Management review #4

1. Management review #4 Response to reviewers comments Presented by Peik Jenssen, DNV Bremen 2000-12-06

2. Response to Reviewers comments 1. Improve the way of preparing the deliverables for review - a precise overview of the deliverables and some written material with the SW deliverables - all due deliverables mailed to the reviewers before review meeting - overview of deliverables included in PPR - written reports will be provided for SW prototype done like for interfaces (T2.2D1)

3. Response to Reviewers comments 2. PPRs and presentations at review meeting should include clear statements about: - actual state of deliverable - incorporated - possible deviations compared to the PP - incorporated - major technical, administrative and business risks - not identified - overdue/under spending - at the moment not critical

4. Response to Reviewers comments 3. The consortium response to the reviewers’ comments should be presented explicitly (in writing) before/at each review meeting - done at present review meeting. 4. Self assessment of achievements and possible deviations to PP - delays on three deliverables are under control, reviewers an PO have been informed before RM. 5.Use of official deliverables number (e.g. T1.1D2) - adopted.

5. Response to Reviewers comments 6. Elaborate details regarding interaction (interface, information flow, business model etc) between MARVIN and a) MOSys - the consortium concluded in WP meeting #8 6-6 September: “We will not take any further action towards the MOSys project other than monitoring their further work.” (Marenostrum is a member of both projects). Rationale: MOSys can deliver an asset management database for ship owners/ship yards, but the scope and quality are not sufficient for MARVIN. We will use SpecTec’s planned maintenance system AMOS instead.

6. Response to Reviewers comments 6. Elaborate details regarding interaction (interface, information flow, business model etc) between MARVIN and b) Syrios - the interaction is described briefly in PPR #3. Representatives from the two projects met 5th December and will meet again 7th December. More elaborate description will be included in deliverables T2.3D2 “Software interfaces - installation and user guidelines” and T5.4D1 “Exploitation plan.” See separate presentation at the RM.

7. Response to Reviewers comments 7. Elaborate further possible alternative business models and exploitation channels for the MARVIN product. This should be reported and presented at the next review meeting. - an updated draft version of the Exploitation plan has been submitted prior to the RM; see also separate item on the RM agenda. 8. The consortium should find a mechanism for external user feedback. Consider the use of an external reference group, user group or similar. - So far we have sought feedback from three ship owners, one finance company and from the attendants at the first public demo. This proved to be very useful. We will continue this type of user feedback and may in addition consider to have more demos at conferences. However, this may be in conflict with business interests, see presentation on Exploitation.

8. Response to Reviewers comments 9. Clarify and suggest the best possible use of the resources initially planned for subcontracting Common Progress. - not concluded yet; alternative ideas are: - make a video for marketing purpose - market research - find a buyer of the MARVIN results - develop the technical solution further (increase the value of the results) - invest the money in the MARVIN Service Provider (the company to take commercialise the results)

9. Response to Reviewers comments 10. Testing and validation should also include GUI and all aspects of user interaction. - will be covered in coming deliverables T4.2D1 and T4.3D1). 11. Put special attention on exploitation work in the next period. A detailed market research is probably needed, and estimate of market size and volume, possible competitors etc. should be given at the next RM. Target customers should be more precisely defined. - see separate item on the agenda. 12. It is suggested that an initial exploitation plan should be presented at the next RM. An updated version of this (draft) exploitation plan should be given at all remaining review meetings. - see separate item on the agenda.

10. Response to Reviewers comments 13. Provide validation criteria for the prototypes. - will be included in T4.2D1 Validation of ERS and T4.3D1 Validation of PMS. 14. Useful to make a mapping of the virtual enterprise network and to avoid translator at partner site. This would be an enormous limitation to the scope of the project. How additional suppliers or customers can join on an open market? It is also possible to exchange non-STEP files, eg.Word documents (detailed explanation available at end of this presentation).

11. Response to Reviewers comments 15. A clear cut virtual enterprise and business scenario is needed and how this is likely impact to the possible results of the project.We have assessed the business scenarios and changed to focus on PMS and unscheduled repair business cases. 16. Make a description of business scenario and re-engineering activities at partner/supplier site without creating distortion inside the company to validate the approach, to train the people, to evaluate the impact on the business process. How will the customers actually use the system?- Will be included in the exploitation plan and User manual. No re-engineering needed at partner site, but some process and organisational adjustments will be needed, specific for each individual user.

12. Marvin solution • The data translators can be bypassed using just the forms interfaces. • Most of today data exchanges are still simple and concise enough to be supported by the forms interfaces.

13. Internet Data Exchanges • Modern data exchanges are increasingly using data translators and product models, both with STEP and XML. • The services and tool suppliers are developing fast. • Even more with XML.

14. Marvin Data Exchanges • Marvin is about the process, not just the data, so Marvin is a business integration tool, not just a data exchange facility. • Marvin even works with just the shallower data exchanges, like simple forms, which is still the preferred way of doing business.

15. Marvin Data Exchanges • The business development of the Marvin partners requires them to exchange increasing amounts of data, of an improved quality, which is only possible by resorting to product models.