5.1

Programme Name: Information Society Technologies (IST)

Sector: Road transport

Project Number: IST-2001-34141

Project Acronym: ActMAP

Project Name: Actual and dynamic MAP for transport telematic applications

Deliverable Type: Restricted (internal)

Deliverable Number: D1.1

Contractual Date of Delivery: 30/06/2002

Actual date of delivery: 9/07/2002

Title of Deliverable: ActMAP Quality Manual

Work Package: WP1

Nature of the Deliverable: RE-Report

Author(s): Jean-Charles Pandazis (ERTICO)

Edwin Bastiaensen (ERTICO)

Project manager: Edwin Bastiaensen (ERTICO)

Tel: +32 2 400 07 31, fax: +32 2 400 07 01

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: This document describes the overall organisation of the ActMAP project as well as the different means which will be taken by ActMAP to produce high quality outputs meeting EC re-quirements. The operational mechanisms described in this document will be used during the en-tire lifetime of the project. This living document will be amended during the course of the project whenever necessary.

Keyword list: ActMAP, Quality Manual, ActMAP organisation, responsibilities, reporting to EC, financial management, document formatting.

mailto:[email protected]

ActMAP Quality Manual

Final Version 10

9 July 2002

Produced by:ERTICO

IST-2001-34141 - ActMAP D1.1: ActMAP Quality Manual

Ref: 011v10Document Control Sheet

Activity name: ActMAP

Work area: WP1 - Project Management

Document title: ActMAP Quality Manual

Document number: D1.1Document reference: 011v10Electronic reference: document.doc

Main author(s) or editor(s): Jean-Charles Pandazis

Other author(s):

Dissemination level1: Restricted to project participants

Version history:

Version Date Main author Summary of changesdraft 01 12/04/02 J-Ch. Pandazis Creation of the documentdraft 02 05/06/02 J-Ch. Pandazis Include partners commentsdraft 03 24/06/02 J-Ch. Pandazis

E. BastiaensenVersion for peer review

Final 10 09/07/02 E. Bastiaensen Spelling errors, include comments peer reviewers

Approval:

Name DatePrepared E. Bastiaensen, J-Ch. Pandazis 25/06/02Reviewed K. Baptista

M. Oosterhoudt25/06/0201/07/02

Authorised G. Freij 09/07/02

Circulation:

Recipient Date of submissionActMAP project partners, peer reviewers 25/06/02ActMAP project partners, EC 10/07/02

1 This is either: Restricted (to the programme and/or, activity partners) or for Public use

9 July 2002 Page i Final 011v10


Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Purpose of document 1

1.2. ActMAP contractual references 1

2. ACTMAP OBJECTIVES 1

3. ACTMAP ORGANISATION 2

3.1. Resources allocation and Personnel allocated to the project 2

3.2. ActMAP structure 3

4. ACTMAP RESPONSIBILITIES 4

4.1. Steering and management committees 4

4.2. Prime Contractor/Project Leader: ERTICO 4

4.3. Workpackage leader: ERTICO, BMW AG, DC AG, Tele Atlas, NAVIGON 4

4.4. All participants 4

5. PREPARATION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTATION 5

5.1. Management Reports 55.1.1. Rationale 55.1.2. Exception 55.1.3. Monthly Reports 55.1.4. Proposed procedure for the production of management reports 7

5.2. Progress Reports 75.2.1. Rationale 75.2.2. Annual Review 75.2.3. Technology Implementation Plan (TIP) 85.2.4. Final Report 8

5.3. Project Deliverables 85.3.1. Rationale 85.3.2. Deliverable content 95.3.3. Structure and format 95.3.4. Peer reviews 95.3.5. Delivery of reports 10

5.4. Cost Statements 10

5.5. General Publicity and Publications 12

5.6. Assessment 12

9 July 2002 Page ii Final 011v10


6. CONTRACTUAL COMMUNICATION PLAN 13

7. ACTIVITY QUALITY PROCEDURES 14

7.1. Contract management 14

7.2. Documentation control 147.2.1. Deliverable production and control quality procedure 147.2.2. Control of project communications 15

7.3. Handling of non-compliance and customer complaint 16

7.4. Mechanisms agreed to protect activity participants from external influences 16

7.5. Documentation exchange rules and ActMAP web site 16

7.6. Organisations of meeting 16

8. ACTMAP FILING SYSTEM 17

8.1. Correspondence register 17

8.2. Document register 17

8.3. Filing system 18

ANNEX 1: RULES FOR DOCUMENT STRUCTURE AND FORMAT 19

A.1 Structure of document 19A.1.1 Introductory Pages 19A.1.2 First Section 19A.1.3 Information on Each Page 20A.1.4 Final Sections 20

A.2 Formatting rules 20

9 July 2002 Page iii Final 011v10


1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of document

This document defines the specific means which will be taken by the ActMAP project to ob-tain quality services for the European Commission and efficient working procedures to be used by ActMAP consortium partners.

1.2. ActMAP contractual references

The ActMAP contract number is IST-2001-34141. It is a contract with the European Com-mission, DG Information Society, effective from 1 April 2002. The contract duration is 30 months.

The Project Officer is Mrs Fabienne Dricot (Tel: +32 2 295 21 40 - Fax: +32 2 296 23 91 – E-mail: [email protected]).

The present contract is completed by a Consortium Agreement (under development) between the ActMAP contracting parties effective retroactively from 1 April 2002.

2. ActMAP objectivesThe overall objective of ActMAP is to investigate and develop standardised mechanisms to deliver actualised map components to be integrated and used by in-vehicle applications.

Map actualisation is defined as both updating existing map-related content and attaching in-formation to and integrating it with a map. This distinction is important, as it will condition the actualisation strategies to be developed by the project. Map components are defined as all elements either coming from the digital map database or third party data such as dynamic information.

The main scientific and technical objectives of ActMAP are to: investigate the need for - and define the type of - actual map components (e.g., geometry,

attributes, dynamical content) for in-vehicle applications; define and propose strategies for the actualisation of map components; develop and evaluate mechanisms for the actualisation of map components in a vehicle; establish harmonised technical specifications for the map actualisation process to be sub-

mitted for ISO standardisation.

ActMAP will concentrate on the development of methods to bring this actualised data from a map centre to a service centre then to the vehicle, in order to be finally used by the in-vehicle application. This development will cut the time currently necessary to have actualised digital map databases in the vehicle. ActMAP will not address how actualised data are gathered, since it is assumed that this information already exists.

9 July 2002 Page 1 Final 011v10


3. ActMAP organisation

3.1. Resources allocation and Personnel allocated to the project

WP# WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 Total

Resources

WP

tit

le

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent

Map

act

ualis

atio

n de

finiti

on a

nd

spec

ifica

tions

(us

er n

eeds

)

Spe

cific

atio

n an

d de

sign

of

the

actu

alis

atio

n pr

oces

s

Spe

cific

atio

n of

the

tes

t en

viro

nmen

t

Impl

emen

tatio

n an

d in

tegr

atio

n of

tes

t en

viro

nmen

t

Val

idat

ion

Liai

son,

sta

n-da

rdis

atio

n an

d di

ssem

inat

ion

Repartition % 7.6% 8.8% 23.6% 8.8% 35.1% 8.8% 7.4% 100.0%Partner Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead Lead TOTAL

Role Name Nb ERTICO BMW Teleatlas DSN DSN DC ERTICO PM

CO ERTICO 1 19.00 4.90 23.90

CR BMW 2 4.00 7.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 2.00 27.00

CR CRF 3 3.00 8.00 3.00 12.50 3.00 1.50 31.00

CR DC 4 3.00 7.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 2.00 27.00

CR Navtech 5 3.00 9.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 2.00 28.00

CR Teleatlas 6 3.00 12.00 3.00 11.10 3.00 2.00 34.10

CR Distefora 7 3.00 9.00 4.00 32.10 3.00 2.00 53.10CR Siemens-VDO 8 3.00 7.00 3.00 8.00 3.00 2.00 26.00

Total 19.00 22.00 59.00 22.00 87.70 22.00 18.40 250.10

Table 1 Resource allocation per partner and WP

Please note (June 2002) that Distefora (DSN) changed its company name in to NAVIGON and Siemens VDO changed its name into Siemens VDO Trading BV, part of Siemens VDO Automotive.

Code Short Name of Institu-tion/Organisation

Personnel involved Role

1 ERTICO Edwin Bastiaensen Project Leader Quality manager Contract manager WP1 and WP7 leader

2 BMW Jan Loewenau WP2 leader Participant in WP3, 4, 5, 6, 7

3 DaimlerChrysler Alexander Bracht WP6 leader Participant in WP2, 3, 4, 5, 7

4 Fiat Research Centre (CRF)

Francesco LilliLuca Capra

Participant in WP2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

5 Navigation Technologies Hans SabelStella van Duren


6 Tele Atlas Hans-Ulrich Otto WP3 leader Participant in WP2, 4, 5, 6, 7

7 NAVIGON Philipp HessJohannes Angenvoort

WP4 and WP5 leader Participant in WP2, 3, 6, 7

8 Siemens VDO Automo-tive

Teun HendriksLeo Beuk


Table 2 Personnel allocated to the project



3.2. ActMAP structure

The following diagrams describe ActMAP’s organisation and its WP structure. For more details on the WP content, refer to the contract’s technical annex (file: 002-ActMAP-An-nex1-v20.doc).

