[Fiware-wpa] Fwd: URGENT ACTIONS on Exploitation as outcome of the Y2 project review

[Juanjo Hierro]

  I forgot to include the references.   I have added them at the end of this message.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        URGENT ACTIONS on Exploitation as outcome of the Y2 project review
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2013 05:57:01 +0200
From:   Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To:     fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu> <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu><mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>, fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu> <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu><mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>


Hi all,

  Find below my signature a draft of an email that I intend to deliver to the whole FI-WARE consortium, targeted to FI-WARE GEi owners, but I wish to share it with you first so that we can discuss it earlier in the follow-up confcall this morning and give it a final shape.

  It has to do with urgent action points regarding exploitation as outcome of the Y2 project review.   I believe that we would comply with the requests made by the EC and reviewers regarding submission of exploitation plans if we follow the proposed action points.

  You will see that I refer to the month 30 review that the EC did request.   I have exchanged a couple of mails with Arian very recently where it was clarified that one of the major goals of that review meeting is to review the request they have made regarding exploitation and, based on the response, take actions that may lead to discontinuation of the funding of some activities in some GEis which would be then assigned to "more promising" GEis.

  Talk to you later during our follow-up confcall.   Please note that I may need to join a bit later, because I have to make a presentation on FI-WARE to a rather important visit.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo


=== Content of email

Dear FI-WARE GEi owners,

  I hope that you have already had time to review the outcome and detailed report of the Y2 review.

  Despite generally speaking the results of the review are nice, there are a number of points that require immediate action and one of them has to do with exploitation plans by the FI-WARE GEi owners.

  You all know that the EC has always stated that external (i.e., beyond the FI-PPP) availability plans regarding FI-WARE GEis should be clear and publicly available.   We have always responded that the place where external availability would be stated is the FI-WARE Catalogue (http://catalogue.fi-ware.eu).   However, as pointed in [1], this commitment has not been fulfilled by the majority of GEis.

  On the other hand, the EC and reviewers clearly seem not to be satisfied by the confidential individual plans delivered by the partners (see [2]).   They lack of references to the FI-WARE GEis owned by the individual partner submitting each of the exploitation plans.    They stated that, with a few exceptions, those exploitation plans are weak, and also lack of positioning with respect to FI-WARE in general and FI-LAB in particular (at the point in which the review report was produced, still being referred as FI-WARE OIL).

  In order to cover these different issues, the EC has asked for a resubmission of the individual exploitation plans and the fixing of the situation in the Catalogue before end of October, which we ask you to handle the following way:

  1.  Fix the "External availability" section in the "Terms and Conditions" tab of each of the FI-WARE GEis you own.   Don't forget to review the guidelines on contents of that section provided at:
     *   http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Working_with_the_FI-WARE_catalogue#Terms_and_Conditions
  2.  Produce a new confidential individual exploitation plan which should:
     *   covers your general exploitation plan regarding FI-WARE, which should include a description of what is the role that FI-LAB plays in that plan
     *   elaborates on the individual exploitation plans you have with respect to each of the FI-WARE GEis you own.   Although this is not strictly required for the GEis that are made publicly available as open source, we also encourage you to elaborate on those as well, explaining what are your exploitation plans for them, or at least what are your commitments regarding support to the open source software.

  Note that failure to cover the several action points for a given FI-WARE GEi may lead to decision on discontinuation of that FI-WARE GEi in the project.   The corresponding funding would then be reassigned to work in other GEis.

  It would be highly advisable that you take the opportunity to review that the entry linked to each of the FI-WARE GEis you own in the FI-WARE Catalogue follow the general guidelines provided in:
http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Working_with_the_FI-WARE_catalogue

  Therefore, we ask you to work diligently addressing the above action points.   Note that, regarding the Catalogue, this is not work that is new but should have been address long time ago (as pointed out by the reviewers) so it should not be that difficult.    If your exploitation plans are clear enough as they should be at this point in the project, updating the individual exploitation plans accordingly should also not be a big issue and sharing it confidentially with the EC and reviewers shouldn't be also.

  Whenever you update the "External availability" section in the "Terms and Conditions" part of a given FI-WARE GEi in the Catalogue, please send an email notifying this circumstance to Juan Bareño <juan.bareno at atosresearch.eu><mailto:juan.bareno at atosresearch.eu> and copy your WPL, Miguel Carrillo <mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es> and me <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo


[1] - From the Outcome of the review report (page 2):
For the other 32 GE implementations, the Catalogue mentions that the terms and conditions for external availability are not defined yet, or that somebody had to be contacted. The latter may mean anything from available but not public, via to-be-negotiated, to unknown.

It should be noted that the Commission had requested clarification on these terms and conditions for the first time following the first year review. Progress here is too slow.

It should also be noted that the consortium nowadays publicly states that the majority of the GE implementation are open source. This obviously is not the impression one gets
from the Catalogue.

[2] - From the detailed review report:
(page 4) -  In line with the above requested: Exploitation of project results by FI-WARE partners

The (lack of) substance and concreteness for the vast majority of the individual exploitation plans, at Month 24, is totally inappropriate for the ambition of FI-WARE and incommensurate with the claimed business commitment to project results by the main partners, even to Vice-President Kroes. As for the previous period, there is no visible attempt to echo - let alone apply - the well-elaborated business and ecosystem analysis to the individual partners' own approach and planning regarding project results. The reviewers are exceedingly concerned about the dearth of concrete evidence of the business commitment of GE implementation owners, and the corresponding lack of concrete information and traceability of GE implementations in the exploitation plans of these owners.

(Page 50) - Feedback regarding Individual Exploitation plans: D11.2.2 Exploitation Plan, including IPR Management

o   Unfortunately, despite the repeated comments by the reviewers on this very subject, the specific company exploitation plans are still generic and in some cases bordering on being a "wish list". They all say positive things but lack specificity in themes, markets, applications, timeline, budget and resources dedicated to the success of FI-WARE. With a few exceptions such as those supplied by ATOS and Thales and to some extent Telefonica and France Telecom, the individual exploitation plans are largely a collection of wishes, expectations and high level aims

o   In all cases, there are surprisingly very few references to specific GEs (or GE combinations) even by the owners concerned. In addition, they are a collation of single plans without any attempt to explain which type of synchronisation or coordination will happen among them and how this concerted effort will be coordinated, if any. There is not a single reference in the individual plans to the OIL, which is positioned in the generic part of the document as a key vehicle to "pave the way for a successful exploitation and sustainability of its [the FI-WARE project] results".

________________________________

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/20131014/c9dfc7e9/attachment.html>