The ETICS Sustainability

1. The ETICS Sustainability Introduction to a day-long exercise

2. Objectives of the day • To share knowledge and sensibilities • To identify ETICS selling points • To select and agree on a sustainability strategy • To answer to Recommendations

3. Overview of the day • Introduction (this presentation) • Partners Exploitation Plans • Analysis of Competitors • Analysis of feedback from potential users • Proposed Business Models • Open Discussion on Unique Selling Point • ETICS sustainability • Answers to Recommendations

4. Introduction

5. A market validation period • ETICS has been asked to enter its “market validation” phase. This means that the following actions/elements must be in place by now: • it should be clear what needs to be validated. Important: illustrate USP (as from Recommendation 3) • all elements of the service/product must be in place, (as from Recommendation 5) • for example: target customer groups, charging, service/product, third party resources, etc. • there should be a sound prototype of the service to be offered • During the validation process, the partners will engage themselves in concrete exploitation activities (NOT A NEW STRATEGY) • these will be presented at M23 in DNA2.9 (see Recommendation 3)

6. Exploitation vs Sustainability • Exploitation means • Please justify reasons for your bit of investment • All partners need to have such reasons because of the investments • Exploitable items are: • Know-how • Prototypes • Knowledge • Sustainability is • Demonstration on how to gain money to sustain the product/service • Profit/no-for-profit • Open to any partners

7. Partners Exploitation Plans • <All must have one>

8. Analysis of Competitors • <Isabel Matranga>

9. Analysis of Feedback

10. Strategy adopted • ETICS 1° phase • Targeting Research projects (as mandatory from TA). • Wide dissemination of results (eg. AQCM from Brasil to China) • ETICS 2° phase • Research projects and other (as mandatory from TA) • Focus on users to improve the system • ETICS market validation phase • No research projects/users ??? (as per Review Report

11. details • Demo and discussion with • Computational scientist (academics), about technical and theoretical barriers for automatic execution, quality measures, etc • Big to small Enterprises, to gather feedback and competitors suggestions, to collect further requirements or commercial perspectives • Research Centers, Hubs, Incubators, Scientific parks, for value chain analysis and sustainability perspectives

12. Contacts (ako CRM) • Computational scientist &QA (academics), • Di Cosmo (Paris 7-FR) (first approach/demo– possible coop on configuration management and deployment) • Denis Caromel (INRIA-FR) (first approach – potential user with Proactive/regression testing) • Morasca (Insubria-IT), Sillitti (UniBozen -IT) – potential coop on QA compliance • Big to small Enterprises, to gather feedback and competitors suggestions, to collect further requirements or commercial perspectives • Damien Hubaux (CETIC-B) (first approach – potential user with R&D code/quality assurance) • Stefano Bigi (CBT-IT) (demo – potential user with Commercial code/some issues) • Francesco Rufino (Nice – IT) (first approach – potential user with commercia code/some issues • ESOC (by VEGA) • Finmeccanica group (by VEGA) • Research Centers, Hubs, Incubators, Scientific parks, for value chain analysis and sustainability perspectives • Steve Brewer (OMII – UK) (first approach – interested in establish an ETICS site – strategy/sustainability needed) • Jorge Sanchez (Corallia-HTCI – GR) (first contact – organising first meeting/demo) • Avner Algom (Grid.org.il – IL) (to be contacted – organising first demo – strategy/sustainability needed) • BOINC communities (by SZTAKI)

13. Open Issues - FAQ • How ETICS do testing? What type of testing? • Because it’s presented as a Build and test tool • How the grid is exploited for build&test? Distributed vs.parallel jobs/processes? • Because they want to know the gain in performance using grids/clouds • Who’s using ETICS? • Who’s maintaining ETICS? • What’are the costs and licenses policies? • What’s the differences with… • Hudson, Hudson+Maven, Hudson+Maven+Sonar, Bamboo, and commercial tools • What’s from the Research Partners? • P-Grade. On long-term maintenance concern if not OSS

14. Open Issues – missing items • Clear statement on what ETICS does • Clear understanding on testing features • Clear statement on benefits/performance/data privacy/security of shared environment (also from VEGA) and switching costs • Commercialisation strategy (what, who, how-much) • Sustainability after the end of ETICS 2 (who will maintain the software – including Metronome ) (from VEGA) • Capability to control the evolution flow • Integration/-ability with other developers tools (e.g. eclipse) or management tools (e.g. productivity tools for PMs) • GUI difficult for developers – needed a manual (by 4Dsoft) • Installability on customers’machine (by 4Dsoft) + simple version of ETICS for simple users (by 4Dsoft)

15. Benefits seen by customers • Unique framework to gather project related info (ENG/directors) • Reduction of HW/personnel usage/cost (ENG/PM) • - Ability to manage internal pool of machines (WN) (VEGA) • Improvement of performance of build/tests through parallelism/distribution (ENG/Developers) • Reduction of day-by-day activities in run build/testing by automation on external pool of heterogeneous resources (Julich) • Tools registration and plug-in mechanism (4DSOFT) • As in P-grade – customisation to specific needs (SZTAKI)

16. Unique Selling Point

17. Unique selling point • Based on target customers: • Directors (who pay for – measure benefits) • PM (who exploit it – read data) • Developers (who use it – feed data) • Basic Features to be covered, while Advanced should be addressed in some way. • Uniqueness: • Platform/tools/language independence • Third party library tools • Structured quality model

18. Proposed Business Models • <Claudia Cosoli, Francesco S.Nucci>

19. ETICS business model/1 • To extract a business model from open source software is not always easy • especially if your users expect to pay nothing • Two different customer groups for ETICS • research institutions/OS projects • commercial organisations • Target customers • large organisations • thematic research centres • large technology clusters • Incubators, business innovation centres

20. ETICS business model/2 • The business model for ETICS: • A CLUSTER GROUP OF LARGE ORGANISATIONS (full-payers) • SUSTAINS THE MAJORITY OF USERS (reduced fees to SMEs, spin-off, etc.) • Large organisations will encourage the adoption of ETICS and will have a “flywheel effect” on the innovation related to ETICS

21. Product vs. Service • Product • Some to do for having a software that the users can download, install and use in-house – • as in the case of other OS products, such as LINUX, APACHE, etc. • Installability, simplification for simple users, manuals, complexity of interface • Service • The nature of ETICS is that of OS software than can be run using third parties machines and does not require to be run in-house • ETICS gives the users the opportunity to run the tools by using third parties machines/infrastructures. • Very good exploitation opportunities are expected for the Partners by offering ETICS as a service

22. Open Issues • We need a long term agreement on maintain the sw. Either by: • Run an open source community (each partner is responsible to its own investment) • Run another EU-funded project • Run internal (to the consortium) development (each partner is responsible to its own investment)

23. Sustainability approach • <exercise>

24. Service start-up costs/1 • Personnel costs • 1 service manager + 1 SW developer (12 months full-time)  1JR x 60.000€/year (Italian costs) + 1 SR x 120.000€/year = TOTAL 180.000 €/year • Personnel cost for intensive start-up (6 months): 100.000 euro • Infrastructure costs • Currently, UMW is home for ETICS - at the end of the project each partner intending to exploit ETICS will need to find a new home for ETICS • Hosting (Housing + hardware costs + network costs)  quotation of PSM (Italy) hosting: 150.000 for 3 years, OR • 4 servers (40.000€) + network (1.000€/month) + housing (1.000€/month) • Average costs for infrastructure/year: 40-50.000€ • Other costs • Helpdesk 1° level 10.000€ (1.000 tickets/year): 10.000€/year • Help desk 2° level: included in personnel costs

25. Service start-up costs/2 • Infrastructure costs occur essentially in the form of a lump sum at year 1 • Personnel costs and other costs add up over the years • In the first 6 months after the end of the project extra 100.000€ of personnel costs are foreseen for intensive start-up • Total investment for start-up: • M6  245.000€ • M12+6  435.000€ • M24+6  625.000€ • M36  720.000€

26. Service start-up costs/3 • Start-up costs

27. Service charging • 20.000€/year for ETICS service • (hosting of the service, no product licence – • full access to features for internal use) • Extra-charging needed to work on external parties (see below) • 3.000€ charging to sub-contractors of full-payers • (e.g. SME, spin-off companies, member of clusters) • To cooperate with full payers in an homogeneous environment (usually as part of a contract)

