Hi, Just a general comment. I believe that you are right in the diagnosis of one major "fundamental" change in the governance structure: the program would become "company-driven" rather than "project-driven". Whether this change is good or not may lead to several interesting discussions. You have raised some concerns, but I guess you agree that no company would like to see how a strategic bet it makes as a company in a project like FI-WARE gets driven by a set of UC "projects". In my opinion, letting the FI-PPP be "project-driven", particularly UC project-driven, implies a lot of issues. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 31/01/13 14:08, Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. > > Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. > > Please find in the following some comments: > > * General comments: > o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. > o The decision power is now in a board. > o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. > The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance > by the Executive Industry Board. > o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model > text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included > in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. > o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, > which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, > partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia > Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly > accepted legal changes via Annex II. > > * Executive Industry Board: > o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as > a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the > overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business > strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme > communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business > related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. > Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, > which are made by other companies. > o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, > which are members of the EIB. > o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, > if companies following them get economic problems. > o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. > > * Program Chair: > o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, > which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. > o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and > the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at > the Advisory Board. > > * Project Coordination Group: > o The former proposed role basically remains. > o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. > > * Project Management Office: > o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB > is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of > collaborative research. > > * Project Coordinator: > o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and > supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his > partners, because resources have to come from partners. > o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company > hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. > o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model > project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which > they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. > > Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. > > Best regards, > > Werner > > > Dr. Werner Mohr > Head of Research Alliances > Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH > CEF T&S IE Research Alliances > St. Martin Strasse 76 > 81541 Munich > Germany > Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 > Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 > Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 > e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com > > Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH > Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel > Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich > Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM > To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > dear jose, > > i still see some problems in the current text: > > 1. about the eib > the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair > based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is > in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is > the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the > decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this > should be done under the coordination of the ec. > > 2. about the pc > this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more > partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as > definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme > under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like > "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two > partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that > affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by > the pc. > > 3. about pcg and ag > i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts > between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. > > > 4. > the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly > > 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and > implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the > eib meetings. > > ciao, > stefano > > 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO <jimenez at tid.es>: >> Dear all >> >> >> >> We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, >> based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It >> is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. >> >> >> >> The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as >> compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows >> >> >> >> >> >> * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB >> (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of >> the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented >> >> * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides >> which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. >> >> * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP >> partners" and not by the EIB >> >> * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to >> coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. >> The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the >> EIB. >> >> * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to >> have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG >> decides in case of conflict." >> >> * The Technical Advisor disappears >> >> * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has >> already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to >> clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now >> >> * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project >> Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB >> >> * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said >> that would be decided later. >> >> >> >> >> >> In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject >> to the discussions on Monday and your comments >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ >> DELGADO >> Enviado el: miércoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 >> Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA >> CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they >> do not imply major modifications to the document >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, the proposed changes so far are >> >> >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be >> decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Is my reading correct? >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the >> predrafted minutes is >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# >> >> >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] >> Enviado el: miércoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 >> Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO >> CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal >> Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> Importancia: Alta >> >> >> >> Dear José, >> >> Dear Juanjo, >> >> Dear PCC Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) >> of the new proposed governance. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Pascal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro >> Envoyé : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 >> À : stefano de panfilis >> Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and >> following discussions: >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that >> introducing the above changes is generally agreed. >> >> There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final >> section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe >> that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to >> this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes >> regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the >> governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would >> actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new >> proposed governance structure. >> >> >> Your feedback is welcome. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- Juanjo >> >> ------------- >> >> Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital >> >> website: www.tid.es >> >> email: jhierro at tid.es >> >> twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro >> >> >> >> FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect >> >> >> >> You can follow FI-WARE at: >> >> website: http://www.fi-ware.eu >> >> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 >> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware >> >> linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace >> situado más abajo. >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and >> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace >> situado más abajo. >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and >> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace >> situado más abajo. >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and >> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fiware-ga mailing list >> Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu >> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga >> > > ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy