----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to the reviewer: all comments ARE MANDATORY TO FILL
IN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal name: Full RTD proposal
Rviewer name: Eva Fåhræus
CONFORMITY WITH THE SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
The proposal falls within the scope and objectives of the IT
programme and its work programme.
The proposal falls within the scope and objectives of Task 4.2 of the work programme.
Comment: The project is a co-operation between using companies from two European countries, one IT supplier and three research organisations. It will develop and apply IT methods for adapting the companies to a new competitive situation.
EUROPEAN DIMENSION
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
The proposal includes at least two non-affiliated participants from different EU Member States, or from one Member State and one associated and financially contributing state, and there is a clear added value in carrying out the proposed work at this European level (as opposed to the national level).
Comment: Yes, the project will support the implementation of the CEU policy towards abolishing monopolies in the ESI sector.
If there is participation from other associated countries it is clearly described why such participation in the interest of EU policies
Comment: -
If there is participation from non-associated countries, it is clearly described how such participation contributes effectively to the implementation of the programme and how it provides
mutual benefits.
Comment: -
The proposers have described, where appropriate, an awareness of, and/or dependency on, related projects or proposals carried out within national, European or international programmes
Comment: I have not found any such description.
OBJECTIVES, INNOVATION AND RESULTS
Score: [ 5 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
The proposal clearly describes the technical objectives, shows progress with current state of the art and defines appropriate measures to measure their successful achievement
Comment: The technical objectives are motivated and clearly described on the basis of the actual state of the art in the area. The achievment will be measured against business needs.
The proposal clearly describes the foreseen business and
industrial objectives and describes how they will be attained from the technical results
Comment: The project has its focus on the industrial needs and the technical approach is derived from these needs.
The results lead to innovations in goods, services or production processes and the benefits of such innovations are significant and clearly described
Comment: Results will be useful not only in the participating companies but also in other companies in the ESI industy.
The relevance of the results to the information infrastructure and its potential impact on society is convincingly demonstrated
Comment: As the project is motivated by a CEU policy it can be assumed that the society will benefit.
INDUSTRIAL RELEVANCE
Score: [ 5] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
The proposers demonstrate a clear view of the relevant market segments and their current position in those segments
Comment: The application contains a thorough description on the situation in the ESI industry and its market.
The proposers show awareness of the status of their main
competitors in the relevant market areas and include in their proposal, where appropriate, a quantified analysis of the market opportunity
Comment: One of the aims of the project is to adapt one of the participating companies (PPC) to a market that is not there yet, but that is supposed to come when tha monopoly situation is abandoned. This is a situation that already has occured for the other company (Vattenfall). The application describes how experience is going to be transfered.
The proposed results are clearly related to existing or
anticipated industrial demand and identifiable market
requirements
Comment: Yes, this is the focus of the project.
The potential impact on industry sectors and on working
conditions is outlined.
Comment: Yes, see above.
THE PROPOSERS
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
The number of proposers and their roles, skills and experience are sufficient and necessary for achieving the expected business and technical objectives.
Comment: Yes. Two companies in different situation will give a broad basis for achieving business objectives. The IT company has experiences from the ESI industry and from using actual methods. The three research organisations have developed the method used.
The proposers demonstrate their capabilities and plans in
sufficient depth to inspire confidence that they will achieve and exploit the results.
Comment: Yes, they have demonstrated this during the definition phase.
The proposal shows a significant and balanced co-operation
between partners, from both the technical and the business
perspective.
Comment: The application contains a detailed description of the partners different roles in the project.
EXPLOITATION PLANNING
Score: [ 3 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
Each partner demonstrates the ability to make significant own investment in the proposed developments, and explains the
expected return on investment.
Comment: There is a clear declaration from each partner what benefits they expect.
A clear, credible and timely route to exploitation is identified and is clearly supported by substantial industrial and user
involvement, with explicit management commitment.
Comment: Exploitation in the participating companies are described. Further exploitation is assumed and planned but the procedure is not described.
The proposal describes possible arrangements, including IPR
issues, between partners to extend their co-operation into the results exploitation phase and to negotiate relevant agreements with third parties.
Comment: Exploitation in the participating companies is included in the project, but IPR issues are not mentioned.
The proposal describes relevant information dissemination
activities and how the planned exploitation would benefit from them.
Comment: This is mentioned.
WORK PLANNING
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
There is a clear presentation of major development phases,
associated milestones and deliverables, and they are clearly
related to the stated project objectives.
Comment: Yes, there is a detailed work plan with work packages, tasks and delivarables described.
Proposed results and deliverables are assessable and
quantitative yardsticks are provided against which to measure the project progress.
Comment: There are descriptions of how to assess the results through empirical studies in the companies, but no quantitative yardsticks are identified.
Tasks, including those related to information dissemination and exploitation of results, are clearly defined and scheduled, and their inter-dependencies identified.
Comment: Yes, interdependencies are shown in diagrams.
The contribution of each participant is unambiguously related to the work packages by indicating their technical contribution and commitment of effort to each of the tasks.
Comment: All this is described in detail.
Major technological risks are identified and sound contingency plans formulated.
Comment: No major technological risks are mentioned.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
Proposed project management procedures are effective, clearly described and include appropriate provision for conflict
resolution.
Comment: Yes, this is described in a convincing way.
Proposed co-ordination, reporting and progress monitoring
procedures are clearly described and include mechanisms for
corrective actions as required.
Comment: This seems to be dealt with in a reasonable way.
Project and task level roles and responsibilities are
identified, allocated and suitably distributed amongst the
partners.
Comment: Both responsibility and work are distributed between partners with a heavy part on the two ESI companies plus the IT company.
DURATION AND RESOURCES
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
Gives realistic estimates of the total costs and funding in ECUs for the project as a whole and for each of the partners
separately, and sets out the estimated effort, expressed in
person-years, for each partner and work package in accordance with achieving the results
Comment: There is a detailed plan with person-months given for each aktivity and partner. This seem realistic even if there could have been more time for integration of experiences and for the industry partners to test hte Consultancy Toolset. Costs and fundings are not found in the material.
GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL
Score: [ 4 ] 1=bad, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent
Please give a brief overall assessment of the proposal and
justify the overall rating.
Well written proposal, heavy involvement from industry, detailed plans.
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF RATINGS
CONFORMITY WITH THE SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME [ 4 ]
EUROPEAN DIMENSION [ 4 ]
OBJECTIVES, INNOVATION AND RESULTS [ 5 ]
INDUSTRIAL RELEVANCE [ 5 ]
THE PROPOSERS [ 4 ]
EXPLOITATION PLANNING [ 3 ]
WORK PLANNING [ 4 ]
PROJECT MANAGEMENT [ 4 ]
DURATION AND RESOURCES [ 4 ] Costs and fundings are not validated!
GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL [ 4 ]
---------------------------------------------------------