Figure 1 ActMAP project organisation

WP2: Requirements for map actualisation

WP3 Specification and design of theactualisation process

WP4 Specification of the testenvironment

WP5 Implementation oftesting environment

WP1Project management

WP6

Validation

WP7

Liaison

and

dissemination

User forum

ISO

Cluster

EUCAR

Project

Figure 2 ActMAP WP structure



4. ActMAP responsibilities

4.1. Steering and management committees

ActMAP’s decision-making structure will be made up of two management levels: the ActMAP Steering Committee is comprised of all Contractors and operates according

to the Consortium Agreement that supports the contract with the Commission. The Steer-ing Committee is responsible for all strategic decisions, such as changes to the ActMAP work plan (technical annex).

the ActMAP Management Committee is comprised of all Contractors and will be re-sponsible for the management of the project, detailed monitoring regarding the project’s progress and formulation of project recommendations as necessary.

4.2. Prime Contractor/Project Leader: ERTICO

Responsibilities: taking pro-active leadership of the project and its management, including chairing the

Project Steering Committee and the Project Management Committee advising project partners on the progress and performance of the contract carrying out sound financial management of the contract including revenues and pay-

ments plus the performance of partners against their contractual obligations and the Con-sortium Agreement in cooperation with the Project Steering Committee

operating the project’s overall programme and monitoring performance against this pro-gramme in cooperation with the Project Management Committee

guiding the technical work of the work packages through the Project Management Com-mittee, agreeing on the detailed work-plans, monitoring progress, identifying difficulties and implementing minor corrective action

operating and monitoring the project quality control, consensus formation and manage-ment procedures

preparing reports on project performance arranging appropriate technical audits defining quality control procedures according to ISO 9002

4.3. Work Package leader: ERTICO, BMW AG, DC AG, Tele Atlas, NAVIGON

Responsibilities: co-ordinating WP activities by organising the work in line with the project work plan monitoring the WP progress by compiling periodic progress reports to be sent to the pro-

ject co-ordinator and presented to the Project Management Committee

4.4. All participants

Responsibilities: applying the rules defined in this Quality Manual ensuring completion of work according to deadlines achieving high quality work, meeting client’s expectations reporting progress, problems or any other relevant matters to responsible person(s)



5. Preparation of project documentation

5.1. Management Reports

5.1.1. Rationale

The purpose of the management reports is to confirm that the project is progressing in ac-cordance with the project programme, or, if it is not, to give warnings about problems and opportunities and indicate appropriate actions to be taken. ActMAP Contractors must pre-pare monthly reports that shall be sent to the ActMAP project leader no later than the end of the first week of the following month. The ActMAP project leader will use the reports to prepare quarterly reports. The project leader must submit the report to the EC within one month following the end of the reporting period.

According to the EC template, the compiled quarterly report should be brief. -. They should be unformatted (ASCII) or contain only minimal formatting and no logos.

5.1.2. Exception

If the due date for a project’s quarterly report coincides with the due date of its annual progress report, there is no need to submit the quarterly report in question since all of the relevant information will be included within the corresponding progress report.

5.1.3. Monthly Reports

The report compiled by each ActMAP Contractor must reflect the work performed and re-sources consumed during the previous month. WP leaders should also report on the status of their WP and the work achieved as WP leader.The template on next page should be used (project document 016-MMR-form.doc):

The project leader will prepare a quarterly consolidated report on behalf of the entire consor-tium according to the template provided by the Commission.



Monthly report

Name:Company:Reporting Month:Date of preparation:

Summary of work performed (maximum 10 lines):

Significant problems encountered during the reporting period:

Resources consumed during the reporting period per WP, in man-hours:man-hours

WP1 (ERTICO only)WP2WP3WP4WP5WP6WP7

What resources do you plan to used over the next month per WP, in man-hours::man-hours

WP1 (ERTICO only)WP2WP3WP4WP5WP6WP7



5.1.4. Proposed procedure for the production of management reports

1. One week before the end of each month, ERTICO will send an e-mail reminder to the consortium together with the form to be used.

2. Contributions from all consortium partners should be sent to ERTICO before the end of the first week of the following month.

3. Every three months, ERTICO will compile the quarterly management report (Quarterly Report) and send it to the EC (copied to the partners) at the latest two months after the end of the reporting period.

