Cultural Heritage in REGional NETworks REGNET. 24. - 26. June 2002PMG04 Sofia – Management Issues...

Cultural Heritage in REGional NETworksCultural Heritage in REGional NETworks

REGNETREGNET

24. - 26. June 2002 PMG04 Sofia – Management Issues

2Management Issues Management Issues January 2002 – June 2002January 2002 – June 2002

Reporting

2nd Cost Statement

2nd Project Review

Consortium Agreement

2nd Contract Amendment

Deliverables D4 to D6

Current Project Planning


3

ReportingReporting

Reports sent to the Commission:

1st Trimonthly Report 2002-02-28

2nd Trimonthly Report 2002-06-13

2nd Progress Report 2002-06-13

Additional information 2002-06-13

3rd Trimonthly Report 01-04-02 to 30-06-02 please send in til 15 July 2002


4

Cost Statement – Period 2Cost Statement – Period 2

Submission Process 2002-04-19 Start of evalution process according to

Request in 1st official Review report:”The co-operative atmosphere in the team is excellent. Due to the number of

partners, the co-ordinator must carefully check the progress of each task.”

And Annex II, Article 2(c)”Role of the coordinator.....

He shall submit to the Commission the ..[CST, PR, FR and TR]... after incorporating the content of data provided by the contractors and verifying their consistency with any corresponding cost statement, ...”

Questions arose regarding CC, SPAC and TINC


5

Cost Statement – Period 2 Cost Statement – Period 2 (SPACE)(SPACE)


6


O 10. ClusteringUnion catalogue, network-wide access to meta-collections, data exchange, meta-search functionality. This will be based on activities carried out by REGNET. The integration between OpenHeritage and REGNET will be assured by the introduction of Index+ as one of the enabling technologies the REGNET architecture will rely on. This will make the TSCs perfectly compatible with the core collections management technology established by OpenHeritage for use at the local level;

In terms of resources, the impact of clustering can be described as follows: In WP1, there will be a decrease of SPACE’s budget in the resources devoted to the development of a data entry component by 6 Person Months, and in WP2 a decrease by 5 PMs. In WP2 there is also a decrease by 3 PMs related to the effort of AIT. WP3 was reduced by 2 PM (AIT), which means a decrease of the version-2 development of the REGNET system. By the resulting amount (16 PMs) the development activities related to data generation will be decreased.


7



8

Cost Statement – Period 2 Cost Statement – Period 2 (TINC)(TINC)


9



10



11



12



13


Final Results

CC issue solved by shift of resources to WP3

SPAC issue regarded as not solved: no delivery of technical development,no delivery of index+ within an appropriate time spandelivery of updated version IR61 only after several requests from the coordinator – not worked out

carefully (REGNET conference organization?)

TINC issue regarded as not solved: no delivery of T2.5 contribution or task leadership as required from official 1st Review Report and REGNET contract


14


Reaction of partnersTINC

not agreeing to shift resources which need to be done due to the emergency procedures carried out nowofficial letter requesting to leave the consortium because of „having accomplished its core work within REGNET“

SPAC agreeing to reduce budget by 11 PM nevertheless claiming costs for developmentputting into question the clustering (email 8.5. Openheritage list) - although received D3 and D6Not signing non-disclosure agreement


15


Cost Statement 2 was transferred to the Commission together with TR2 and PR2 on 13 June 2002 and the Additional Information File containing

AIT – new addressIMAC – shift between categoriesSUL – shift between categoriesVALT – shift between categoriesTINC – official letter on leaving the consortiumDetails on consumables and actual labour rates from various partners, subcontractor invoice

PR2 containing coordinator request to shift resources from TINC and SPAC to partners that took over their responsibilitiesPR2 containing coordinator request toterminate clustering


16Comments from the EC – Comments from the EC – received Friday 21 June 2002received Friday 21 June 2002

IMAC please provide proof of prior approval for travel to Zurich and Bern, Switzerland.

SPACE, CONSORZIO CIVITA please confirm travel dates

ICCS charge personnel costs for permanent staff. AC partners can only charge personnel costs for temporary staff recruted for the project. Personnel costs will be rejected for all but Chakarov in cs 2. An adjsutment to permanent personnel costs accepted in cs 1 will be made by us when processing cs 2. Please provide copies of work contracts for temporary staff .

VALTECH please confirm name of financial officer who signed the claim

ONB, Imac, Motorola, Fratelli Alinari, Granollers, Zeus, Valtech and Terra Incognita charge the same labour rates for all staff. Do the labour rates charged correspond to actual costs paid to staff. Real actual costs need to be claimed and not budgeted rates.

Partners inform us of budget shifts less than 20% of their budgets through the cost

statement. Can you send us a new set of CPFs integrating all changes and an explanatory letter explaining all changes made.


17

Project ReviewProject Review

2nd Project Review: advanced to 4 July 2002, LuxembourgDue to open clustering-T2.2.2/SPAC and T2.5/TINC issues

14 June 2002Review Agenda and updated Deliverables sent in electronic version to the reviewing team

18 June 2002Total Review Documentation file sent to the reviewing team in bound paper file and on CD-ROM


18

Consortium AgreementConsortium Agreement

RN_CAv03 (version including museums rights and copyright statement)

Signature Process started at 1st Review

Half of the consortium has already signed

Further signing at Sofia (mandates)


19

22ndnd Contract Amendment Contract Amendment

Relevant changes which should result in a second contract amendment are just being worked out and transferred to the European Commission

Among them are the shift between categories of several partnersAdress changes of AIT and MOTChange of legal representative CCThe request of TINC to leave the consortiumFurthermore a shift of resources (see Progress Report 2) among partners has been suggested resulting from the difficulties that arose regarding SPAC and TINC


20

Deliverables D4 to D6Deliverables D4 to D6

DeliverablesD4 – delivered to the Commission (19.4.2002)

Updated version delivered to review committee (14.6.2002)

D5 – delivered to the Commission (19.4.2002)Updated version delivered to review committee (14.6.2002)

D6 – it has been agreed with the Commission (9 April) to deliver a first version of D6 and to extend the

deadline for the delivery of the final version until end of

June 2002.

First version delivered to the Commission (19.4.2002)Second version delivered to review committee (14.6.2002)Final version planned for 30 June 2002


21

Current Project PlanningCurrent Project Planning

Cultural Heritage in REGional NETworks REGNET. 24. - 26. June 2002PMG04 Sofia – Management Issues...

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Heritage in REGional NETworks REGNET. 24. - 26. June 2002PMG04 Sofia – Management Issues...