Deliverable 9.1 Management Plan

Deliverable 9.1 Management Plan Author: Maurizio Omologo Affiliation: Fondazione Bruno Kessler Document Type: R Date: May 15 th, 2012 Status/Version: 1.0 Dissemination semination Level: PU

Project Reference Project Acronym Project Full Title Dissemination Level FP7-ICT-2011-7-288121 DIRHA Distant-speech Interaction for Robust Home Applications PU Contractual Date of Delivery March 31, 2012 Actual Date of Delivery May 15, 2012 Document Number Type DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 Deliverable Status & Version Final 1.0 Number of Pages 3+6 WP Contributing to the Deliverable WP Task responsible Authors (Affiliation) WP9 Maurizio Omologo (Fondazione Bruno Kessler) Maurizio Omologo (Fondazione Bruno Kessler) Other Contributors - Reviewer - EC Project Officers Alexandra Wesolowska, Pierre Paul Sondag Keywords: Management procedures, Project management structure, WP/task responsibilities, Documentation, Communication, Cost management plan Abstract: This document reports on the management procedures and tools adopted by DIRHA Consortium during the first months of the project. The adopted management structure is described, specifying the recently assigned WP/task responsibilities inside the Consortium. Schedule management, communication management, and cost management plans are then addressed. The document is complementary to what previously reported in Annex I - DoW. DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 ii

Summary Summary... iii 1. Introduction...1 2. Preliminary issues...1 3. Project management structure...2 4. Communication management plan...4 4.1 Documentation...5 4.2 Meetings...5 5. Cost management plan...6 DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 iii

1. Introduction This deliverable has the purpose of describing the management procedures and tools adopted by the DIRHA Consortium at the beginning of the project. Starting from the contents of the Annex I - Description of Work (DoW) document, and based on decisions made during and after the kickoff meeting which was held in Trento on February 1-2, 2012, the general management plan is outlined. A goal of the document is to summarize in a synthetic way the main features characterizing project management under DIRHA, and then provide some information which was still provisional in the DoW document. In particular, the adopted management structure is described, specifying the recently assigned WP/task responsibilities inside the Consortium. Schedule management, communication management, and cost management plans are then discussed, with reference to what outlined in the DoW document. 2. Preliminary issues As reported inside Annex I - DoW, the DIRHA project is managed according to established best practice procedures with all necessary instruments needed to ensure smooth execution, and with clear plans for quality management, conflict resolution, risk management, and intellectual property right management strategy. The chapter B2 of DoW is structured in a set of sections addressing the management structure and procedures, the description of the Consortium and its Beneficiaries, and the resources to be committed. In particular, Section B2.1 focuses on: management structure; the coordinator; project meetings; communication and reporting; consortium agreement; risk assessment and mitigation plans. Those sections, together with Section B1.3, which describes the overall strategy to reach the objectives of the project, the work package breakdown and its timing, and with milestones and deliverables reported in Part A, provide a comprehensive description of the plan, capturing the entire project end-to-end, covering all project phases, from initiation through planning, execution and closure. To avoid redundancy (between this deliverable and what outlined in the DoW document), in the following we will not address again aspects related to the role of the Coordinator and to schedule management plan, since at this moment related activities, roles, work breakdown, work assignments, durations and schedule are those reported in the Annex I - DoW document. IPR management As for Intellectual Property Right (IPR) management, it is worth noting that before the beginning of the project the Consortium completed and signed the Consortium Agreement (CA), which in particular lays down general rules related to the management of the Project and their agreements with respect to certain matters including (but not limited to) access rights and liability. As discussed while preparing CA, and then reprised during the kickoff meeting, the current version of CA should specify in its Annex 2 the Background to which Parties are ready to grant DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 1

Access Rights (i.e., Background necessary to each Party for carrying out Project activities). All Background not listed in Annex 2 shall in fact be explicitly excluded from Access Rights (unless it is added during the Project by written notice). Due to the need of examining in more detail some technical issues during the first months of the project, the Consortium established that the topic will be an issue to finalize during the first semester of the project. For this reason, IPR regarding Background technologies is not further addressed in this document, although it will represent a fundamental aspect for a smooth execution of the project. 3. Project management structure As reported in the Annex I DoW document, DIRHA project management is organised within a specific workpackage (i.e., WP9) led and handled by the Coordinator. During the kickoff meeting, the Consortium established that the project management will be based on a structure as shown in Figure 1, which is compatible with what indicated both in the Annex I - DoW and in the Consortium Agreement. Figure 1 Management structure based on a Joint Management and Technical Board. The Joint Management and Technical (JMT) Board is the executive body of the project, i.e., it takes the strategic scientific decisions as well as any decisions related to project execution. It is managed by the General Project Manager (GPM) and, as discussed below, it comprises two members for each Partner. In other words, this body is responsible for policy and decision making, and its roles can be summarized as follows: ensure the quality management of the project; meet schedules and goals, monitoring technical activities (milestones, deliverables, etc.) and solving problems occurring at WP level; ensure consistency among different work packages, keeping a high level of intergration between them; resolve conflicts; track costs; DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 2

create and update technology implementation plan, etc.; decide upon any technical proposal made by the WP leaders; make proposals to the Parties for review and/or amendment of terms of the GA; decide upon any change and exchange of work packages between the Parties; assign Defaulting Party's tasks to other entities; decide upon procedures and tools for the marking and handling of information exchanged between Parties in the performance of the Project. The JMT Board consists of two sub-groups, Management and Technical Boards respectively, overall comprising max. two representatives for each partner (corresponding to WP leaders for partners which are responsible of WPs) and max. three representatives (including the Project Manager) of the Coordinator. The two complete lists are reported in the following. Members of the Management Board section ATHENA-RC-IAMU: Petros Maragos (deputy Makis Potamianos); DOMOTICAREA: Samuel Ramella (deputy Franco Giovanazzi); FBK: Maurizio Omologo (General Project Manager); INESC-ID: Alberto Abad (deputy Isabel Trancoso); NEWAMUSER: Roberto Manione; STItaly: Roberto Sannino (deputy Daniele Caltabiano); TUGraz: Gernot Kubin. Members of the Technical Board section (related WP, of which they are responsible, is under brackets) ATHENA-RC-IAMU: Makis Potamianos (deputy Petros Maragos) (WP7); DOMOTICAREA: Franco Giovanazzi (deputy Samuel Ramella); FBK: Maurizio Omologo (WP9), L.Cristoforetti (WP6), P.Svaizer (WP3); INESC-ID: Alberto Abad (deputy Isabel Trancoso) (WP4); NEWAMUSER: Fiorenza Arisio (WP1), Roberto Manione (WP5); STItaly: Daniele Caltabiano (deputy Roberto Sannino) (WP8); TUGraz: Martin Hagmueller (WP2). The JMT Board will meet jointly, at least twice per year, and act together except when a decision has to be made by the MB alone. In both boards (in case they have to meet separately), as well as in the joint one, each Party has always right of one vote. The Board shall not deliberate and decide validly unless at least two-thirds (in other words, given a consortium of seven partners as this one, five partners are necessary to validate it) of its members are present or represented ("quorate"). After the kickoff meeting, each partner indicated who will be the leader of each WP, and the coordinator of each Task for which it is responsible. Figure 2 describes the current situation. Each partner has also indicated for each task the reference person and the team which will contributes to. Corresponding lists of individuals are not reported here, but are available in the internal web site, where they will be maintained up-to-date. Specific mailing-lists for each WP and task have been created accordingly. The WP leader shall be responsible: of a detailed coordination, planning, monitoring, reporting of the WP activities; in particular, she/he reports to the GPM and to the Joint Management and Technical Board through progress reports and possible proposals of modifications to the given programme; of coordination of her/his WP with other WPs of the project, making decisions, and ensuring the work plan is not jeopardized; DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 3

for performance and progress of the work packages with regard to the project plan; to ensure a horizontal information flow, the synchronization with other work packages as well as the identification and immediate reporting of problems. Moreover, under T9.2 GPM and WP leaders will: assess the project progress towards the given objectives; ensure the preparation of deliverables to meet time and quality targets; coordinate and supervise activities being conducted under each workpackage. The Task leader has the role of coordinating a given task for the achievement of the goals described in the DoW, and in case it is redefined and planned during the project life, ensuring the commitment of involved individuals to such goals and the enhancement of the related group cohesion. As to the responsibility for each partner at a deeper level, in particular for scientific and technological issues, both Part A and Section B1.3.5 of Annex I - DoW provide enough details on the lead beneficiary for each deliverable and milestone, as well as on the topics and techniques which will be investigated by each partner team under each task. This level of detail should be satisfactory enough to ensure a clear definition of the roles inside the Consortium and, as a consequence, for a smooth execution of the project. As for financial and administrative issues, the reference persons at FBK are Mr. Umberto Silvestri and Mr. Marco Filippozzi. Each partner has also indicated to FBK their reference persons for legal, contractual, administrative, and financial issues. Figure 2 Assignment of responsibilities for each workpackage and task. 4. Communication management plan The communication management plan sets the communication framework for the DIRHA project, both between Coordinator and Commission, and internal to the Consortium. Two main aspects of the communication management are here addressed, namely documentation and meetings. DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 4