5.2. Progress Reports

5.2.1. Rationale

Progress reports provide the details behind the quarterly reports, demonstrate how deliver-ables correctly meet quality standards, and provide a realistic appraisal of technical progress against plan. Progress reports can also be seen as providing the Commission with a record to judge expectations of added value against the contract.

Beside the quarterly reports mentioned in section 5.1, there are two types of progress re-ports:

The periodic project report, which corresponds to the cost statement period. This report will use the same template as the quarterly report, but will include figures from the whole reporting period.

The final report based on the EC template which summarises the entire project’s work and results.

The final report is due two months after the end of the project work (M32). If the final re-port is restricted, it must be accompanied by an edited report for publication.

5.2.2. Annual Review

The purpose of the Annual Project Review is to obtain an independent view of the quality, progress and continued relevance of the project, as judged against the contract, technology and market developments, and the original Council Decision. The outcome is either to con-tinue the project, possibly with modifications to the work plan, or to hold an in-depth audit with a view to decide on major changes or termination.

The exact methods and requirements are issued by the Commission services in advance of each review.



5.2.3. Technology Implementation Plan (TIP)

Each EC-funded project must produce a Technology Implementation Plan, which (TIP which is the D7.5) concentrates on the results (services and products). As the level of confid-entiality with which the material in this document is treated depends on the partners' inten-tions for exploitation, it is important to clearly show how it should be treated. A first version of the TIP will be produced in M20 and the final version at the end of the pro-ject in M30. The TIP will be based on the template and guideline provided by the EC.

5.2.4. Final Report

The Final Report (D1.2) is required within two months after the end of the project. It must cover all the work, objectives, results and conclusions of the project, including a suit-able summary of all these issues.

The Final Report covers the entire period of the project and should:

summarise the entire project, comparing original objectives with final achievements, planned resources with actual as well as explain any differences encountered during the project’s lifespan

contain a comprehensive report on exploitation aspects

contain additional technical supporting detail - typically in the annexes.

The Final Report will be reviewed in conjunction with the consolidated cost statement for the entire project to help reach a decision about release of the final payment.

5.3. Project Deliverables

5.3.1. Rationale

Project deliverables represent and embody project results, and are the principal raison d'être of the project. They show that the proposed goal of the project has been achieved and provide a record of the work carried out and fulfilment of legal obligations.

To ensure that all required references are available and avoid clerical errors and unnecessary questions, certain information is specified for inclusion in each deliverable - including soft-ware and demonstrators. Each project deliverable should also be accompanied by a peer re-view report (see section 5.3.4).

One electronic copy and two paper copies of each deliverable should be submitted. The due dates for deliverables are specified in the Annex 1 of the contract (i.e. technical annex). These due dates are also presented in chapter 6 (communication plan).

In ActMAP, deliverables can be of two types: report (of findings, recommendations, or trials at various stages); object (a physical demonstrator, prototype).



For physical demonstrators, prototypes, tools, etc., an Executive Summary should neverthe-less be submitted describing the physical deliverable and stating both where it runs and can be observed.

5.3.2. Deliverable content

Deliverables should take into account the goals of the project, details and objectives of the WP, as well as the objectives of the programme. It is therefore implied that every deliverable must meet appropriate standards for: achievements and professional quality of work coverage of the subject, as stated in the contract being representative of real-life cases (if appropriate) handling of problems or errors (if appropriate) level of detail and amount of supporting information provided to the user security and confidentiality considerations the approach taken

These are the criteria used for acceptance by the Commission.

The procedure describing the development and approval of ActMAP output before re-lease to the client is described in section 7.2.1.

5.3.3. Structure and format

Rules to be applied for the structure and the formatting of project deliverables are described in Annex 1 of this document.

5.3.4. Peer reviews

Each project deliverable submitted to the Commission should be accompanied by a peer re-view report. This report should contain information on the procedure used for the peer re-view, a list of the participants, and the results of the review. The review results should high-light all major shortcomings detected. There should also be a comment by the consortium about the actions taken or actions planned as a result of the peer review.

The reviewers should be “real” peers in the sense that they are either experts in the specific subject covered by the deliverable, and / or represent the users addressed by the application or service. It is the responsibility of the WP leader to find peer reviewers for reports produced in his WP.

The review should involve a sufficient number of people (minimum two) who did not participate in the writing of the document to provide credible feedback and validation of the deliverable. Peer reviewers could be chosen from other project with which ActMAP is clustered or they may be ActMAP partners who did not participate in the writing of the deliv-



erable. A list of the reviewers and a short (2/3 lines) CV for each is included in the peer re-view document. The reviewers should be given a briefing and instructions about what is expected of them. Their comments should, as a minimum, include an assessment of the deliverable and be structured according to the following headlines:

A list of the reviewers and a short (2/3 lines) CV of each of them correspondence to project, sector and programme objectives depth and extent of coverage relevance contribution to the state of the art clarity of presentation of achievements summary of the main feedback to the project, and the project response

ERTICO will prepare a common template to perform Peer Review (see project document 018v10-PeerReviewFormTemplate.doc).

Finally, the project will produce a report summarising the main feedback of the project, which also provides more information concerning the project’s response.

5.3.5. Delivery of reports

The project leader shall submit one electronic copy and two paper copies of each deliv-erable to the EC. One electronic copy and two paper copies of the peer appraisal of the de-livery will be sent at the same time as the deliverable.

The electronic version should arrive no later than the close of business on the day following the due date of the deliverable, as specified in the technical annex. The paper versions should arrive no later than four working days after the due date of the deliverable, as specified in the technical annex. The deliverable will be considered complete only when the correct numbers of paper copies, the peer review and a readable electronic version have been received by the EC.

5.4. Cost Statements

Two original signed cost statements (CS) shall be submitted through ERTICO according to the table hereafter.

When the cost claim or total costs claimed during the project exceeds €250,000, an audit cer-tificate must be produced by the partner according to the EC- defined process (see CORDIS website address ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/ist/docs/b_finaud_en_200102.pdf and http://www.cordis.lu/ist/audit_faq.htm).

The following process will be followed to produce the CS:

A draft cost statement must be sent to ERTICO (preferably by e-mail) no later than three weeks after the end of the reporting period and the format must comply with the form



included in Annex II part E-1 of the contract with the EC (the template for each period will be available on the ActMAP web site).

Within one week, the project leader will check draft cost statements. He will confirm to the partners if they are correct or if any modification/clarification are necessary.

The two original copies of the final version of the cost statements must be signed and sent to ERTICO by the partners no later than seven weeks after the end of the reporting period.

ERTICO will compile a consolidated cost statement and will send it to the EC two months at the latest after the end of the reporting period (as mentioned in the con-tract).

In other words, Project Contractors submit cost statements, which include cost claims for la-bour, travel expenses and resources used by their subcontractors, if applicable. Cost claims should reflect the work performed and resources used as stated by the partners in their monthly reports for the considered period.

ERTICO checks the partner’s cost statements, compiles the summary reports and prepares the project cost claim to be submitted to the Commission Service together with the corres-ponding progress report (i.e. periodic report), within two months after the end of the report-ing period.

After acceptance of the cost statement by the Commission Service, ERTICO will circulate the actual amounts to be distributed to partners accordingly. ERTICO will instruct its bank to transfer the EC funding as soon as it is received. Contractors will send their banking refer-ences to ERTICO at the beginning of the project, which will be used by ERTICO for all pay-ments made during the project.

The reporting periods and corresponding cost statements are reported in the following table:

Reporting Period Contractors send their Cost Statement to ERTICO

ERTICO submits cost statements to EC

1 April 2002 to March 2003 15 April 2003 31 May 2003

2 April 2003 to March 2004 15 April 2004 31 May 2004

3 April to September 2004 15 October 2004 31 November 2004

Within 30 days from the first day of the project, an advance payment will be paid to each Contractor by the EC, the amount of which is determined in the contract.

In order for ERTICO to distribute these payments, for the first payment, each partner will be asked to send (i.e. the advance payment) a payment request using the form provided by ER-TICO specifying their bank references.



The expected payment schedule is as follow:

Payments Expected date Payment based on

Advance April 2002 Payment request sent to ERTICO

1st August 2003 Cost claim accepted by the EC

2nd August 2004 Cost claim accepted by the EC

Retained 15% >January 2005 Cost claim accepted by the EC

In all cases ERTICO will receive the money from the EC. Then: For the first payment, ERTICO will pay each partner according to the advance payment

amount indicated in the contract, but a payment request including bank references will be required from each partner.

For the other payments, ERTICO will pay each partner the exact amount of the partner cost claim accepted by the EC.

5.5. General Publicity and Publications

The process to be adopted by all ActMAP consortium partners for publicity and publication of project results is:

any member of the ActMAP consortium shall provide ERTICO with a copy of the mater-ial (paper, slides, etc.) that he/she intends to present or publish. ERTICO will decide if it is necessary to ask the EC’s permission in order to present the material.

each member of the consortium who is using ActMAP resources to attend a meeting tak-ing place outside planned ActMAP activities requires the prior approval of ERTICO (the project leader).

The aim of this process is to ensure a consistent corporate image of the project.

5.6. Assessment

The responsible Project Officer of the Commission will assess all deliverables. When deemed necessary by the Project Officer, deliverables may also be sent to independent experts for ap-praisal. Such experts will be agreed upon between the Commission and the project, and will be bound by confidentiality declarations.

Project officers and experts will complete a standard evaluation report for internal Commis-sion use. Evaluation reports are recommendations to the Commission for acceptance or rejec-tion of individual deliverables. However, the Commission is free to accept or reject any re-commendations, and decisions about deliverable acceptance are entirely at the discretion of the Commission.



6. Contractual communication planThe administrative and technical output of the project is listed in the following table, which will be used to follow project progress against contractual deadlines.

Deliverable/document name WP nb Delivery(contract)

Delivered

D1.1 Quality Manual 1 06/2002D1.2 Final report 1 11/2004D2.1 Preliminary map actualisation requirements 2 11/2002D2.2 Final map actualisation requirements 2 09/2004D3.1 Specification of actualisation strategies, map components

version control and interfaces3 07/2003

D3.2 Revised specifications of actualisation strategies, map components version control and interfaces

3 09/2004

D3.3 Standardisation proposal to ISO 3 09/2004D4 Test environment specification, including test scenario de-

scription.4 05/2004

D5.1 Test environment 5 05/2004D5.2 Implementation and integration report 5 09/2004D6.1 Validation plan 6 05/2003D6.2 Validation results 6 09/2004D7.1 Project presentation (project summary) 7 07/2002D7.2 ActMAP project web site 7 07/2002D7.3 Dissemination and Use plan 7 09/2002D7.4.1 First User group workshop proceedings 7 11/2002D7.4.2 Second User group workshop proceedings 7 07/2004D7.5 Technological Implementation Plan 7 09/2004

Other known contractual reports or documents to be delivered:

Tri-Monthly progress Reports (QR - Quarterly Report)QR: 1st tri-monthly progress report 1 ERTICO 07/2002

QR: 2nd tri-monthly progress report 1 ERTICO 10/2002

QR: 3rd tri-monthly progress report 1 ERTICO 01/2003

QR: 4th tri-monthly progress report and periodic report 1 ERTICO 04/2003

QR: 5th tri-monthly progress report 1 ERTICO 07/2003



QR: 8th tri-monthly progress report and periodic report 1 ERTICO 04/2004



Cost Statements

CS: 1st Cost Statement 1 ERTICO 05/2003

CS: 2nd Cost Statement 1 ERTICO 05/2004

CS: Final Cost Statement (sent with the final report) 1 ERTICO 11/2004



7. Activity quality procedures

As ERTICO is ISO-9002 certified, the ActMAP project leader will implement the procedures of the ERTICO Quality System.

7.1. Contract management

ERTICO is responsible for maintaining current files on the contract, and is responsibile to provide contractors with copies.

Any amendment to the contract will be arranged with ERTICO.

It is the responsibility of the contractors to ensure that agreements are drawn up for their sub-contractors, if any, and that they conform with the obligations of the ActMAP contract.

7.2. Documentation control

The rules for document structure and formatting are described in Annex 1.

7.2.1. Deliverable production and control quality procedure

Each deliverable will be produced and approved as proposed by the following:

The WP leader will nominate a responsible person, hereafter the editor, for the production and writing of the deliverable (the editor can be the WP leader).

The editor will appoint a minimum of two Peer Reviewers and provide them with the ap-propriate timescales and information on the analysis framework.

Based on the technical annex of the contract, the scope of the document (as a reminder about the purpose of the document) and the table of contents will be drafted by the editor and submitted to the partners for comments.

A short description of what needs to be written for each section must then be proposed by the editor and circulated or discussed during a meeting.

Writing responsibilities for the different parts of the document will be agreed upon by the partners involved in the WP. In addition, a writing schedule will be agreed upon which will take the following into account: the deliverable deadline, the peer review process (two weeks minimum), the project internal reviewing process.

Contributions must be sent to the editor by e-mail with the WP leader and project leader in copy (i.e. contributions should not be sent to all of the partners - it is the responsibility of the editor to forward them further if necessary).

The editor will check the contributions and return any contribution that needs to be re-vised to the author.



The editor will consolidate all of the contributions ensuring that the report submission deadline can be met. A first version of the document will be circulated among the partners for comment for a period of usually two weeks (one week if possible).

