Hi all,
Please find enclosed the response of our PO to the FI-WARE replanning. Besides, he responds another issue about qualification of the subcontracting of Red.es in activities linked to the Testbed.
Regarding delay of the deliverables in month 12 linked to the software (deliverables Dx.2.a, D9.1.b and D9.3.a) ... the statement is that "... there is no real rescheduling. Deliverables will be submitted as they become available. There is no need to update the DoW for these points." ... so I wonder what does this means ... I guess we can stick to the plan for delivering them by end of June, though we have to rather be very strict and not allow any additional delay ... any insight ? I have sometimes heard about a rule that states that delaying delivery in 45 days is not actually considered a failure to meet a milestone from a contract point of view, but I have to confess that I have never found such a rule written anywhere ...
In any case, we shall start working with the new approved schedule for the rest of the deliverables).
This and other points will be addressed during the joint WPL/WPA follow-up confcall that we will have this Monday at 11:00am, so it is highly important that you attend.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto: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
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FI-WARE replanning and amendment 2
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:39:16 +0200
From: Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO <jimenez at tid.es><mailto:jimenez at tid.es>, JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
CC: INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> <INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu><mailto:INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu> <Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu>
Dear all,
Please find below my response to the proposed replanning. As is clear from the text below, this replanning may be partly due to the desire to improve communication between FI-WARE and the use case projects, and it is largely due to slippage in the schedule.
The desire to improve communication between FI-WARE and the use cases is manifested in two ways:
- improving overall response to tickets issued by UC projects. This issue has been discussed in the Architecture Board for a long time already. A possible bottleneck in this was already flagged in August.
- setting up two full-week educational sessions. Again, this issue has been discussed in the Architecture Board for a long time already; a first request for a FI-WARE organised workshop for UC projects dates from September.
The replanning has been discussed internally in the unit, with the reviewers, with other POs, and (indirectly) some of the use case projects.
The problem -- as often is the case -- is to get a full overview of the situation. For instance, regarding the main point of the whole replanning, namely the delivery of the testbed, the initial proposal (April 4) was to "delay availability of the FI-WARE Testbed to month 19 (end of October) or at least month 18 (end of September)". By the way, FI-WARE month 19 is end of November, use case project month 19 is end of October.
In a later email (10 April), it was mentioned that FI-WARE "may try to still keep the deadline for the FI-WARE Testbed by end of July." That sounded like an attempt could be made to keep the originally agreed delivery date, but it was very likely to fail, also taking into consideration FI-WARE's track record of adhering to delivery schedules.
Again in a later email (email below of April 17), it was mentioned that the first FI-WARE release would be split in two steps, with a first set of GEs to become available by end of July, and a second set of GEs to become available in an upgrade of the testbed to take place by end of September. According to the Roadmap, all chapters will deliver by the end of July, except the IoT chapter.
So, according to the latest information, the first major release of the FI-WARE testbed is (still) planned for end of July. Only the IoT chapter will complete the first major release at the end of September.
The first major release contains features (i.e. GEs) that may or may not be needed by use case projects. Use case projects may or may not need GEs that are planned for the second major release or future releases of the FI-WARE testbed. It is not clear on what exactly the distinction first/second/future major release in the roadmap is based. In other words, why are certain GEs in the first release and others in the second? It can only be assumed that the use case projects are aware of this and that they agree with this.
Anyway, it is assumed that the use cases agree with the Roadmap, also because the Architecture Board is mandated to review and sign off releases of the FI-WARE Architecture and Technical Roadmap as well as releases of the FI-WARE testbed. Also, it is assumed that FI-WARE will be able to keep its promised delivery schedule, which is a major assumption, since so far none of the FI-WARE deliverables was submitted in time.
It is also assumed that the use cases have no real, immediate need for the GE software outside their implementation in the Testbed.
Based on the above, it is concluded that only a small part of the FI-WARE Testbed is delayed. Therefore, the impact on the use cases is small.
Thus, the whole replanning is largely an internal FI-WARE affair.
So, the decision for each of the points is as follows:
1) FI-WARE GE Open Specifications (D.x.1.a), currently due in month 12, proposal: stay at month 12.
Some of the specs will probably be delivered sometime in May (but always prior to educational sessions)
No change.
2) GE software (Dx.2.a), accompanying Installation and Administration Guides (Dx.3.a), accompanying User and Programmers Guide (Dx.4.a), and Unit Testing Plan (D.x.5.a), currently due in month 12, proposal: delay with 2 months to month 14 (end of June).
The consortium uses the argument that these deliverables should be synchronized with the availability of the physical infrastructure where they have to be deployed. In other words, delay of one implies (permissible) delay of the other.
I have the feeling there is no real decision point here. It is already month 12 and these deliverables will not be submitted before the end of the month, and probably can not be submitted before the end of next month. They will come after the month 12 review, with all accompanying consequences.
3) DevComE Basic Framework (D9.1.b), API IDE Support (D9.3.a), and Application Testing and Deployment Support Tools (D9.4.a), currently due in month 12, proposal: delay with 2 months to month 14 (end of June).
Again, I have the feeling there is no real option here. This means that WP9 will have delivered no official deliverables in the first year.
4) System/software engineering method for FI-WARE (D9.2.a), currently due in month 12, proposal: cancel the deliverable.
The consortium argues that working on this deliverable rather makes more sense once the first release of FI-WARE has been delivered.
The deliverable is rescheduled to month 18.
5) Third party innovation enablement in FI-WARE (D2.5.a), currently due in month 12, proposals: cancel the deliverable (April 4 email), postpone at least to month 21 (April 4 email), postpone at least to month 18 (April 17 email).
Again, keeping the original date is not a real option anymore, since work had not started 3 weeks before the deadline.
The deliverable is rescheduled to month 15.
6) State of the Art Analysis – Emerging Technologies (D2.6.a), currently due in month 12, proposals: cancel the deliverable (April 4 email), postpone at least to month 21 (April 4 email), postpone at least to month 18 (April 17 email).
The deliverable is rescheduled to month 18.
Related to points 1-3, there is no real rescheduling. Deliverables will be submitted as they become available. There is no need to update the DoW for these points.
Points 4-6 are real changes to the schedule and must be addressed in the ongoing amendment.
Related to the amendment, I have also looked into the Red.es subcontracting issue.
Considering that:
- Telefonica argues that these costs should be classified as OTH. The initial argument was that the Testbed will be used for dissemination. The later argument was that the Testbed will be used for collaboration with other projects and outside organisations, also via the Open Innovation Laboratory
- WP10 has main objectives to "identify, describe, design, implement and operate a test-bed for FI-WARE", "to support the usage of the test-bed by the use-case projects", "to support and enrich the FI-WARE dissemination and exploitation activities through the test-bed site", and "to open up the testbed to third parties as an Open Innovation Lab from the second release of the testbed onwards, and to help, through the test-bed site, Programme Facilitation and Support in engaging SMEs and maximising their involvement in phases 2 and 3 of FI-PPP Work Programme". Therefore, the proposed subcontracting falls under WP10, which has activity type RTD.
- for the record, the Open Innovation Lab falls under WP11, which has activity type RTD
- expenditure not foreseen in the DoW must not by definition largely/fully be at the expense of the EU contribution
- different organisations have different funding rules. Using such differences for the sole purpose to artificially inflate EU contribution must be discouraged,
I have decided that two-thirds of the subcontracting amount or 127.000 Euros, whichever is lowest, is the maximum amount of EU contribution that may be spent on this subcontracting for the Testbed.
All decisions are final.
Best regards,
Arian.
________________________________
From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 1:31 PM
To: ZWEGERS Arian (INFSO)
Cc: INFSO-ICT-285248; Jose Jimenez; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro"
Subject: Friendly reminder: FI-WARE replanning proposal
Dear Arian,
Just a reminder that we are awaiting for your green/red flag on the replanning of FI-WARE milestones. Our understanding is that you haven't still confirmed with all the rest of POs whether delaying deliverables in FI-WARE can be justified for the sake of the UC projects.
Main justification for the replanning was the need to implement a number of measurements to improve overall communication between FI-WARE and the UC projects. Namely, these measurements being:
* Improving overall response to tickets issued by UC projects (both regarding the "FI-WARE Theme/Feature/Epic Request" and the "FI-WARE General Support" trackers) by means of setting up a dedicated team to follow-up and push progress on tickets.
* Setting up two full-week f2f "educational sessions" where UC projects' and FI-WARE's teams can meet together so that:
* Architects and potentially members of the different FI-WARE Chapter development teams will have the opportunity to meet developers from the UC projects, elaborate on the architecture and functionality of the different FI-WARE GEs and answer their technical questions
* UC project architects can present the architecture of use case scenarios, elaborating on how they plan to use FI-WARE, as to collect feedback from FI-WARE members.
With this, we believe that we would be address some of the recommendations identified during the overall FI-PPP Program Review (e.g., R7 and R16). Some of the UC projects have committed to contact their POs to let them know they believe that implementation of these measurements is important, and therefore they support the proposed replanning of FI-WARE milestones. The two educational sessions have been initially programmed for the week of May 21st and the week of June 4th.
An important part of the proposal is that we'll minimize the impact on milestones that are key for the UC projects, namely the delivery of FI-WARE API Open Specifications and the delivery of the FI-WARE Testbed:
* regarding specifications we will keep the milestone as it was, thought some of the specs will probably be delivered sometime in May (but always prior to educational sessions)
* regarding the FI-WARE Testbed, we will still keep a first delivery of the FI-WARE testbed by end of July, which will be followed by an upgrade by end of September.
Despite we have already shared this with you , let me summarize the proposed re-planning as follows:
* Keep delivery of FI-WARE GE Open Specifications (i.e., REST API specifications) due in month 12 since they seem to be in the critical path of UC projects and there shouldn't be so much problems delivering them on that date. Some of them may arrive sometime mid May but not later and, in any case, would be available for the educational sessions.
* Delay those M12 deliverables dealing with delivery of FI-WARE GE software, accompanying guides and unit testing plan 2 months, so they are delivered on month 14 (end of June). This would also apply to deliverables linked to FI-WARE Development Support Tools also due in month 12.
* Keep delivery of the FI-WARE Testbed in month 15 (end of July) but split deployment of the first FI-WARE Release into two steps, so that a first set of GEs will become available by end of July, but a second set of GEs will become available in an upgrade of the testbed to take place by end of September. Indeed, subsequent upgrades will be planned every three months after end of September, or even more frequently after each FI-WARE Sprint, following an Agile approach. What would come by end of July instead of end of September will be described in the FI-WARE Technical Roadmap (http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Technical_Roadmap). Note that this split into two steps may not apply to all chapters. If no split is declared in the Technical Roadmap for a given Chapter, it means that all GEs in the first release for that chapter are planned to be available by end of July.
* Delay or drop some deliverables due in month 12 whose delivery is not so critical for the programme at this moment from FI-WARE's point of view. Here our proposal was:
* Dropping deliverable on "System/software Engineering Method for FI-WARE" due by month 12, since the FI-WARE consortia considers that working on this deliverable rather makes more sense once the first release of FI-WARE has been delivered. We have proposed to drop the first release of this deliverable, (keeping just two releases on months 24 and 33)
* Delaying deliverables about "Third party innovation enablement in FI-WARE" and "State of the Art Analysis" due by month 12 so they are post-poned to end of month 21 or at least end of month 18.
Rest of deliverables due in month 12 would be kept, as well as deliverables due in any other month after month 15.
Looking forward your response.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20120422/cdd91b2b/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy