Http:// WP-O Coordination and Management WP-O Coordination and Management First Review Meeting...
-
Upload
calvin-gardner -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Http:// WP-O Coordination and Management WP-O Coordination and Management First Review Meeting...
http://www.e-photon-one.org
WP-O Coordination and WP-O Coordination and Management Management
First Review MeetingBrussels, 23-24 May 2007
Enrica ConrottoPolitecnico di Torino
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20072
WPO: Coordination and Management
WP leader: Laura Fulci
Structure: Project Office + WP leaders + Local Administrative Contacts
Partner involved: WP-O-M: PoliTO – Project OfficeWP-O-C: PoliTO, DEIS-UniBO, UGent, UEssex,
UoPelop, UPC, GET
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20073
WP-O activities
WP-O-C Coordination: Intermediary between contractors and EC Reporting on mobility actions Dissemination activities Governing bodies meetings organization Interactions with Collaborating Institutions Teleconference tools and website management Gender Action Plan supervision
WP-O-M Management: Operational NoE management Financial monitoring and reporting
WP-O has been conceived so as to distinguish between two levels: WP-O-C: overall network coordination activities WP-O-M: operational management
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20074
WPO-C: Deliverables and Milestones
Milestones• M.O-C.1 [T0+1] Organization of the kick-off plenary meeting• M.O-C.2 [T0+2] Set up of governing bodies• M.O-C.3 [T0+6] Deployment of teleconference tools and web-based data
repository tools for all partners• M.O-C.4 [T0+11] Organization of the first e-Photon/ONe+ annual meeting• M.O-C.5 [T0+12] Final update on Collaborating Institutions involvement• M.O-C.6 [T0+23] Organization of the final e-Photon/ONe+ plenary meetingDeliverables• D.O-C.1 [T0+6] Project presentation document• D.O-C.2 [T0+12] Report on mobility actions in the first year• D.O-C.3 [T0+13] Report on Collaborating Institutions• D.O-C.4 [T0+24] Report on mobility actions in the second year
ALL MILESTONES AND DEIVERABLES OF THE FIRST YEAR COMPLETED
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20075
WPO-M: Deliverables and Milestones
Milestones• M.O-M.1 [T0+2] Financial plan for the first year and budget allocation• M.O-M.2 [T0+3] Collaborating Institution agreement• M.O-M.3 [T0+12] Update on involved researchers and students and on
budget allocation• M.O-M.4 [T0+18] Final update on involved researchers and studentsDeliverables• D.O-M.1 [T0+3] Management hand-book, with communication protocol,
reporting procedures,• financial guidelines, and financial monitoring criteria• D.O-M.2 [T0+13] Periodic Management Report, and Report on the
distribution of the EC contribution among contractors according to EC rules• D.O-M.3 [T0+15] Financial plan for the second period of activities• D.O-M.4 [T0+24] Final report
ALL MILESTONES AND DEIVERABLES OF THE FIRST YEAR COMPLETED
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20076
WP-O Main Achievements
Distributed documents Management Handbook Amendments to Consortium Agreement n.1 and n.2 Collaborating Institution Agreement Biannual Management Report Amendment to the EC contract Agenda and Minutes of the governing bodies meetings
Meetings Kick-off meeting: Paris, 29-30 May 2006 JPAC tele-meeting: 18 December 2006 First Plenary meeting: Barcelona, 27-28 February 2007
Actual effort/budget spent Effort:
WP-O-C: 17 m/m (total effort foreseen: 42 m/m) 41% WP-O-M: 32 m/m (total effort foreseen: 48 m/m) 67%
Budget: WP-O-C: 61 K€ (total budget foreseen: 201 K€) 30% WP-O-M: 91 K€ (total budget foreseen: 261 K€) 35%
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20077
Main Activities
Summary
General management and Reporting Contractual and legal management Financial management
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20078
General ManagementMain Tasks:• establishing infrastructure for the NoE administration • handling overall legal, contractual, financial and administrative issues
(helpdesk for NoE partners) • centralising information and project outputs• NoE reporting and financial monitoring towards the governing bodies
and the EC• fulfilling the JPAC decisions, in particular with reference to the financial
issues• handling the enlargement of the Noe (e.g. in the form of Collaborating
Institutions)• preparing all management documents such as the management hand-
book, templates for reporting etc.• consortium agreement maintenance • organizing and running all the coordination meetings (agenda, minutes,
dissemination of documents, etc.)
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 20079
Efficient NoE coordination and a prompt risk management
Intermediary between EC and NoE partners
MAIN GOALS
METHODS
&
TOOLS
Synergy between administrative and scientific coordination
Continuous monitoring on activities and expenditures
Standard guidelines for reporting, communication and dissemination
Helpdesk for NoE partners and flexibility to understand their different methods and legislation
Administrative coordination
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200710
Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring is a fundamental task of the project management
The PO is in charge of monitoring partners activities and expenditures in order to provide to governing bodies NoE financial status and update on activities progresses
To reach this objective, some rules and a set of documents and guidelines have been defined: the consortium agreement, which defines management rules and responsibilities for each partnerthe Management handbook, which includes instructions on procedures related to reporting, communication protocol and results disseminationthe Biannual Management Report (BMR)the First Periodic Management Report
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200711
Management Handbook
Main goal:improving the efficiency of the management process
Content:Project organization Communication procedure Rules for meetings Reporting and deliverables Financial guidelinesNoE results evaluation (integration indicators)Risk assessment
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200712
Periodic Management Report
Introduction – Participants involvement and budget/effort allocation
SECTION 1 – Justification of major cost items and resources 1.1 Overview on NoE Effort employed in Y11.2 Overview on budget spent in Y11.3 Explanatory note on major cost items1.4 Planned and actual costs by contractor and by cost item
1.4.1 Global estimate of total costs 1.5 Planned and actual effort by contractor and by WP
1.5.1 For AC contractors, overview of the effort of permanent staff working on the project
1.6 Brief description of the work performed by each contractor 1.7 Explaination of major deviations
SECTION 2 – Form C
SECTION 3 – Summary Financial Report
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200713
Main Activities
Summary
General management and Reporting Contractual and legal management Financial management
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200714
Contract
An amendment to the contract was requested by Politecnico di Torino on behalf of the consortium and approved by the EC
Termination of INTEL's participation Addition of UCAM-DENG as new e1+
contractor (partner n. 41) Addition of ISCOM as third party of FUB
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200715
Consortium Agreement
• The Consortium Agreement was signed by all partners except Intel (that finally withdrew)
• Two Amendments were proposed: Amendment n.1 : modifications on Confidentiality
and Publications sections according to KTH requests
Amendment n.2 : modifications on IPR section, mainly requested by Intel
Only Only Amendment n. 1 was signed by all partners, Amendment n. 1 was signed by all partners,
while Amendment n. 2 is null and voidwhile Amendment n. 2 is null and void..
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200716
Collaborating Institutions Agreement
• At the kickoff meeting it was decided not to enlarge the consortium, but to establish the role of “Collaborating Institution” (CI), with– no budget allocation – full participation to the project
• The PO prepared the Collaborating Institution Agreement (included in the CA)
RULES FOR ADMISSIONRequest for participation shall be submitted by the JPAC, or by the Coordinator, or by at least 3 partners in written form defining the plan of activitiesThe decision on the inclusion of the CI shall be taken by the JPACThe CI shall participate in the Project activities and/or take part of results according to the proposed plan of activitiesThe CI will not be refunded for the expenses incurred
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200717
Collaborating Institutions• Current CIs:
– Campinas State University, Brazil – Beijing University of Posts & Telegraphs, China – CTTC: Telecommunications Technological Center of
Catalonia, Spain – University of Vigo, Spain – Polytechnic University of Cartagena, Spain– Poznan University of Technology, Poland
• Applications approved in the second year:– University of Roma "La Sapienza", Italy – HUAWEI Sweden
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200718
Main Activities
Summary
General management and Reporting Contractual and legal management Financial management
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200719
Financial Management
Definition of common financial rules for budget allocation and reporting
Internal progress reports where each partner declares its effort and costs
WP leaders monitor the involvement of partners in their WP
In case of inactive partners, the JPAC could take appropriate decisions
The PO is in charge of periodical financial reviews in order to provide the JPAC with the NoE financial status for decisions on budget re-allocation and financial monitoring
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200720
Initial e1+ budget allocation criteria
• 50 K€ to each partner (70 K€ to GET)• 20 K€ to each WP leader (10 K€ for co-leadership)• 70 K€ per WP to be distributed to active partners• 70 K€ for implementing and running the project
website• 80 K€ for supporting international collaborations
(upon pressure of former EC project officers)• 300 K€ for the project office and as project
reservoir
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200721
Pre-financing: 1.500 K€
No budget was transferred to Intel-IRC (according to a JPAC decision)
Any change on WP leadership occurred after the CA signature will be taken into account in the second EC payment transfer
60% of the fixed budget was distributed (blue part in previous slide)
according to art. 5.2 and Annex C of the CA
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200722
1st EC payment transfers
Part. No.
Part. nameFixed Budget
(keuro)
1st EC payment
transferred
1 PoliTO 370 1622 ALCATEL 50 303 DEIS-UNIBO 70 424 FUB 50 305 PoliMI 50 306 SSSUP 50 307 TID 50 308 UAM 70 429 UC3M 50 3010 UPC 50 3011 UPVLC 50 3012 IT 70 4213 GET 70 4214 FT 50 3015 FPMs 50 3016 IBBT 60 3617 MULT 50 3018 TU/e 70 4219 FLE 50 3020 IRC 60 0
Part. No.
