1. Test Case A

2. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art Rationale What is the problem to be solved? –Cumbersome back-office processes in the Public Authorities (PA) –Loss of critical knowledge assets during the lifecycle (conception, modelling, implementation, updating, withdrawal) of e-Gov services

3. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art B1.1 Structure Possible Solutions Statement of the Problem Goal #1 + Means Goal #2 + Means ….. Goal #n + Means Level 1 Technical Level The Test Case A-specifc SOLUTION Core Test Case A Objective Level 2 End-user Level Level 2 EU Policy Level

4. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art B1.2 State-of-the art E-Gov is a major priority –Currently: Attempts for the modernization of the front office through (sometimes fragmented and/or departmentalized) e-Gov portals Frequent law and legislation changes –Do not propagate seamlessly into the services

5. B1 – Scientific and Technological Objectives and State-of-the-Art B1.2 Presentation Concise, to-the-point overview of state of the art and current limitations in –Thematic focus area (e-government) –Technical focus area (semantic web technologies) –Existing projects, initiatives and applications in both thematic and technical areas Project contribution is presented in terms of present shortcomings in state of the art

6. B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority Key Statistics,… Case covers ALL core objectives of IST FP6 agenda, and also –Core objective of thematic priority objective –3 out of the 5 2 nd -level specific foci of thematic priority objective –All STREP-specific approaches of thematic priority objective –All key IST societal and economic challenges

7. B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority …, Some More Details,… The proposal is in line with the IST thematic priority “Networked Businesses and Governments” –HOW: Deeply integrated into the everyday environment of Public Administration Compliance with the STREP-specific Priority guidelines –HOW: Focused innovation –Pilot tested in 3 EU Member State public bodies The proposal addresses three out of five foci of the priority –HOW: Collaborative environments –Interoperable eGov platforms –Managing knowledge to support innovation

8. B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority …, And The Evaluators View  “The proposal addresses the objectives of the work program in specifying, developing and deploying a holistic framework, in addressing reorganization of administrations and the full life cycle of work processes and in making new technology available to the users”  Mark 4/5

9. B3 – Potential Impact Key Points Strong strategic impact at a range of levels and societal groups Innovation at both the technical AND application areas Well-laid out exploitation scheme involving public administrations in 3 different European countries and specific dissemination plans per Consortium AND per partner Important contributions to the EU, FP6 IST priorities, EU stakeholders and STANDARDS; strong knowledge of relevant initiatives Synergies with existing EU projects

10. B3 ― Potential Impact Breakdown of User Groups Public Administration officers –Direct users of the platform –Facilities Have an overview of their service configuration model Be able to re-configure the services Technological successors –Open source tools leveraged –Platform provided as open source End-users –Indirect users of the platform –Provided with knowledge enhanced eGov services

11. B4 – The Consortium and Project Resources Key Points (1/5) High-quality consortium with already very experienced partners Each partner is allocated a clearly defined and convincing role –Roles cover all administrative, technical and user aspects of the project –There is NO cannibalism Due to discrete roles Clear elaboration of why a participating organisation is a subcontractor (as opposed to partner)

12. P1P2P3P4P5P6P7 WP199120639 WP212600669 WP3121839669 WP4212246000 WP5224636000 WP601839666 WP716933368 WP89639366 WP914000000 TOTAL761025472303347 Partner WP B4 – The Consortium and Project Resources Key Points (2/5)

13. Strong complementarity between partners; well-scaled mix of –Research institutions A German institute with distinctions in Knowledge Management (KM) A Swiss university, involved in eGov activities –Two leading technology providers Greek eGov expert company A significant Spanish integrator B4 – The Consortium and Project Resources Key Points (3/5)

14. –Three Public Administrations / Pilot users Municipality of a major Spanish city Municipality of a Greek city, heavily involved in the Olympics Municipality of a Swiss nodal Canton point –Management support A leading Greek management consultancy with ample experience in FP6 participation B4 – The Consortium and Project Resources Key Points (4/5)

15. Clear and balanced financial plan Consistent and justified resource distribution for all partners and parts of the work; the management cost is kept within the 7% limit B4 – The Consortium and Project Resources Key Points (5/5)

16. B5 – Description of Project Management Key Points Management structure in line with complexity of project IPR, knowledge management, quality control and conflict resolution issues all addressed (also in § B3.3.5) Detailed risk management and contingency planning Sufficient reporting mechanisms Clear performance and success indicators

17. B6 – Work Plan Key Points Strong technical description supplemented with suitable illustrations Work allocation is evenly distributed amongst work-packages Clearly defined achievable objectives –Overall approach is clear and focussed at both the horizontal and vertical levels and scales –Research generally integrated into a coherent plan –Well-determined base line and convincing end result Strong emphasis on tools and demonstrators Validation via pilot studies / usability trials

18. P1P2P3P4P5P6P7 TOTAL WP199120639 48 WP212600669 39 WP3121839669 63 WP4212246000 44 WP5224636000 68 WP601839666 48 WP716933368 48 WP89639366 4242 WP914000000 Partner WP B6 – Work Plan Workpackage Distribution

19. How will the proposed project enhance the state-of-the- art in its area? –Define a generic ontology for eGov service lifecycle and low-level domain-specific ontologies –Develop a semantically-enriched platform for modelling, composing, re-configuring and evolving e- Gov services –Pilot and evaluate (technically, organizationally and socially) the platform in three EU Public Administration B6 – Work Plan Overview of Technical Approach

20. B6 – Work Plan Clear Results and Evaluation Additional ontologies to incorporate lifecycle aspects User friendliness –Measured with user interviews Performance metrics (size of the ontology, computing overhead)

21. Overall Impression Apparent existing expertise by ALL partners First-level analysis –State of the art –User clarification –User requirements Description of major developments in the area –Standardization –Existing tools and platforms Clear results –Ontologies (specific kinds) –Platform Modelling (Re- ) Configuring Deployment

22. Test Case B

23. B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project Test Case B Objectives “The adoption of GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) info and service architecture in the field of coastal and marine anthropogenic environment risk, in areas such as marine eutrophication or oil spills” And some “passepartout” targets: –Review of info sources –Identify best practices –Develop a roadmap

24. B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project B1 Section Structure Possible Solutions Statement of the Problem Goal #1 + Means Goal #2 + Means ….. Goal #n + Means Level 1 Technical Level The Test Case A-specifc SOLUTION Core Test Case A Objective Level 2 End-user Level Level 3 EU Policy + RTD Level Too generi c

25. B1 – Objectives of the Proposed Project B1 Section Key Points Lengthy introduction – core objective is reached after a whole page of text Weak knowledge of subject matter field – a lot of verbiage, but no punchy text Weak definitions of –Goals –Addressed RTD and stakeholder groups –End-user groups Practical relevance of benefits to end-user groups uncertain

26. B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority Key Points (1/3) Like Test Case A, test Case B addresses the two main areas of concern of IST in FP6 and also –Core 2.5.12 objective –1out of 3 2 nd -level specific foci of thematic priority objective –Some IST-related public sector and societal challenges

27. B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority Key Points (2/3) The Test Case B strategic impact section –Lacks conviction –Contains a number of non-persuasive claims – there is no in-depth addressing of specific challenges in the field There is some awareness of past and present initiatives but –No grounding on specific shortcomings and ways to address these –No references to specific maritime organisations, acedemic groups, etc

28. Moreover, SSAs are supported in the 3rd focal area: –Adoption of common architectures by Extending work on environmental risk and emergency management Early adoption of GMES information and service architecture Convergence in the field of public safety communication But … SSAs as a horizontal instrument solicit a generalized view, while this proposal seems to focus TOO NARROWLY Evaluators’ View: “The relevance is not sufficient (…) The objectives are concentrated exclusively on marine and coastal risks” 3/5  below threshold B2 – Relevance to the Objectives of the IST Priority Key Points (3/3)

29. Who will be the next user – who will use the project results? Results –Provision of an integrated observing system for coastal and marine ecosystems Dissemination –Portal, newsletter, conferences, journals etc: all the means are available –Difficult to disseminate, if a small part of the consortium has pertinent activities B3 – Strategic Impact Key Points

30. B4 – Consortium Resources Key Points (1/3) Consortium has a good range of management and IT skills and expertise –1 Technology Provider An SME with expertise in the development of environmental Information Systems (IS) –2 non-profit organizations An institute of a well-known Research Centre, with expertise on the development of environmental policies A German institute with participation in the area of environmental Knowledge Management –1 Management consulting firm experienced in FP6 RTD

31. B4 – Consortium Resources Key Points (2/3) However, there is no direct experience or intimate knowledge pertinent to marine GIS standardisation; consortium is thus not fully representative of European best-practice in this area Missing key players, namely –Maritime organisations or other stakeholder groups Unclear how consultation with beneficiary groups will be achieved / corresponding level of stakeholder acceptance questionable No defined end-user group / no pertinent group to carry through the exploitation scheme

32. P1P2P3P4 WP15000 WP2 24 62 WP32262 WP43624 WP54624 WP64222 TOTAL20 1814 Partner WP B4 – Consortium Resources Key Points (3/3)

33. Management structure credible and convincing Clear performance, quality control and success indicators Good quality risk and contingency planning Detailed financial plan Even distribution of tasks and financial resources amidst existing partners, but –Resources rather overevaluated (72 PM!) B5 – Description of Project Management Key Points

34. Β6 – Work Plan Key Points Coherent workplan but 18 month timescale insufficient given the need for information collection; project scope overly ambitious given the chosen time frame, BUT –Rather limited number of deliverables (16) Sampling scheme weak; WP2 approach probably inefficient in achieving stated goals and deliverables Very many unspecified information sources and beneficiaries – RTD players, PAs, maritime stakeholder groups, etc Poor match between dissemination and impact claims and activities foreseen; no specific exploitation scheme

35. Overall Impression Not apparent existing expertise by ALL partners Administrative approach –Limited description of major developments in the area –No reference to existing tools and platforms Unclear results –Dissemination (but WHERE? and to WHOM?)

36. This Means That…  The best possible approach to an unknown area may not be enough Even if many hours have been dedicated to getting acquainted with the area 

37.  Before submitting we must stop to ask ourselves: “What can we offer to the Programme, based on our previous experience?” SO…