POST REVIEW MANAGEMENT ISSUES

1. POST REVIEW MANAGEMENT ISSUES Alessandra Barbieri NURC

2. AREAS OF CONCERN • Communication procedures (added after Monday exercise) • Deliverables review • Internal Project Review • Monitoring of use of resources • Dissemination • Meetings (modified based on current meeting) • Performance Indicators

3. COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES • Quality Plan already contains provision for project website being the principal mean for communication. It is just a matter of enforcing this. • Partners requested that mailing lists be established. Be sure wide agreement exists on this We continue to run with the existing – overburdened mail system.

4. DELIVERABLE REVIEW ISSUES • 21 deliverables were due up to M12. Only 5 seen by QM • 1 as author • 3 as final clearance provider • 1 as reviewer • FLOW PROBLEM (submission with incomplete DQR) or SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM(DQR not completed at all  no review?) • Large number of deliverables submitted LATE • Sufficient time for a meaningful review • Alignment of deliverable with the set quality standards • Findings adequately addressed • Process clearly documented / auditable FORMAL deliverable review process QM FINAL CLEARANCE • Review process for adequacy • Mandatory prerequisite before submission

5. SUGGESTED WAY AHEAD • Deny submission of the deliverable in absence of a complete DQR. • Better manage process • Table on website for planning submission & review • Regular update as steps are completed (or at final stage by QM) • Timeliness monitoring

6. PROJECT INTERNAL REVIEW • Internal Reviews are a key step for project management • Monitor progress • Identify risks and apply contingency plans • Take action as necessary • EMB to do this on a quarterly basis (requirement set by Coordinator to keep things under control) based on quarterly reports NO EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENTED REVIEWS DONE This resulted in: • Resources out of control • Partners not performing • Inadequate results • All these elements came out at EU Review only: specific criticism from reviewers for them not being brought up earlier

7. SUGGESTED WAY AHEAD • Coordinator includes this item as a mandatory topic while setting the EMB agenda (it should be noted that such requirement has been neglected until now as no formal agenda for EMB meeting is circulated) • An action list is produced following EMB meetings (opportunity for reporting conclusions / action list / status at the plenary meeting shall be explored)

8. RESOURCES MONITORING • Strong case by reviewers: considerable overspend for 4 over 10 WPs 2 reasons identified: • baseline definition (divide total allocation by 4 is too rough and not realistic: should be based on WP GANTT instead) • no monitoring on resource usage: • sections on resource usage (manpower and money) removed as per EMB decision in Barcelona as they were too complicated to retrieve and report on a quarterly basis

9. MEETINGS • Issues can be raised WRT: • Meetings planning • Meetings documentation

11. MEETINGS: PLANNING • Meeting planning (to include preliminary agenda circulation) apparently done in compliance with established procedures. • However, this does not seem to be effective (current meeting is an example)

12. Meeting Planning: suggested way ahead • Some WPs require plenary discussion (e.g. WP 1, 2, 3...); for other WPs presentations are more a sort of progress report. This is needed, but can be achieved through other channels • Coordinator should get at least a week in advance from meeting and circulate among partners slides and supporting narrative. Hot issues identified at that stage. • Agenda is defined on this basis: • Where progress report is deemed to be sufficient no time slot is assigned for presentation (Q&A session? Forum discussion on website?) • Where presentation and discussion is needed, adequate timeslot is allocated. Presentation and supporting docs shall be read in advance • Residual time can be used for workshops and physical meetings.

13. Meeting: documentation • No Fact Sheet with draft action items circulated at the end of the meeting for preliminary screening • No official minutes circulated for comment and approval • No action list published on project website or followed up • This represents a risk not only in terms of not sharing information with partners not involved in the meeting itself (external to the group having the meeting or simply not present although required), but also in terms of having people leaving the meeting with two opposite ideas of what was discussed and – more important – agreed… • Suggestion made to have all minutes published / made available to all partners

14. DISSEMINATION • Contradiction between Quality Plan (defined based on output from Barcelona EMB) and CA (not signed yet) • Quality Plan: no preliminary control, being the consortium made by “all top-level scientists”, in the interest of widening dissemination as much as possible • Consortium Agreement: some serious constraints on publications (prior notice – right to object).   • How was this addressed? • Paragraph included in the dissemination chapter of revised QP, but it is worth having a look.

15. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS • General indicators for NOE performance • Defined as per DoW • Provide general indications • Data collected mainly via online questionnaire (1 per partner) • WP performance indicators • Some overlap possible with indicators at point 1 • Unique data collection channel – shared results • EMB level: coordination to optimize data collection and maximize re-usability of data • WPL: please coordinate with myself and Francesco