Part. nameFixed Budget
(keuro)
1st EC payment
transferred21 ORC-CC2 50 3022 UCL 70 4223 UEssex 80 4824 DTU 70 4225 KTH 50 3026 TELENOR 70 4227 Fraunhofer 50 3028 TUB 50 3029 UDE 70 4230 UST-IKR 50 3031 TUW 50 3032 AGH 50 3033 BME 50 3034 TELFER 70 4235 AIT 70 4236 CTI 50 3037 ICCS/NTUA 50 3038 UoA 50 3039 UoPelop 60 3640 BILKENT 50 30
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200723
Budget re-allocation• At the end of the first year, an internal financial review was
carried out by the PO with the WP leaders• The financial review included an assessment of:
the criteria defined by the WP leaders for allocating the budget available to each WP (70K€) according to the planned activities;
the budget already spent and the budget necessary to carry out some specific tasks and objectives.
The final budget allocation was approved during the plenary meeting held in Barcelona and has been included in the Revised
Technical Annex.
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200724
Current budget allocation
Part. No. Partner name TOTAL (K€)
1 PoliTO 482,0062 ALCATEL 51,6003 DEIS-UNIBO 153,9754 FUB 74,3335 PoliMI 108,1236 SSSUP 81,4367 TID 59,6948 UAM 84,1259 UC3M 82,296
10 UPC 154,91111 UPV 85,76312 IT 120,55913 GET 119,63614 FT 65,54615 FPMs 67,62816 IBBT 95,18417 MULT 54,96418 TU/e 74,68119 FLE 55,41520 IRC 0,00021 ORC-CC2 64,743
FINAL BUDGET ALLOCATION
PARTICIPANT BUDGET
100
100
100
KE
UR
Part. No. Partner name TOTAL (K€)
22 UCL 91,54323 UEssex 128,70724 DTU 77,20025 KTH 64,66826 TELENOR 84,58427 Fraunhofer 57,58128 TUB 53,75029 UDE 82,00030 UST-IKR 56,08131 TUW 68,18832 AGH 76,52333 BME 59,73334 TELFER 89,47735 AIT 125,75636 CTI 95,18637 ICCS/NTUA 61,00038 UoA 83,33039 UoPelop 148,32740 BILKENT 59,74841 UCAM-DENG 50,000
3.750,000TOTAL
FINAL BUDGET ALLOCATION
PARTICIPANT BUDGET
100
100
100
KE
UR
WP budget
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
WP1 WP3 WP5 WP7 WP9 WP11 WP13 WP15
KE
UR
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200725
Financial monitoring
In order to ensure the financial monitoring, the Project Office, as a method of control of the partners expenditure, will apply to the EC payment transfers of the second year the Art. 5.2(c) of the CA
“Contractors who spend less than their respective share of the Budget will be funded only in respect of the actual amount spent. Contractors who spend more than their respective share of the Budget will be funded only up to the funding as allocated under this Consortium Agreement, unless otherwise agrees by the JPA Committee according to Art.3.2.4.”
In case of under-spending partnersthe amount transferred will be proportionally reduced
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200726
WP Manpower in Y1
Permanent staff (AC): 116 m/m
WP NUMBERTOTAL
FORESEENFIRST YEAR REMAINING PERCENTAGE
WP-O-C 42,05 17,03 25,02 40,50%WP-O-M 48,00 32,34 15,66 67,37%WP-VD-C 107,97 76,94 31,04 71,26%WP-VD-M 56,99 53,75 3,23 94,32%WP-VD-A 61,53 49,06 12,47 79,73%WP-VD-H 27,38 28,06 -0,68 102,48%WP-VD-S 56,58 50,42 6,17 89,10%WP-VD-T 41,48 38,33 3,16 92,39%WP-JP-G 57,60 25,62 31,99 44,47%WP-JP-B 67,88 60,32 7,56 88,87%WP-JP-T 31,88 27,85 4,03 87,35%WP-JP-E 23,83 21,38 2,45 89,72%WP-JP-S 48,48 27,22 21,26 56,15%
WP-T 44,08 21,14 22,94 47,95%WP-L 27,58 17,26 10,32 62,58%WP-D 59,23 19,09 40,14 32,23%
TOTAL 802,57 565,80 236,77 70,50%
NETWORK EFFORT (MM)
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200727
Network budget in Y1
WP NUMBER TOTAL FORESEEN FIRST YEAR REMAINING PERCENTAGE
WP-O-C 201.328,40 61.014,49 140.313,91 30,31%WP-O-M 260.660,00 90.769,67 169.890,33 34,82%WP-VD-C 431.190,03 334.463,42 96.726,62 77,57%WP-VD-M 274.247,93 237.882,82 36.365,11 86,74%WP-VD-A 272.879,73 331.614,70 -58.734,97 121,52%WP-VD-H 183.493,33 84.524,32 98.969,02 46,06%WP-VD-S 256.230,13 276.136,78 -19.906,65 107,77%WP-VD-T 207.684,33 236.552,08 -28.867,75 113,90%WP-JP-G 217.507,90 78.413,17 139.094,73 36,05%WP-JP-B 257.619,90 187.087,27 70.532,63 72,62%WP-JP-T 175.879,90 130.803,27 45.076,63 74,37%WP-JP-E 152.508,29 131.687,09 20.821,20 86,35%WP-JP-S 201.083,13 71.346,44 129.736,69 35,48%
WP-T 201.833,20 127.443,58 74.389,62 63,14%WP-L 125.932,80 85.711,16 40.221,64 68,06%WP-D 329.920,98 85.554,44 244.366,54 25,93%
TOTAL 3.750.000,00 2.551.004,70 1.198.995,29 68,03%
NETWORK BUDGET (EURO)
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200728
Global estimate of Total Costs
WP NUMBER TOTAL FORESEENCLAIMED FIRST
YEARCOSTS NOT CHARGED
TOTAL COSTS
WP-O-C 201.328,40 61.014,49 13.329,12 74.343,60WP-O-M 260.660,00 90.769,67 38.964,43 129.734,10WP-VD-C 431.190,03 334.463,42 85.458,33 419.921,74WP-VD-M 274.247,93 237.882,82 43.001,08 280.883,90WP-VD-A 272.879,73 331.614,70 69.824,73 401.439,43WP-VD-H 183.493,33 84.524,32 43.766,73 128.291,04WP-VD-S 256.230,13 276.136,78 31.628,10 307.764,89WP-VD-T 207.684,33 236.552,08 56.071,51 292.623,59WP-JP-G 217.507,90 78.413,17 30.611,42 109.024,60WP-JP-B 257.619,90 187.087,27 41.030,93 228.118,20WP-JP-T 175.879,90 130.803,27 58.158,17 188.961,44WP-JP-E 152.508,29 131.687,09 6.821,94 138.509,03WP-JP-S 201.083,13 71.346,44 48.376,38 119.722,82
WP-T 201.833,20 127.443,58 27.415,01 154.858,60WP-L 125.932,80 85.711,16 27.483,51 113.194,67WP-D 329.920,98 85.554,44 56.031,61 141.586,05
TOTAL 3.750.000,00 2.551.004,70 677.973,01 3.228.977,72
TOTAL COSTS
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200729
Resources employed
AC cost reporting model implies a discrepancy between
effort spent and cost claimed WP-O expenditure less than 50% as the main
management costs related to the audit certificates will be claimed in the second year (special clause n.39).
WP-D costs and effort only apparently lower than expected. According to a decision of the JPAC, the effort spent for dissemination has been split among the relevant technical WPs (WP-D effort reduced while effort declared in other WPs increased).
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200730
Expenditures
The partners expenditures are mostly related to:
• Personnel Costs – Researchers, PhD – students, other staff for activities
carried out by each WP• Travel Costs
– management and coordination meetings – implementation of NoE activities (e.g. joint
experiments, summer school, e1+ events etc)– participation to conferences and dissemination
events – Mobility actions
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200731
Manpower employed per activity
EFFORT PER ACTIVITIES
SPREADING OF EXCELLENCE ACTIVITIES
20%
JOINTLY EXECUTED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
26%
INTEGRATING ACTIVITIES
48%
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
6%
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200732
Costs incurred per activity
COSTS PER ACTIVITIES
SPREADING OF EXCELLENCE ACTIVITIES
21%
INTEGRATING ACTIVITIES
54%
JOINTLY EXECUTED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
21%
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
4%
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200733
Effort and cost per activity
• Activities progressed as planned and the related claimed costs are in line with the budget foreseen for the total project duration (exceeding 50% of total EC contribution requested)
• In the previous slides, WPs are grouped as follows:– Integrating activities: 50% WP-O-C + 80% VDs + WP-L + 50% WP-T– Joint research activities: 90% JPs– Spreading of excellence activities: 50% WP-O-C + 20% VDs + 10% JPs +
50% WP-T +WP-D– Management activities: WP-O-M
Half of both expenditure and effort is devoted to the Integrating activities, key objective of the NoE
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200734
Conclusions
Critical issues different level of
involvement due also to the different cost reporting model
very high effort for coordination
different partner approach due to national legislation and internal practices
Achievements
expenditure in line with the expectation (70,5% of total effort, 68% of the total budget)
total actual costs > EC requested contribution
all key deliverables completed
management risk under control
progressive harmonization of administrative and legal practices
First Review Meeting – Brussels, 23-24 May 200735