dear martin, thank you for the extensive email and for keeping all of us on the way :-) points taken and actions from our side are of course already ongoing! please note that unfortunately none of us from engineering will stay till the end of the meeting to two unliky circumstances: 1. on 23 there is the annual comapny kickoff where all the company managers meet with some key externals invited speakers (this year there will be the italian minister of labour and some key academics). it is an event of about 1000 people where among the speakers this year lanfranco will talk about the company strategy about smart cities. 2. on 24-25 as you know i'll be in washington at the ies-city framework workshop (more than 400 people registered at the moment ...) where i'll represent both fiware and oasc (indeed, above all, we have to agree on the messages i shall convey there). however i confirm the full and extremely convinced committement of engineering to this proposal! i'd like here also to thank david for his analysis on names well pointing out the fact that indeed scale, but also oasis, have been thoroghly used in the filed or companion fields. this is an issue to take into proper account although should not be considered as a final element in the decison. having said that i can cope with the new proposal of david (oascale) of which i'd replace the word "experimentation" with the word of "environment" as i believe we should be more concrete and say what will come out from the project are ready to market/use assets. if possible i rename the proposal CCL with CECIL keeping the same title. is more gentle (please note i do not have cecil as my friend ...). i put this on the names file. ciao, stefano 2016-03-17 3:55 GMT+01:00 Martin Brynskov <brynskov at cavi.au.dk>: > Dear all, > > Following today's (Wednesday's) meeting, allow me to summarize a few main > points leading to 48 productive hours in London next week, and to a fine > finish. > > There are action points for every partner, basically in two categories: > - deliver basic info (partner descriptions, reference zone basics etc.) > ASAP, > - participate actively in welding the bits and pieces into a marvellous > proposal, first of all by writing the sections with your name on (found in > the London agenda and proposal timeline). Mikko and Mirko will bug you > immediately if you don't. > > The points I cover in this message are the following: > 1. Process (teams and meetings) > 2. London meeting (agenda, objectives) > 3. Reference zones (description and theme development) > 4. Partners (local and horizontal) > 5. Project name and acronym > > Be sure to read this email, especially if you weren't in the last two > calls (with cities last Thursday and the weekly meeting today). > > You will find the agenda and minutes from the meeting below[1], and I'll > refer to specific online documents with direct links as well. This message > is also inserted at the end of the minutes for reference. > > Here we go. > > 1. PROCESS > > We now have established productive working teams around three logics: (a) > local reference zones, (b) work packages and (c) proposal sections. In > addition to this, the coordination team keeps things, well, coordinated, > and gives direction. Up until now, the giving direction and vision part has > been very organic and tacit (at least to some). This will change somewhat > as the input and development matures over the next week. > > Each reference zone acts as a local group of stakeholders responsible for > producing and coordinating input for the proposal, and engaging in the > development of shared goals and activities. The zones are: > > ANT (Antwerp+iMinds), Belgium > CAR (Carouge+Mandat International), Switzerland > EIN (Eindhoven+Philips, Atos), Netherlands > HEL (Forum Virium Helsinki, Aalto Uni), Finland > MAN (Manchester+Future Cities Catapult, Digital Catapult), UK > MIL (Milan+Engineering), Italy > POR (Porto), Portugal > SAN (Santander+Uni. Cantabria, Telefónica), Spain > > This is the most dynamic part, and also the most vulnerable part of the > proposal development. We rely on each of the partner/city groups to keep > coordination tight. The vision is to shape a global urban IoT market based > on European city needs, by showing what works on a large scale when we > really push the envelope from a mature baseline. Envisioning this as a > concerted, locally rooted effort is a very interactive exercise which > cannot be easily delegated. The coming seven days will rely on these groups > working as an agile collective on both local and project level. I'll return > to the content and process more specifically below. Main action point here > is to HAVE ALL CITIES DIRECTLY LINKED INTO THE LONDON MEETING (both during > the 48 hours and preparation before). Without direct participation and > access to information, it will be very difficult to co-create the common > themes and development plan. > > The proposal sections are also integrated in the London meeting agenda, > including responsible leads. In the proposal timeplan[2] you'll find each > section, with responsible leads and dates for final versions. ALL PARTNERS > HAVE SECTION RESPONSIBILITIES. By the end of this week, ALL PARTNER > DESCRIPTIONS and ALL REFERENCE ZONE INPUT should be provided. > > The work packages are available online[3] in iteratively more consolidated > versions. We didn't spend lots of time in the weekly meeting discussing > them, and there are still connections which can be shifted, but the teams > are active, so dive in if you want to check specifics. We kick off the > London meeting with a session on the WP tasks and relations. And end by > suggesting effort distribution across partners. > > We've had weekly meetings Wednesdays at 10-11 CET, which cover core > issues. In addition, we had the first all-zones city meeting Thursday last > week. In addition, smaller working groups have met in parallel offline. The > London meeting will condensate all of these tracks. After London we shall > keep the weekly Wednesday meeting, still only for the most pressing issues > and (prepared) decisions. Actual development happens in the teams. > Furthermore, I propose a city-focused meeting on Thursday March 31, 10-12 > CET. Eventually, we have a final approval meeting of the entire proposal on > Friday, April 8, 10-12 CET. All of this is noted in the proposal > timeplan[2], and calendar invites will go out. > > We won't call more all-hands physical meetings, but we may meet in core > groups if needed. I happen to be in Eindhoven on Tuesday, March 29, and > some will likely meet in the OASC/iMinds premises in Brussels in the latter > days also, to finetune the engagement part (WP1/5/6). > > 2. LONDON MEETING > As you are hopefully all aware, the London meeting is Monday to Wednesday > next week (March 21-23). The agenda is online[4]. > Register ASAP in the sheet provided by Nadia[5]. Venue details are in the > enclosing folder[6]. Monday/Tuesday are at the Future Cities > Catapult/Nadia, Wednesday at the Digital Catapult/Alex (one underground > stop apart). > > The meeting has two overall objectives: to ensure that the overall vision > and themes are co-created in a way which both hits the call objectives and > ignites the resources of the reference zone stakeholders; and to ensure > that the proposal is created with all sections and elements fleshed out and > linked coherently with only specific chunks to be formulated in the > following days. > > In order for this to work, we have created an agenda which contains a few > plenary sessions -- focusing on overview and alignment -- and many > parallel, interactive and iterative sessions on specific sections. It will > be very difficult to contribute to the proposal if a partner is not > present. We have the possibility of remote participation, but it will not > be nearly as effective, and especially the local reference zone > collaboration will be challenged when the iterations are quick and concrete > if one party is no engaged. Ultimately, the coordination is responsible for > quality asessment and contingency planning for the proposal development, > and this element is foreseen as absolutely essential. We shall therefore > put emphasis on the commitments that can be made on-site and in active > dialog with the collective as a whole. > > The weekly Wednesday morning meeting will naturally be replaced by the > London agenda that week. > > 3. REFERENCE ZONES > There is some work left to elicit, share and fuse the city/reference zone > status and ambitions. To be structural, we need both the "State of the Art" > (status) and "Beyond State of the Art" (ambition) both on an individual > reference zone level and project level, and we need it from some key > perspectives, such as technical assets (e.g. Technology Readiness Levels), > usage (e.g. engagement/transactions), market, legal/governance situation > and impact (e.g. policy change, cost reduction, improved governance). This, > in turn, needs to be translated into local and project-wide objectives with > KPIs and a work plan. Overall, we're aiming for 2-4 themes which will be > translated into local implementations of new/improved services, using > shared enablers. > > Currently, this is captured in several places: > In the Reference Zone Matrix[7] you find two sheets: an overview of the > zones and a functional matrix structured by application domains and themes. > ALL LOCAL REFERENCE ZONE TEAMS SHOULD FILL THIS FUNCTIONAL MATRIX OUT and > use it actively to explore and suggest themes to move beyond the state of > the art. > > For each reference zone there's a proper description in the appropriate > Reference Zones folder. This should provide a more elaborate and rich > description of each reference zone, including: > (a) a map (the reference zone is a specific geographic area, by the call > definition), > (b) a concise list of assets (in the minutes [1] you find an example), > (c) any legal/governance extra freedom related to the reference zone > (directly asked for in the call), > (d) a local stakeholder/partner list (also related to budget and partner > formalities). > > The provisioning and co-creation is facilitated in London by Remco (as > with the previous cities meeting), supported by Mikko and Mirko, who > oversee the matrix and