WP-O Coordination and Management Final Review Meeting Brussels, 22 April 2008

1. WP-O Coordination and Management Final Review MeetingBrussels, 22 April 2008 Enrica Conrotto Politecnico di Torino

2. WPO: Coordination and Management WP leader: Laura Fulci Structure: Project Office + WP leaders + Local Administrative Contacts Partners involved: • WP-O-M: PoliTO – Project Office • WP-O-C: PoliTO, DEIS-UniBO, IBBT, UEssex, UoPelop, UPC

3. WP-O activities • WP-O has been conceived so as to distinguish between two levels: • WP-O-C: overall network coordination activities • WP-O-M: operational management WP-O-C Coordination: • Intermediary between contractors and EC • Reporting on mobility actions • Dissemination activities • Governing bodies meetings organization • Interactions with Collaborating Institutions • Teleconference tools and website management • Gender Action Plan supervision WP-O-M Management: • Operational NoE management • Financial monitoring and reporting

4. WPO: Deliverables and Milestones Y2 WPO-C: Milestones & Deliverables • D.O-C.3 [T0+13] Report on Collaborating Institutions • M.O-C.6 [T0+23] Organization of the final e-Photon/ONe+ plenary meeting (held in Turin on January 28-30, 2008) • D.O-C.4 [T0+24] Report on mobility actions in the second year WPO-M: Milestones & Deliverables • D.O-M.2 [T0+13] Periodic Management Report, and Report on the distribution of the EC contribution among contractors according to EC rules • D.O-M.3 [T0+15] Financial plan for the second period of activities • M.O-M.4 [T0+18] Final update on involved researchers and students • D.O-M.4 [T0+24] Final report (draft version available) ALL MILESTONES AND DEIVERABLES OF THE SECOND YEAR COMPLETED

5. Main Activities Summary • General management and Reporting • Contractual and legal management • Financial management

6. Administrative coordination • Efficient NoE coordination and a prompt risk management • Intermediary between EC and NoE partners MAIN GOALS • Synergy between administrative and scientific coordination • Continuous monitoring on activities and expenditures • Standard guidelines for reporting, communication and dissemination • Helpdesk for NoE partners and flexibility to understand their different practices and legislation METHODS & TOOLS

7. Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring is a basic task of project management The PO is in charge of monitoring partners activities and expenditures in order to provide the governing bodies NoE with financial status and update on activities progresses • To reach this objective, some rules and a set of documents and guidelines have been defined: • the Consortium Agreement, which defines management rules and responsibilities for each partner • the Management Handbook, which includes instructions on procedures related to reporting, communication protocol and results dissemination

8. Periodic Management Report n.2 Introduction – Participants involvement and budget/effort allocation SECTION 1 – Justification of major cost items and resources 1.1 Overview on NoE Effort employed in Y2 1.2 Overview on budget spent in Y2 1.3 Explanatory note on major cost items 1.4 Planned and actual costs by contractor and by cost item 1.4.1 Global estimate of total costs 1.5 Planned and actual effort by contractor and by WP 1.5.1 For AC contractors, overview of the effort of permanent staff working on the project 1.6 Brief description of the work performed by each contractor 1.7 Explanation of major deviations, including risk assessment SECTION 2 – Form C (including justification of adjustments) SECTION 3 – Summary Financial Report 

9. Main Activities Summary • General management and Reporting • Contractual and legal management • Financial management

10. Contract Two amendments to the EC contract were requested by the Coordinator on behalf of the Consortium and approved by the CE: Amendment n.1 • Termination of INTEL's participation • Addition of UCAM-DENG as new e1+ contractor (partner n. 41) • Addition of ISCOM as third party of FUB Amendment n.2 • transfer of contractual rights and obligations from Alcatel Italia S.p.A. to Alcatel-Lucent Italia S.p.A.

11. Consortium Agreement • The Consortium Agreement was signed by all partners except Intel Cambridge that finally withdrew from the NoE • Two amendments were agreed and signed by all partners: • Amendment n.1 : modifications on Confidentiality and Publications sections according to KTH requests • Amendment n.2 : to allow UCAM-DENG to have access the Consortium Agreement

12. Collaborating Institutions Agreement • At the kickoff meeting it was decided not to enlarge the consortium, but to establish the role of “Collaborating Institution” (CI), with • no budget allocation • full participation to the project • The PO prepared the Collaborating Institution Agreement (included in the CA) and collected the signed agreements • RULES FOR ADMISSION • Request for participation shall be submitted by the JPAC, or by the Coordinator, or by at least 3 partners in written form defining the plan of activities • The decision on the inclusion of the CI shall be taken by the JPAC • The CI shall participate in the Project activities and/or take part of results according to the proposed plan of activities • The CI will not be refunded for the expenses incurred

13. Collaborating Institutions • CIs agreements signed in Y1: • Campinas State University, Brazil • Beijing University of Posts & Telegraphs, China • CTTC: Telecommunications Technological Center of Catalonia, Spain • University of Vigo, Spain • Polytechnic University of Cartagena, Spain • Poznan University of Technology, Poland • CIs agreements signed in Y2: • University of Roma "La Sapienza", Italy • HUAWEI Sweden

14. Main Activities Summary • General management and Reporting • Contractual and legal management • Financial management

15. Financial Management • Definition of common financial rules for budget allocation and reporting • Internal progress reports where each partner declares its effort and costs • WP leaders in charge of monitoring involvement of partners in their WP • In case of inactive partners, the JPAC could take appropriate decisions The PO carried out periodical financial reviews in order to provide the JPAC with the NoE financial status for decisions on budget re-allocation and financial monitoring

16. Budget re-allocation • End Y1: First Financial Review, including assessment of: • the criteria defined by the WP leaders for allocating the budget available to each WP (70K€) according to the planned activities • the budget already spent and the budget necessary to carry out some specific tasks and objectives • End Y2: Final Reviewfor an a-posteriori check on WP activities: • Minor adjustments to the final budget allocation were decided by the JPAC so as to reflect the real involvement of partners in the WPs activities. Periodical financial reviews carried out by PO with WP leaders:

17. Final budget allocation

18. EC Payments 1st EC payment • 60% of the fixed budget distributed according to art. 5.2 and Annex C of the CA • No budget was transferred to Intel-IRC (according to a JPAC decision) 2nd EC payment • transferred to partners taking into account • the total allocated budget (incl. budget allocated by each WP at the end of the first year) • the percentage of budget already spent • the claimed costs accepted by the EC in the first year • A first payment equal to 36 Keuro was transferred to UCAM-DENG.

19. EC payments transfers

20. Financial monitoring In order to ensure the financial monitoring, the Project Office, as a method of control of the partners expenditure, will apply to the final EC payment transfer the Art. 5.2(c) of the CA “Contractors who spend less than their respective share of the Budget will be funded only in respect of the actual amount spent. Contractors who spend more than their respective share of the Budget will be funded only up to the funding as allocated under this Consortium Agreement, unless otherwise agreed by the JPA Committee according to Art.3.2.4.” In case of under-spending partners the amount transferred will be proportionally reduced

21. Criteria for final transfers Partners spending less than their share of budget will be funded only up to the amount spent, and the remaining budget will be allocated to partners with excess eligible costs: • Underspending partners: will be funded up to the amount spent • Overspending partners: a max-min approach will be defined, i.e. (as for the first phase) the available budget will be allocated in proportion to the relative weight of the original budget, without exceeding claimed costs

22. WP Manpower: Y1+Y2 Permanent staff (AC): 235 m/m

23. Network budget: Y1+Y2

24. Expenditures The partners expenditures are mostly related to: Personnel Costs  • Researchers, PhD–students, other staff for activities carried out by each WP Travel Costs • management and coordination meetings • implementation of NoE activities (e.g. joint experiments, summer school, e1+ events etc) • participation to conferences and dissemination events • Mobility actions

25. Resources employed • AC cost reporting model implies a discrepancy between effort spent and cost claimed • Different partners approach due to national legislation and internal practices • Claimed costs are in line with expectation according to the art. III.2.2 of the Contract “At the end of the project, the eligible costs incurred in implementing the joint programme of activities over the full duration of the project must exceed the grant for integration. If this is not the case, the payment for the last reporting period shall be limited to 95% of the eligible costs incurred in that period.”

26. Global estimate of Total Costs

27. Manpower employed per activity: Y1+Y2 • Low effort in Spreading od Excellence activities depends on rules for costs reporting Half effort is devoted to the Integrating activities, key objective of the NoE

28. Costs incurred per activity: Y1+Y2 • Low expenditure in Spreading of Excellence activities depends on rules for costs reporting Half of total expenditures refers to the Integrating activities

29. Final Comments • Activities progressed as planned: all deliverables completed • Half of both expenditure and effort is devoted to the Integrating activities, key objective of the NoE • BONE will provide additional funding to the e-Photon/ONe community BUT… • Very high effort for management and coordination

30. Q?