Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting Setting up of a project management tool

1. Strategic Co-ordination Group meeting Setting up of a project management tool November 27th, 2001 Brussels DRAFT

2. Background and status of the project • The management system / tool • Findings from the interviews • Possible next steps

3. Objectives of the project • To ensure transparent management of the guidance development process • Through: • Supporting the development of an overall work • programme based on the individual programmes • Setting up a project management system tool using • Microsoft Project in order to follow up and coordinate: • timetables, • milestones and deliveries • critical paths, • links among the different activities and projects.

4. Project resources • ICWS (International Centre for Water Studies) • Jan Dogterom – project leader • Josine Kelling • Yegor Volovik • DHV • Liesbeth Verbeek • With support of the Working Groups • In co-operation with the Water Framework Directive team

5. Project steps • Organise individual work programmes in Microsoft Project • Discuss individual programmes with the WGs • Adapt work programmes and conclude discussions • Draft overall programme, analyse activities in relation to WFD • Discuss findings with the SCG • Develop the management tool • Write user manual and train users

6. The management system • Allows to view the work programme(s) via internet (Web based) • Provides a data entry tool, which allows entering project data via ‘Microsoft Project’ (software) • Allows for management of data of the individual and overall work programmes (timetables, deliverables, links) by one or more persons • Technical / logistical assistance has to be provided • Will be linked to CIRCA

7. Commission/EU Programme administrater Internet browser MSProject Strategic Coord.Group Project Management Tool Internet browser Proposed conceptual Structure WFD- management tool Web based Shell programme Working Groups Internet browser MSProject -optional

8. Proposed File Structure Individual projects’ files – 9 2.1 IMPRESS 3.1 GIS 2.2 HMWB 2.9 PROCLAN 2.3 REFCON Integrated file - 1 Integrated Project, includes all WG Projects Inter- dependent project files – N Cross-Links 2.1 – 2.3 Cross-Links 2.9 – 3.1

9. Remarks on the management tool • Most chairmen see a need for and can picture benefits in developing the tool, but it should not add to their tasks • Chairmen prefere to: • send in corrections on individual programmes to a specific • person (possibly linked to the production of progress reports). • work separatelyon their own programme (those who are • familiar with MSProject). • There is a clear need for an overall programme manager to: • update overall work programme technically, • keep track of changes, • contact and stimulate groups.

10. Working Group activities • The planning of the working group activities is informal and organised ad-hoc (how does this relate to the objectives of the project?) • The groups tend to develop guidance solitary due to the different projects starting dates, a lack in overview of activities within the broader context (e.g. general knowledge operational RBMP steps). • The individual programmes differ in detail as a result of e.g. the starting dates • The voluntary basis and lack of financial support of some projects creates ambiguity with regard to commitment of members and work that has to be delivered. • Groups mention the need for extra support from the EU to the • project leaders.

11. Interrelationship of projects • Consistency is needed with regard to: • the use of common definitions and terms; particularly • on ‘scale’ and ‘water bodies’ (used differently in groups), • the scope of WG tasks (e.g. the extent of guidance; is • public participation included in the guidance or not?) • a common approach to cross boundary issues. • The role of the Integrated River Basin Pilot needs to be re -evaluated and its role optimised. For instance: • WG 2.9 needs the outcome of WG 4.1 in order to • finalise the manual and, therefore, cannot finish within • the required time. • Other groups cannot make use of the pilot as these are • finished earlier ……to be continued

12. Continued - Interrelationship of projects • CIRCA is mentioned as a useful tool to exchange • information, but support is too slow. Information of groups is • incomplete and information is outdated. Giving more people • access could possibly help. • A simple theoretical framework of the content of the WFD • needs improvement. Therefore, it is not clear whether all • WFD requirements receive enough attention (table 1). • Overall project data such as, linkages, milestones and • deliverables are not yet fully developed. Umbrella activities • are or not visible. • The need for a forum was mentioned in order to visualise • content links and to establish these in time.

13. Status of linkages • There is a deviating understanding between groups of the • term ‘link’ (content and time) • Most tangible links are through meetings and workshops or • persons in the working groups • The marked links are not always conform the links • mentionedin information sheets (old sheets, priorities ?) • Not all groups mark the same links to each other (table 2)

14. Table 1: WG activities in relation to the WFD requirements Covered by WG Uncertain if covered by WG • Is there guidance on legal issues (adaptations of regulations in Member States)?

15. Table 2: Linkages defined during the interviews(apart from linkages established through WG-members) Working group Link mentioned with: Established through meetings & workshops Mentioned, but not tangible No link defined ? Discussed whether link is needed *input of all other groups needed in later stage – development of manual. ** information only from information sheets; not interviewed I Link mentioned in information sheet

16. Finalisation of guidance documents • Understanding between groups differs with regard to: • Procedures for integration and fine-tuning of guidance documents • (e.g. a common interpretation of the WFD/descriptions, otherwise • repetition is to occur). • Procedures for updating of guidance (e.g. as a result of the outcome • of other documents, the pilot etc.) • The role of the water directors in the finalisation of guidance • (endorsement)

17. Conclusions Synchronisation of projects A common ‘finalisation strategy’ of guidance documents An overall concept/structure for management of activities

18. Possible steps & questions Need for synchronisation of projects Discuss and decide to adopt a pragmatic or more ‘theoretical’ approach to define linkages • Possible steps (pragmatic approach): • List (common) definitions and terms (file on CIRCA?) • Decide on, and describe the common definitions used • Establish content & time linkages between groups. Thus, complete table 1 • (define content of links, how, the expected deliverable and timing) • Select working group clusters for a overall management structure • Decide on a moment / time where guidance documents will be integrated • Decide on the scope of the activities of the WGs • Further develop the theoretical framework for the WFD (elaborate on table 2) ……to be continued

19. Questions • Which definitions / terms are used and which are shared between groups? • What are the precise topics of the articles? • Which groups work on these detailed topics? • Which theoretical links can be defined? • Are the relevant ones covered by the already established links?

20. continued - Possible steps & questions Need for a common finalisation strategy • Possible steps: • Decide whether common strategy for the finalisation of documents is required • Make an inventory of elements involved in finalisation process • Define a draft strategy • Present to SCG and working group chairmen • Distribute information • Questions: • What are common elements for the guidance documents (introduction, • interpretation of WFD, references to other guidance documents etc.) • What are the events when Guidance might need to be updated (outcomes of • other documents, endorsements of Water directors, outcome of pilots, • experience of Member states?) • Which parties are involved in endorsement of the documents (water directors • and?)

21. continued - Possible steps & questions Need for an overall concept/structure for management of activities • Possible steps: • Develop a management tool and define a management structure • Questions: • • Who needs / wants direct access to make changes in the programme? • • Who is responsible for the administration and coordination of the • programming? • • What is the preferred procedure for up dating / changing?