[Fiware-creatifi-coaching] FIWARE assessment

[Silvio Cretti]

Hi all,
In CreatiFI we did (are doing) very similar things. Moreover an
architectural document, explaining how and which GEs are used and the usage
of FIWARE Lab, is requested. Also a questionnaire on FIWARE GE stability
and maturity has been submitted.
Last but not least a live presentation of each SME/project is requested
where FIWARE experts will be present as evaluators.
For all these reasons (I guess each accelerator already did an assessment
on the usage of FIWARE) we should be very careful to submit yet another
questionnaire without a clear explanation to the SMEs of the motivation of
this. If we were at the beginning of the program, it would be different
(having uniform evaluation criteria from teh beginning would be of course
very important) but being now in an advanced state, we should, in my
opinion, justify this initiative.
Best regards,
  silvio

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Leandro Guillen <leandro.guillen at imdea.org>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I want to share what we have been doing in the IMPACT accelerator since I
> believe it matches really good what we have been discussing today in the
> coaches call. Hopefully this is useful.
>
> For the FIWARE evaluation they ask the following (all are mandatory):
>
>     - Explain the usage of your technology and how FIWARE is used within
> it.
>         - Max 2000 characters
>     - Provide an architecture graph. It must show clearly how FIWARE
> enablers are used in conjunction with other technology assets.
>     - Which of the IMPACT favored GEs are you planning to use?
>         - A list is presented with GEs that are considered more core to
> the FIWARE experience. Here the FIWARE expert does the valuation of the GEs
> selected.
>
> Then, depending on the answers, the points are awarded like so:
>
>     - 0 points
>         - No FIWARE commitment or applicability shown.
>         - Maybe there is no architecture graph or no selection of GEs.
>         - This is given to projects that only want the cloud to run their
> apps, or they don't state that plan to use FIWARE.
>     - 3 points
>         - FIWARE usage is poorly explained.
>         - Architecture does not show their _written_ plan to use FIWARE.
>         - Only plan to use identity management or storage of FIWARE.
>     - 4 points
>         - FIWARE usage is fair, although there could be some improvement.
>         - Solid selection of FIWARE GEs, there may be others to consider.
>         - Obvious misconception of a FIWARE technology that can be easily
> fixed (e.g. using CEP where Orion makes more sense).
>     - 5 points
>         - FIWARE usage addresses all relevant aspects.
>         - Architecture makes sense.
>         - Good selection of GEs for a given problem.
>
> In the case of IMPACT, since they have around 20 projects to evaluate so
> we are able to do one on one interviews (skype) with them where they
> present what they've been doing and how the implementation is going. We
> assess this by (in max 15 minutes for everything):
>
>     - Have them do a presentation on the results.
>     - Show a demo of the project and maybe some code as well.
>     - Short Q&A.
>
> This helps to have a great vision on how they are doing first-hand. This
> took a couple of days.
>
> So as a result of all this there is a spreadsheet where each startup
> states what GEs they will use (strong commitment, unless all hell breaks
> lose). I must say that IMPACT has come a long way in how the evaluate
> FIWARE, and it feels that it is working really good now.
>
> Regards,
> Leandro
> _______________________________________________
> Fiware-creatifi-coaching mailing list
> Fiware-creatifi-coaching at lists.fi-ware.org
> https://lists.fi-ware.org/listinfo/fiware-creatifi-coaching
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-creatifi-coaching/attachments/20150616/8214f331/attachment.html>