28. Expected revenues/1 • Target no. of sub-contracts/large contractor/year: 10 • Expected total revenues/large contractor/year: 20.000€ + 30.000€ =50.000€ • Target no. of large contracts: • Year 1 (M12+6): 4 (ENG, ESOC, CERN, HTC for example)  200.000€ • Year 2 (M24+6): 4+6  500.000€ • Year 3 (M36): 4+6+6  800.000€ • Expected total revenues after 3 years  800.000€ • Expected break-even at Year 3

29. Expected revenues/2 • Service revenues

30. Summary of • Yesterday discussion

31. What we have discussed • Exploitation vs. sustainability • Useful to be clarified the terms (in the next version of D2.6) • Exploitation plans for each partner • A chapter will be dedicated within the D2.6 • All partners must provide one, concerning: • Exploitable items from the project • Exploitation path/approaches • Analysis of competitors and feedback from potential customers • A chapter in the D2.6 (some refinements in the items of the table) • The conclusion is the USP for ETICS • Sustainability for the ETICS system • A business model proposed (the fews pay for the majority) • Charging model • ROI

32. What we have decided • Urgent to prepare a demo and a presentation highlighting the best of ETICS • ACTION for ENG+CERN+VEGA? • Deadline? • To provide a comprehensive prioritised list of “commercial requirements” • ACTION for ENG+VEGA+4Dsoft • Deadline?

33. What is really still missing • Maintenance of code. • Which are the partners want to be engaged? • Activity outside of project? • Best effort • Needed a formal statement for long term maintenance (e.g. new development of core components, franchising of logo, roles and decision procedures… ako ETICSafterETICS “company” • Agreed on a business model? • Product vs. Services • Who’s providing the services/sell the product? • Relations with other partners (ako Consortium Agreement) and other processing mechanisms

34. Next steps/1 • By end of July • To be completed an official demo/presentation • To be completed the D2.6 including: • Exploitation plans of each partners • Market analysis • Competition and feedback analysis • Business model • Sustainability aspects (charging, ROI, SLA, etc) • By the end of August • To be completed the multinode testing • To be completed the Role-based access, privacy, user-id/pwd

35. Next steps/2 • By end of September • To be completed the extra features • To serve at EGEE’09 • To have an almost formal commitments from: • ESOC (Vega) • EGI (CERN/INFN) • NETA (ENG) • Organise and participate to EGEE ‘09 • By the end of october • Further demos for commercial companies • Training at QA&Test • By the end of November • ETICS in at least one Eng-R&D projects

36. Answer to Recommendations

37. Recommendation n.3on next-months approach • Partially fitting with initial plans • Some reduced emphasis due to lack of full featured system • USP it’s a challenge (today will have it) • As elevator’s speech • To clearly state against competitors • To highlight benefits (numbers needed!) • Customers segmented and approached. Commitment may come ofter development will finish. • A market validation phase (six-months to one year) would be needed (see eTEN approach)

38. Recommendation n.4on approaching Industries • Feedback from Industries are encouraging, but: • - lack of privacy/security is a concern • - lack of an agreed selling strategy is a concern • - lack of a public strategy toward completion of the system features is a concern • They need to know who: • who are the current users • which is the supporting open source community – if any – and how much is active/contribute • Who is the re-seller/provider of ETICS (i.e. the contact point • CONCERN: To address all potential industries is time/resource consuming: An opportunistic approach would reduce costs but increase risks

39. Recommendation n.5+9on commercialisation aspects • Answer will be clear after this long-day of discussion…

40. Recommendation n.7on AQCM • See document sent to PMB… • Main messages: • - to become a standard is not feasible nor interesting • - project time-life is too short • - Is any company interested in this? (not ENG). • Proposed approach (since the TA) • - AQCM need to be compliant with standards (CMMI – ISO) • - AQCM should be seen as a concrete approach/tool in a CMMI/ISO organisations to follow procedures and standards constraints • - This approach is already in place and is contractually part of prof. J.Boegh contract

41. Thanks! http://www.eticsproject.eu 41