4.1 Documentation At the kickoff meeting, the Consortium established the documentation be produced as reported in the following: Every two months: o Update an action list (by the Coordinator); o Progress reporting of each work package/task (by WP/Task leaders). Every three months: o Fill in the three-month period breakdown by activities (by each Partner) together with a companion document regarding financial aspects. Every six months (as reported in the Appendix X to Annex I): o Progress technical report (part I of Interim Progress/Activity Report); o Consortium Management (part II of Interim Progress/Activity Report). Every one year: o Periodic Activity Report (that is part I of the Annual Report); o Periodic Management Report (that is part II of the Annual Report). It is worth noting that the information reported in the action lists, progress reports and breakdowns, every two-three months, are to be considered just internal to the Consortium, useful to the Coordinator to ensure the best quality of management at all the levels. On the other hand, the reports produced every six months will be delivered by the Coordinator to the Commission. Besides the deliverables reported in the Annex I - DoW, it is foreseen that Internal Deliverables will be realized for every WP/Task/Deliverable, which should generally represent portions of technical official deliverables. In particular, the introduction of internal deliverables is needed: When a provisional report is necessary to document on an activity that has already been completed at a given stage of the project; When for the related activity a more articulated official deliverable is foreseen in a later stage. It is recommended that internal deliverables be concise and organized, from the beginning, thinking to the way they will eventually be incorporated into the corresponding official deliverable. This activity (as for the reporting mentioned in the previous slide) will be managed by the WP leader with the support of each Task leader. Also internal deliverables are just internal to the Consortium and they will not provided to the Commission, unless the whole Consortium decides that an internal deliverable may be useful to the Reviewers because it completes the analysis of a topic not fully addressed in any of the official deliverables. As reported in the Appendix X to Annex I and highlighted by the Project Officer Ms. Wesolowska during the kickoff meeting, an Annual Public Report will then be produced every November 15 th. Finally, it is worth noting that an internal web site has been set-up which will be used by the consortium as a mean for information, data, software, and document exchange. 4.2 Meetings During the kickoff meeting it was confirmed that a Project Meeting will be held every 4-6 months. During it, there can be a specific meeting involving only JMT Board members (at least two per year). One meeting and at least two audio-conferences will also be organized every six months per each technical work package (in particular for WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6, WP7). These meetings and audioconferences will have the following objectives: Analyze ongoing activities and achieved results; Contribute to the progress reporting for each technical area; DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 5

Harmonize activities between different WPs; Highlight possible delays in some tasks; Revise the task scheduling where necessary; Update the action list. No rule holds about possible bilateral or multi-lateral meetings involving a limited number of partners on a specific topic, which are encouraged when it is felt necessary. WP leaders will periodically report to the JMT Board about these possible WP related events. A progress meeting may also be organized with the Project Officer every six months (see Appendix X to Annex I - DoW). 5. Cost management plan The Coordinator, FBK, is responsible for managing and reporting on the project s costs throughout the duration of the project. In particular, once received funds from the Commission it distributes the amounts corresponding to the associated beneficiaries participation in the project. As for reporting, it is foreseen that within 60 days after the end of each reporting period (3 annual RP: 31 st December 2012-2013-2014) the Consortium shall transmit through the Coordinator a PAR-Periodic Activity Report comprised of: self declaration by the Coordinator on the work carried out; publishable summary; project objectives for the period; work progress and achievements; deliverables and milestones; explanation of the use of the resources 1 ; summary financial report; form C; audit certificate. In order to monitor the project, the Coordinator will ask each Beneficiary to fill in an internal form every three months, as it will be done for the scientific-technical activities. The aim of this Breakdown by activities is to compare the budget with current values. This should allow one to identify any possible deviations from the initial planning and to take proper corrective actions; in addition it makes the successive compilation of Form C easier. 1 A justification of the resources deployed by each Beneficiary linked to the WPs will be provided based on: a description of the personnel involved and the person-months; major costs items: personnel, subcontracts, travels, equipments, consumables, meetings, etc.; problems which have occurred and how they were solved. DIRHA_D9.1_20120515 6