reference zone documentation. In the proposal, we > have limited space in Sections 1-3 for description of reference zones. This > will therefore go into relevant sections with concise information, and > fuller descriptions will go in Section 4 Partner descriptions, with > sub-section 4.2 having a proper description of each reference zone. > > 4. PARTNERS > In connection to the reference zone descriptions, we discussed the local > partnership models, both for financing and for formal participation. To > quote the minutes[1]: "When discussing the financing and partnership/budget > model for reference zones, the following was concluded: Reference zones > should, in addition to the information above, indicate a preferred > financing/partnership model, either with 1-3 specific local organisations > directly as partners in the project, or an alternative model where the > reference zone development budget is held with a core partner, preferably > the municilality, and a specific sub-contracting specification, including > named partners, is supplied." > > This has two implications: First, no later than in London on Monday, EACH > REFERENCE ZONE MUST PROPOSE A LOCAL MODEL, INCLUDING NAMED PARTNERS. After > London we will only have time to include those who have been brought in in > this structured fashion. Second, we leave it to the reference zones to > propose a way to allocate funds locally which is optimal for them. There > are pros and cons of having more full partners vs. sub-contracting, and > sometimes non-goverment organizations have more flexibility, wheras public > commitment to distributing funds seems more credible. In addition, there > are the open calls. They are used to engage *additional* actors, both > within the existing reference zones and in new sites. > > After the meeting Wednesday there was a short follow-up discussion about > additional horizontal partners. The concrete case was > dissemination/integration partners and a communications partner. In > general, the baseline now is not to include more partners, unless we really > need them. We probably need a dedicated communications partner. We probably > don't need more dissemination/integration partners. Decisions will be taken > in London. > > One way of linking key actors on the global IoT scene to the consortium > would be through the Advisory Board. This will also be discussed in London. > Feel free to propose candidates. > > 5. Name > Although we have six suggestions for a project name in the dedicated > doc[8], no decision or consensus has been reached. The list is currently: > SCALE Smart Cities Alliance for Large-scale Experimentation > OASIS OASC IoT Smart Cities > OILaSP OASC IoT LArge-Scale Pilot > CCL Connected Cities for Large Scale IoT Pilots > CCN European IoT Network for Connecting Cities > BYOC Bring Your Own City > > Another a approach would be anagrams, which produce zesty hits like: > Camp Mesh > Scam hemp > A Spec--hmm... > > :o) > > Anyway, feel free to vote or suggest in the doc. > > With this I will end, reminding us that there is 26 days left until > closure of the call, on April 12, 17:00 CET. You will all be invited, by > PIC/main contact email to the Participant Portal so that you can gaze at > the clock. > > We can do it, and it will be great, but there are som "implementation > details" which require a truly concerted effort. I look forward to doing > that in London. > > Cheers, > Martin > > [1] Minutes: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IqC-2toFn5J213fvzo8ZGi2YWmzm3EmmZacNPdjJ8SU/ > [2] Timeplan: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qZWJ4evEfAnijKZx5bN7yW5KrEmwrXANCWwd6YMA1kI/ > [3] WPs: > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4jiMzhNIS92NVVqSThHVXJwM2s > [4] London agenda: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KlWxwSHGOUx1FlLxw1-ItKu83t93Of-v8l_X8nvNdGU/ > [5] London sign-up: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fmr8uUltAmeJHheK0IGrPFXLe8YhAg3eq5t6F2_ZYXs/ > [6] Venue details: > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6nLNqwgl-RsZElodmw2c1lqTDA > [7] Reference Zone matrix: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XzT5JxLzCNXgzcFFpggb2QioL2hHFBuHlRMt1XNi400/ > [8] Name list: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ubU00Oy6wQZ4UKetZWfC3_ycwUO8B6u96gHvxHbX3U/ > > -- > Martin Brynskov, Ph.D. > Associate professor, interaction technologies > Aarhus University > > Chair, Open & Agile Smart Cities // oascities.org > Research director, AU Smart Cities // smartcities.au.dk > Director, Digital Design Lab // ddlab.dk > Participatory IT Centre // Digital Urban Living // CAVI > Tel. (+45) 3068 0424 > More info: http://au.dk/en/brynskov@cavi > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities mailing list > Fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities at lists.fiware.org > https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-06-8759-4253 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 skype: depa01 twitter: @depa01 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-iot-lsp-cities/attachments/20160317/c96b8a3d/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy