leader and other partners attended Concertation Meetings and participated to Projects Cluster “Broadband for all” (first) and “Internet of the Future” (later)

6. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 6 Coordination with other projects Real interaction among similar projects is desirable and highly recommended by project officers There have been to coordination efforts (and joint organization of events) with – other FP6 European projects (to which some e-Photon/ONe partners participate): BREAD; the “sister” NoE ePIXnet; NoE ISIS; IPs: Nobel, MUSE; STREPs: POF-ALL, Phosphorous, Lasagne, … – COST Action 291: “Towards Digital Optical Networks” – national projects There are obstacles to stronger (possible) synergies: – “why was I excluded from that consortium?” – IPR issues – no budget = no time to do work

7. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 7 Links with other institutions The Collaborating Institution role was useful to establish stable links with other European and non-European institutions WP-D workshops on research in optical networks established links with the research communities in USA and Japan, producing joint strategic vision documents e-Photon/ONe became a “brand name”, and a useful “quality label” on the technical activities of its partners

8. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 8 Conferences Several conferences have asked to e-Photon/ONe+ endorsement, support, and attendance ECOC, ONDM and OFC (in addition to major IEEE conferences, e.g. Infocom, Globecom, ICC) are considered the most relevant conferences for e-Photon/ONe The opportunity to present the NoE at these conferences is an important recognition Partners’ participation to TPCs was highly recommended

9. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 9 ECOC booth A booth on EC funded projects on optics was regularly organized by e-Photon/ONe at the ECOC exposition Contributions from several FP6 projects; in 2007 (Berlin): NOBEL, MUSE, PHOSPHORUS, MUPBED and BREAD, with rolling presentations from e-Photon/ONe+, ePIXnet PIEMAN and HECTO

10. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 10 PART 2 Closing comments (after four NoE years)

11. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 11 Is it worth the effort? Advantages of NoEs: Research and personal integration in the European scientific community Opportunities to have a faster startup of new research activities International visibility Establishment of a “brand name” Cooperation with the European international leadership in specific technical areas (optical networks for e-Photon/ONe), and with Japan, USA, Canada, China, Korea Possible alliances for setting up consortia towards other forms of research funding Funds available for personnel exchanges Most e-Photon/ONe WP leaders (including some industrial partners) choose to maintain their e1 role in e1+, and now in BONE

12. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 12 Management efforts Large project management effort, but largely reduced in Phase 2 due to the previous experience in Phase 1 Sixth Framework Programme rules not clear from the beginning (and unknown or obscure to participating institutions) No real administrative autonomy: very detailed reporting to the Commission still requested The Additional Cost model – used by most universities – was not appropriate for NoEs Co-existence of Additional Cost and Full Cost models leads to administrative problems

13. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 13 Comments (1) Exploiting the NoE instrument is not trivial Which is the proper role of a NoE? Consortium size  – Small consortium likely misses significant players and has no consensus in the research community – Big consortium raises management issues The project management architecture is a cornerstone to achieve tangible results – The Virtual Department concept is the e-Photon/ONe answer to the coordination of research issue I think that e-Photon/ONe was successful in proving the merits of a “community-based” NoE

14. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 14 Comments (2) After four years, tangible results can be claimed – Partners have got to know one another a lot better: Mutual knowledge of fields of expertise and areas of excellence Mutual knowledge of group layouts and major laboratory infrastructures – Integration is truly taking place Formal and informal collaborations have actually started among several partners Actions towards new project proposals were coordinated Consensus on key issues being formed: common papers being written and plans for building common teaching material

15. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 15 Durable integration? Exchanges (of younger partners) pave the way for future collaborations Sharing of knowledge and research topics, and comparison of different approaches, create an identity of the European research community Joint research is important for building a common background Changes of research orientation, although difficult, is taking place Training activities (identification of common courses) will have long-term benefits

16. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 16 BONE The follow-up NoE BONE (“Building the future Optical Network in Europe”) was funded by the EC through the 7th ICT Framework Programme BONE will provide continuity to e-Photon/ONe efforts and pave the way for stronger durability The NoE management was handed over from Torino to Gent, but the general framework was kept basically unchanged

17. Final Review Meeting – Brussels 22-April-2008 17