If necessary, comments and new partners’ contributions will be integrated by the editor in a second version of the document to be re-circulatedaccording to the previous procedure. If necessary, more iterations can be performed.

The editor will then produce a final draft version of the document. This will be done at least two weeks before contractual submission date. This final draft report will be sent to the peer reviewers and the ActMAP consortium for a final round of comments (at least one week should be taken into account in the planning of the peer review phase).

The editor will produce the peer review report and produce a final version of the docu-ment to be submitted to the EC including, when relevant, the peer reviewers’ and part-ners' comments.

If major changes were introduced, this final version will then be circulated among the partners for three days in order to gain final approval by the consortium before submis-sion by ERTICO to the EC

ERTICO will check the output against the specifications described in the annex of the ActMAP Quality Manual.

ERTICO will approve the document and send it to the EC. A letter stating that ERTICO authorises the submission of the report to the EC on behalf of the consortium will accom-pany the document.

The output will then be assessed by the EC.

For each output, an official approval will be sent to ERTICO by the EC. This will be kept by ERTICO.

7.2.2. Control of project communications

ERTICO is responsible for recording all relevant communications with the client and between the consortium partners.

It is ERTICO’s responsibility to forward relevant communications to the consortium part-ners.

It is the responsibility of the consortium partners to put the project leader in copy con-cerning relevant communication.

It is the responsibility of each consortium partner to set up a proper filing system for in-coming and outgoing documents.

ERTICO is responsible for the entire archiving of the project outputs.



7.3. Handling of non-compliance and customer complaint

ERTICO is responsible for dealing with the internal non-conformities that could occur within the project.

ERTICO is responsible for dealing with all complaints of the EC or potential clients of ActMAP output according to the ERTICO procedure dealing with that matter.

ERTICO has the responsibility to make suggestions for all cases and to inform relevant persons.

7.4. Mechanisms agreed to protect activity participants from external influ-ences

In case any ActMAP consortium partners fails to meet its contractual obligations, ERTICO will propose actions to be taken in concertation with relevant partners (e.g.; WP or site lead-ers). These actions can include a reallocation of tasks between consortium members, a redis-tribution of resources or a modification to the consortium agreement. ERTICO will commu-nicate the decision to all the Consortium partners and the EC Project Officer. These matters should be handled by the Project Steering Committee.

7.5. Documentation exchange rules and ActMAP web site

All relevant ActMAP documents will be stored on the ActMAP document Server and will be accessible at any time via a password. . The URL is:

http://www.ertico.com/activiti/projects/actmap/home.htm

7.6. Organisations of meeting

The meeting venue and date will be agreed upon by the ActMAP consortium partners.

The invitation to the meeting will be sent by the project leader or his deputy at least two weeks before the meeting by e-mail with acknowledgement receipt. Confirmation of participation within one week is required by each participant.

The meeting report will include at least:

- date- venue- list of attendees- meeting summary- list of actions- timing for action implementation- date of next meeting

The meeting report will be sent to the attendees for comments to be received by a max-imum two weeks after the meeting and will be approved at the following meeting.


http://www.ertico.com/activiti/projects/actmap/home.htm


8. ActMAP filing systemThe ActMAP filing system has been developed in order to identically match the electronic and paper filing, i.e. the numbering/referencing system for the files, documents and corres-pondence is the same on both media. Only two registers are necessary to fully identify and trace correspondence and documents:

the correspondence register (IN-OUT mail); the document register (IN-OUT documents).

8.1. Correspondence register

For relevant incoming and outgoing correspondence, a unique correspondence register file has been created which includes the following fields:

Field Description Field Description

Ref (cXXX) Incremental reference number Subject Subject description

Date Date when sent or received File # Always stored in file 020

Type (L, F, E) Letter, Fax, E-mail I/O/B Incoming, Outgoing,

Both (requiring an action)

Sender-Receiver Name of Reply ref Reply reference number

Organisation Name of Reply date Date of the reply

The corresponding electronic file name, if any, keeps the reference number XXX and the date (ymmdd), adds a short description (desc) and the file extension (ext): cXXX-ymmdd-desc.ext

8.2. Document register

For relevant incoming and outgoing documents, a unique document register file has been cre-ated which includes the following fields:

Field Description Field Description

Ref (XXX-

vYY)

Incremental reference number with

version number (vYY) if necessary

I/O Input/Output document

File # (FFF) File number FFF Addressed to

Date Date when sent/received Copied to

Main Author Name of Title Document title

Organisation Name of Status (d/f/s) Draft, final or superseded doc.

The corresponding electronic file name, if any, keeps the reference number XXXvYY, a short description (desc) and the file extension (ext): XXXvYY-desc.ext



8.3. Filing system

The project has both a physical filing system, with one file for each numbered section, and an identical electronic filing system. The electronic system is located on the personal/portable PC of the project leader and all electronic files which are registered are regularly backed up on the ERTICO server drive G:\projects\ActMAP.

The current categories are listed as follows to illustrate the filing system used:

File # Description

000 General matters (include document register)

010 Contract

020 Correspondence (includes correspondence register)

021 Contacts

030 Quality

040 Communication

050 Budget

060 Meetings

070 Presentation

100 WP1

110 Progress report

115 Quarterly report

120 Resource monitoring

130 Finance monitoring

131 Cost statements

190 Final report

200 WP2

300 WP3

400 WP4

500 WP5

600 WP6

700 WP7



Annex 1: Rules for document structure and format

A.1 Structure of document

A.1.1 Introductory Pages

a) Cover page contentThe cover (or facing) page of each deliverable should include the following information (see also front page of the present document): programme name (IST) sector: Road Transport project logo project acronym contract number deliverable number (as specified on Form C3 included in the contract) deliverable title (as specified on Form C3 included in the contract) deliverable version number deliverable nature, dissemination level and type:

- nature - prototype / demonstrator; report; specification; tool; other- dissemination level - public usage; limited to programme participants; restricted to

project participants- type - project deliverable as defined in Annex 4 of the contract; submitted on request

deliverable date prepared project's internal reference for the deliverable name(s) of author(s) and project participants contributing to the deliverable project technical manager - name, organisation, telephone, fax, e-mail abstract (10-15 lines maximum) keywords list

b) List of contentsA table of contents with page numbers should follow the cover page.

A.1.2 First Section

The first section of the document should be a synopsis, or general executive overview, suc-cinctly summarising the content of the deliverable. The executive summary may be made widely available and should enable non-technical decision-makers and decision-influencers to decide whether or not the results are of interest to them.

For public documents, it is intended to make the executive summary available via the Inter-net on Commission servers. It is therefore essential that the executive summary does not ex-ceed one page. Documents with longer executive summaries may be rejected.



A.1.3 Information on Each Page

Following the cover page, each page should include the following information in the head-ers / footers: project acronym contract number deliverable number (as specified in technical annex) version number and date page number

A.1.4 Final Sections

The following sections should be included at the end of the document, unless they appear after the abstract.

a) BibliographyA list of relevant reference publications should be included.

b) GlossaryA glossary of all abbreviations used in the document should be included.

A.2 Formatting rules

The main rules to be applied in ActMAP are described below. These have been applied in the present document and if agreed by the consortium members, this document can become a ref-erence for the other reports of ActMAP.

A4 paper

Text in 12 point Times New Roman

Chapters and sections in Arial

Two blank lines left before each title, excluding new pages

Upper and lower margins: 2.54 cm - 1 inch

Left and right margin: 2.54 cm - 1 inch

Single spacing

Blank lines instead of indents between paragraphs

Document control sheetEach ActMAP report will have a document control sheet similar to the one used in this re-port. This sheet will include information such as other records on document history and ap-provals for distribution by responsible persons.



Deliverable trace abilityThis will be ensured with the version matrix included in the document control sheet. The contractor/subcontractors responsible for a given report will be in charge of maintaining ac-curate and up-to-date records on the status of the deliverable.

Tables and FiguresTables and figures must be numbered sequentially. Both must have a reasonably explanatory title, be centred below the table/figure and written in boldface type.

ReferencesA list of all sources on which the report depends should be given following the body of the text and citations should be made to this list at appropriate places in the text. The following formats shall be used:

BookGUEZ, F., ROBERT, C., LAURET, A. Les cartes à microcircuit: techniques et applications. Paris, Masson, 1988: pp. 125-149.

Article in periodicalHARBAUGH, C. Congestion pricing prospects. Traffic Technology International Dec. ‘97/Jan. ‘98: pp. 19-20.

ReportJESTY, P.H., GAILLET, J-F, GIEZEN, J., FRANCO, G., LEIGHTON, I., SCHULTZ, H-J. Guidelines for the Development and Assessment of Intelligent Transport System Architec-tures. Brussels, ‘98, CONVERGE project: pp. I-1 - I-10.

The entries shall be listed in the alphabetical order by the author’s last name; when there are two or more entries by the same author or group of authors these shall be listed in the order of publication date. The name(s) of the author(s), the publication date and, where appropri-ate, the specific page number, should be cited in the text (name(s)/date citations).


5.1

Business

Transcript of 5.1