[Fiware] URGENT ACTIONS on Exploitation as outcome of the Y2project review

[Juan Bareño Guerenabarrena]

Dear Alexander

I confirm you that this mail, 'Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu',  is the right one

Br

Juan

 
  Juan Bareño
  Group Innovation, Business Development & Strategy
  Research & Innovation
  +34 912148859
  Calle Albarracín 25, 28037 Madrid
  juan.bareno at atos.net
   www.atos.net
 
IMPORTANT - MAIL ADDRESS CHANGE - From now on, please use only mail address juan.bareno at atos.net  .The former @atosresearch.eu address will be cancelled soon


-----Original Message-----
From: fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Alexandre Boeglin
Sent: miércoles, 30 de octubre de 2013 15:37
To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware] URGENT ACTIONS on Exploitation as outcome of the Y2project review

Dear Juanjo, All,

I just have one quick question: to whom should the confidential individual exploitation plan be sent? I couldn't find an email address in your email or the outcome of the review report.


Best regards,
Alexandre

Le lundi 14 octobre 2013 à 15:32, Juanjo Hierro a écrit:
> 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 a decision by the EC on discontinuation of that FI-WARE GEi in the project.   The corresponding funding would then be then reassigned to work in other GEis, they say (see [3]).
> 
>  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 (instead of just fixing the section on "External availability"):
> http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Workin
> g_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, or you send your individual exploitation plans to the EC, 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".
> 
> [3] - From the outcome of the review report (page 3):
> The received or latest exploitation plans will be evaluated. Use of the respective GE implementations by the phase 2 use case projects will also be considered. The result of this evaluation is that the prospects for future use of GE implementations will be assessed. It may lead to decisions to stop funding certain activities and allocate scarce funds to more promising areas for the remainder of the project.
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 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 mailing list
> Fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu
> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware


--
Alexandre Boeglin
Madynes project-team – http://madynes.loria.fr/ Inria – http://www.inria.fr/
------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended 
solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive 
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. 
As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos 
group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although 
the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, 
the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and 
will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. 

Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial 
destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente 
pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. 
Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar 
inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. 
Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos 
no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun 
compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. 
Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor 
no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera 
danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. 
------------------------------------------------------------------