[Fiware-data] Fwd: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: RE: Review report

[Juanjo Hierro]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: RE: Review report
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:06:36 +0100
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>


Dear all,

  I asked Arian to send us at least a brief summary of the informal feedback given after the review meeting.

  Please find it below.

  Cheers,

-- Juanjo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        RE: Review report
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:26:23 +0100
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:     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>



Dear Juanjo,

As requested, see some points of the informal feedback given after the review meeting below.

About deliverables:
1) the reviewers did not indicate that any deliverable would be rejected. This does not mean that all deliverables will be accepted.
2) regarding the prototype deliverables D9.1.1 and D12.1, there is the additional issue about the submission. I plan to address this only in 2012.

Best regards,
Arian.


========================================================

Informal feedback after FI-WARE first review


*       "This is a good FP7 project"
*       Commitment, focus on pragmatism.
*       The dialogue between the UCs and FI-WARE seems to be happening.
*       There is a focus on low-hanging fruits. Focus should be on tackling the difficult parts first.
*       Technology identified is OK. Technology is the easy part though. The softer issues (third party innovation enablement) are much more difficult and much more important. The success of the PPP is not so much dependent on the partners, but more on third party innovation.
*       The overall risk is not so much that the project does not do what it plans but that it does not do what is industrially and market-wise relevant. It is common for many projects to deliver technology, put it on the shelf, and deliver more technology.
*       How to make sure that the companies involved are solidly behind the work in the project? How to prevent that the work is carried out by a number of people in an organisation, without anybody else in the organisation knowing about it? The consortium should bring in other departments of the partners concerned in the project.
*       There was a slide with the project objective and the 'real objective', which focused on generating money. This is the correct starting point. The exploitation plan in month 12 should not only be about plans, but also about the actual activities within the partners, and also how different user communities are targeted. We expect to see such activities in that report. If FI-WARE is really one of the flagship projects, the companies should get behind the project. Now you have the UCs and the technology together in the PPP, the industries have to get squarely behind it. We don't want an exploitation plan like we see in a normal IP. We state again and again that results have to be useful. This can not be done by only research and technology people.
*       Results should get to the market quickly, within 3-5 years after the start of the project. The agile approach should result in having something available soon. Nowadays, software is in continuous beta-mode. It's a kind of direct marketing by the technologists, rapid and direct. IPR conditions are essential. This should not be blocking the fast provision of results.
*       It is also largely a matter of fud, fear/uncertainty/doubt: "trust us, we will deliver in a few months". It is also a marketing story.
*       Who is FI-WARE focusing on? The guys in the garage? Then compare with Apple and Google, but that is a maturing market, even though there is a lot of dynamism. As a new entrant, new unique selling points must be provided. Where is the selling point in FI-WARE? An opportunity might be in apps that can work together in a larger whole, services. Furthermore, apps are mostly for consumers, but businesses need something more, e.g. spanning the company boundary (which involves dealing with security issues, etc). These are perhaps not the traditional apps we are talking about now.
*       The distinction between Generic and Specific Enablers will be decided case by case. But you need rules, guidelines. This distinction has also an IPR dimension, and touches upon standardisation. GEs should be prime candidates for standardisation. The distinction is also relevant for the Open Call. Proposers need such kind of information. A 3-page document will not be enough.
*       It is not clear to us to what extent UCs have a voice in what is in the open call? Furthermore, Jose's comments about the very limited set of potential proposers are absolutely dangerous. There is more outside. Don't benchmark yourself with e.g. Bonfire. It's also a great opportunity to disseminate. Besides, half of the efforts in year 3 will be by partners that are not there at the moment. In short, take it more seriously.
*       At the moment, there is a lot of efforts on the leaders. Control and work should be spread a bit. If JJH hits a tree, the project stops. Peter Fatelnig: 150 people go to work for the PPP each day. 75 people go to work on FI-WARE every day.



________________________________
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/old-fiware-data/attachments/20111125/324e08ad/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001..txt
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-data/attachments/20111125/324e08ad/attachment.txt>