EIFFEL: 1 st Periodic Review Petri Mähönen, Janne Riihijärvi RWTH Aachen for EIFFEL consortium

1. EIFFEL: 1st Periodic ReviewPetri Mähönen, Janne RiihijärviRWTH Aachen for EIFFEL consortium

2. Overview • 30 Months Project • 8 Partners • RWTH Aachen (RWTH) • Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB) • British Telecommunication (BT) • Alcatel-Lucent Bell (A-LBELL) • Jozef Stefan Institute (JSI) • University College London (UCL) • Groupe des Ecoles des Télécommunications (GET-ENST) • EURECOM (Eurescom) 2

3. EIFFEL Objectives • Creation of a pan European community of scientific & technical experts • Creation of a European Dialog to ensure that the foundational scientific and exploratory investigation leads to cooperative exchanges with the engineering and evolutionary investigations such as to derive deployable design principles within the 2020-2025 timeframe for the Future Networked Society. • Identification of the areas of investigation and research that are crucial for the transformation of the Internet towards the Future Networked Society. 3

4. Visible results Impact creation at large, through: • EIFFEL Think Tank Meetings…to foster community creation • Architecture and research manifestos, reports and position papers. These documents will be the direct outcome of discussions and debate… • Web-presence and electronic forum as tools for dissemination for selected material. • Several highly focused “Future Internet Magazine or Journal” issues as a means for distributing selected highlights of SoA. 4

5. Impact Creation to Community-at-large EIFFEL Mobilizing Experts to TT (visibility, breaking the link between projects and participation) European Initiatives Project innovations … … … Engaging Internationally … Changing the Focus … … 5

6. Work Distribution • WP0: Management • WP1: EIFFEL Initiative Secretariat • WP2: Think Tank Meetings • WP3: Liaison Activities • WP4: Exploitation and Dissemination 6

7. Main Items • WP0: Management • Project meetings: four (4) in 2008 • Use of Wiki as an organizational tools • Project meetings mostly co-located with think-tanks to minimize overhead and costs • WP1: EIFFEL Initiative Secretariat • Technical support from EURECOM • Travel subsidy and local organization  by local organizers due to different national rules on procurement and travel reimbursement • Strong use of Wiki-pages and web-based tools • WP2: EIFFEL Think Tanks • Discussed later • WP3: Liaison Activities • Discussed later • WP4: Dissemination and Exploitation • Starting to have a strong momentum – discussed later 7

8. Deliverables Deliverables are late on average 4 Months 8

9. 1st Observation: The project is late • Not a single reason, but a combination of reasons for this. However, the project is building the momentum as expected if the lateness is not taken in account. • Analyzing the reasons: • The first think-tank meeting slot was missed in M3/M4 due to strong participation to Bled FIA organization. A large part of organization and costs were covered by EIFFEL. 9

10. Planned First Meeting (M4) Planned 2nd Meeting (M10) Planned 3rd Meeting (M16) 1.4. 2009 1.1. 2009 1.10. 2008 1.4. 2008 1.7. 2008 FIA Madrid(M12) +6 Months +4 Months Bled FIA Meeting (M4) Actual First Meeting (M10) Actual 2nd Meeting (M14) 10

11. The project is late (cont.) • As described the project has been since late with the deliverables, but has been able to catch up from +6 months to +4 months situation. • Content creation is, of course, impossible without Think Tank meetings. • Partners underestimated the problems of organizing think tank meetings • Amount of needed lead time to ensure a high key experts participation • “Market” is saturated with almost too many different venues in Europe and US • Difficulties in finding right time slots for many high profile people to attend • Transition from “old EIFFEL” to “new EIFFEL” took more efforts than expected • Old EIFFEL perceived as EC-initiated think tank • New EIFFEL independent think tank, funded by EC -> this difference has now successfully been conveyed • Learning experience on technical and local coordination issues • e.g., centralized travel expenses reimbursement really does not work 11

12. Project effort in numbers and volume • Overall funding use in 2008: • 21% from project resources • Well in line with the fact that 1 out of 5 meetings (20%) is organized • Good news: • The costs for organizing the first and second TT-meetings has been lower than expected due to lower travel imbursements and lower costs to ensure meeting places. • We expect this to continue to be so, because of bad economical climate 12

13. Overview on PM use Planned lines are linear original estimates with two meetings 13

14. Overview on PM use Problems toparticipate Office tools,Liaison activities Contributed months, Low organization costs for 1st mtg 14 Bled MeetingISOC

15. The core-project: on track • Apart of being late the project is building a momentum with increasing strength. • Dissemination and exploitation should be stronger, but as TT is now producing material we are in the place to become more visible in legitimate fashion. 15

16. Core Targets 16

17. Impact Creation to Community-at-large EIFFEL Mobilizing Experts to TT (visibility, breaking the link between projects and participation) • European Future Internet Forum • Largely inspired by EIFFEL • Partially bootstrapped by EIFFEL • Many concepts from EIFFEL: • Care takers • White papers • By (project) invitation only • Future Internet Book Project innovations New approach on “agreeing on disagreements” Finding out the Practical Problems Wikipedia type of community access Engaging Internationally EIFFEL is now known in the USA Key participants coming from the USA Researching out towards regulatory and privacy communities Changing the Focus EC has clear emphasis on “Future Networked Society” instead of pure technological FI -> Lowered the tension between disruptive and evolutionary R&D debate Understanding better research methodology Debate on evolution vs. disruption is now more operational 17

18. Building the visibility 18

19. Remedial Actions Proposed • Review all the milestone dates and move them to realistic places, so that moral boost can be achieved by meeting deadlines instead of slipping them constantly. • All partners to introduce backup day-to-day responsible persons to ensure efficient operation of EIFFEL (mostly done already). Increase coherence and cooperation within the project through tracking dissemination and distributing editorships. • Project extension of 6 months to ensure that all Think Tanks and project goals can be achieved in timely fashion. • Redistribution of GET-ENST saved resources and most responsibilities to other partners. 19

20. Remedial Actions Proposed • Enhance the role of Technical Manager (BT) and stronger tracking to the project: increase the technical tracking of think tank as well as project work by having day-to-day technical manager responsible for progress, and reporting to the coordinator. • Ensure clear interaction between FIA, FIRE and EIFFEL by not duplicating actions. Share time-tables for different events, reuse material and tools. Make specific the roles, e.g., EIFFEL manifestos may not be appropriate “in wording” now that it is a FIA tool. • Establish remedial action as soon as possible, and re-review the project immediately after 3rd Think Tank meeting to ensure progress and quality. 20