[Fiware-coaches] Evaluating FIWARE relevance in Accelerator open-calls

[Thomas Michael Bohnert]

Franck,

Thanks for sharing this. I generally like the approach.

Just one thing to add. One of the primary USPs of FIWARE is the Cloud 
Hosting Chapter (based on OpenStack). FIWARE Lab is essentially a 
distributed OpenStack-based public Cloud.

SMEs should make use of this cloud, meaning that they host their 
application in the cloud while at the same time using a number of GEs 
which are hosted in the cloud too (or are deployed somewhere locally, 
e.g. in the case of IoT/Sensors/Gateways).

Your rating should take this into account in some way; there is a 
conceptual difference w.r.t to "using the cloud made of a number of GEs" 
and using a "GE" (potentially hosted in the FIWARE Lab/cloud).

Best - Thomas

On 10/20/2014 04:04 PM, Franck Le Gall wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I had a telco with the FICHE accelerator which was asking me about the
> evaluation criteria to be included in their open-call in relation with
> the use of enablers.
>
> It would be good that within the coaches, we share a common strategy for
> the evaluation of the “FIWARE relevance” of received proposals.
>
> My view of FIWARE is that a large part of its added value does not come
> from the GEs taken individually but rather from their integration. This
> is the basis of my proposed scale:
>
> In their first step (FICHE plan 3 increasing investment steps, with the
> SMEs being filtered at each step) proposal template, they have one
> section related to the use of enablers in which proposers have 3000
> characters to defend their position.  FICHE asked me for screening
> strategy to quickly rank the proposals in respect with the planned usage
> of GEs. A more detailed evaluation would be used for the 2^nd step.
>
> So very few details will be  provided by proposers and the time to
> analyse each of the proposals will be kept minimum. As a fast ranking
> strategy for this step 1, I then suggested the following ranking scale:
>
> 1.No enablers used > disqualified
>
> 2.1 enabler used > acceptable but this must be strongly documented
>
> oThe GE must be tightly integrated with the solution of the company;
>
> oJustification of why adding this GE rather than 3^rd party solutions
> should be detailed
>
> 3.Several enablers used > explain how integration will take place
>
> oAnnouncing the use of several disconnected enablers is possible. Then
> each should be justified as for case 1
>
> oPreferred solution is the use of several integrated enablers.
> Justification
>
> For the 2^nd step, we could start from the questionnaire which was
> proposed by Juanjo at some point (I welcome the link again).
>
> Have you started anything on your side worth to be shared ? What do you
> think about the options shown above ?
>
> Should we encourage the use of FI-lab at that stage ?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Franck
>