170 likes | 389 Views
Presentation for the EXTR@Web Sub-contractors’ Kick-off Meeting 7 April 2003. Andrew Winder ISIS. Role of the Benchmark Group and Sub-contractors. Similarities and differences. 1. Context of national programme and project level reporting
E N D
Presentation for the EXTR@WebSub-contractors’ Kick-off Meeting 7 April 2003 Andrew Winder ISIS
Role of the Benchmark Group and Sub-contractors Similarities and differences
1. Context of national programme and project level reporting 2. Scope of reporting by EXTR@Web partners and sub-contractors 3. Role of the High Level Advisory Group 4. Role of the Benchmark Group (BG) 5. Interfaces between EXTR@Web partners, sub-contractors and the BG
Context EXTR@Web Work-Package 2 “Monitoring, analysis and information preparation” • Sub-WPs: • WP2.1 - Completion of Fourth Framework RTD Programme activities • WP2.2 - Transport RTD reporting system • WP2.3 - Monitoring of national transport RTD activities (programme level) • WP2.4 - Analysis of national RTD activities (project level) • WP2.5 - Analysis of EU transport RTD • WP2.6 - Intermodal transport and telematics
Context EXTR@Web Work-Package 4 “Management of Knowledge Transfer” • Sub-WPs: • WP4.1 - Dissemination strategy • WP4.2 - Contact database and e-mail enquiry service • WP4.3 - Awareness raising activities • WP4.4 - Evaluation
Scope of Reporting Programme level • National governmental programmes and sub-programmes • National research funding mechanisms (major state-sponsored research not part of a formal programme) • Major regional programmes • Bilateral and multilateral programmes between countries • Major national non-governmental research programmes Project level • Selected national projects of European interest within any of the above programmes
Scope of Reporting • European Research Area countries covered (1) • 30 countries in total • EXTR@Web partners in bold underlined • Austria FGM-AMOR • Belgium GOPA-Cartermill International • Bulgaria CTC Engineer • Cyprus Systema • Czech Republic Dorsch Consult • Denmark COWI • Estonia VTT • Finland VTT • France ISIS
Scope of Reporting European Research Area countries covered (2) • Germany IABG(Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft) • Greece Systema • Hungary Transman • Iceland TØI (Transport Economics Institute) • Ireland FaberMaunsell • Italy University of Rome - DITS (Dipartimento Idraulica, Trasporti e Strade) • Latvia VTT Tech. Research Centre of Finland • Lithuania VTT Tech. Research Centre of Finland • Luxembourg GOPA-Cartermill International • Malta Dorsch Consult
Scope of Reporting European Research Area countries covered (3) • Netherlands University of Delft • Norway TØI (Transport Economics Institute) • Poland Dorsch Consult • Portugal TIS • Romania GIE (Group of Independent Experts) • Slovakia Dorsch Consult • Slovenia Dorsch Consult • Spain ETRA Investigación y Desarrollo • Sweden TFK Institutet för transportforskning • Switzerland INFRAS • United Kingdom University of Leeds ITS (Institute for Transport Studies)
Scope of Reporting • Reporting of Programmes and Projects on standard forms, to be completed in English • part of the Common European Transport Research Reporting Scheme (see Wolfgang Helmreich’s presentation) • html version on-line or Word format off-line • Programme Profiles • Project Profiles • Progress Summaries • Results Summaries
Scope of Reporting • Procedure (1) • Research relevant national programmes or other important funding streams (WP2.3) • Identify key national projects which could be of European interest (WP2.4) • Validate with Benchmark Group member • Fill in forms as far as possible with information available • programme and project websites • brochures, reports, etc • information or contact persons supplied by BG member • existing personal contacts in national programmes/projects
Scope of Reporting • Procedure (2) • Provide textual overview of national research programmes • 1 page summary for TRKC Website country introduction • Validate outputs from subcontracting partner (for consistency) and BG member (for accuracy and advice on completing any missing information if possible) • Update forms periodically, following: • establishment of new programmes or significant changes in existing programmes • new projects of interest • evolution of existing projects (interim and final results) • mid-term and end of project update/review in any case
The High Level Advisory Group • The political link between the TRKC to the national administrations • Role is to support EXTR@Web activities on a generic and policy level • overall direction of the project • feeding the views and needs from the ERA countries • supporting the feedback and enforcement of agreed standards and structures at national level • Should facilitate access to national information, by appointing and overseeing a Benchmark Group (BG) member who will work with the project partners and sub-contractors • One senior level representative from each ERA country • Approx. 2 meetings per year to be convened by DG TREN
The Benchmark Group • Appointed by the Advisory Group member (or may be the same person) • Role is to support EXTR@Web activities on a practical level • inform on national programme and project activities • “open doors” to project team and national subcontractors, providing access to information sources/contacts as far as possible • encourage filling in of forms by national programme and project leaders themselves • check and validate work provided by EXTR@Web and others • assist in project dissemination and national feedback • One or more representatives from each ERA country • Approx. 2 meetings per year to be convened by DG TREN
Interfaces between EXTR@Web partners, sub-contractors and the BG • Sub-contractors are responsible to their sub-contracting partner, not to the Benchmark Group • BG members are responsible to their national AG member • A certain overlapping of tasks between the BG and the sub- contractors, but in general: • the sub-contractors fill in the forms and produce output • the BG facilitates, advises and validates • some BG tasks may be delegated to sub-contractors (especially where a country has no BG member) • sub-contractors’ output is checked by their contracting partner and then by the WP2.3 or 2.4 leader (ISIS / DITS)
Conclusions • Limited budget for national activities: need to prioritise where there is a large number of projects and programmes • BG is there to help the sub-contractors and advise on prioritisation • Advice also from the PAG (Programme Analysis Group) and the WP leader, via sub-contractors’ contracting partner • Small tasks, e.g. publicising the EXTR@Web TRKC to existing professional contacts, may be carried out in conjunction with the BG member