Mid-term report -- final stretch

We are now hitting the last stretch: we need to get things done by the end of next week, Feb 10, to allow us time to review the whole document, fill in factual data (events held, publications, etc.).

This post is for WP leaders, partners and their collaborators,

@Alberto (ER), @Lakomaa (EHFF), @Rossana_Torri (Città di Milano), @Costantino (WeMake), @markomanka (SCIMPLULSE) and @LuceChiodelliUB (UBx) – and of course myself :slight_smile:

The DSI Fair gave me the occasion to review the documents we are collectively writing to build the mid-term report:

Technical report Part A

Technical report Part B

I comment each of these in separate comments. Please read carefully.

Technical report Part B

WP leaders need to be done with their contributions by the end of next week, Feb 10. This primarily concerns section 1.2 focusing on each WP:

  • WP1 (leader Marco @markomanka )
  • WP2 (leader @Alberto t)
  • WP3 (leader @Costantino )
  • WP4 (leader Erik @Lakomaa )
  • WP5 (leader Guy)
  • WP6 (leader Guy together with Luce @LuceChiodelliUB )

We need to comply with the expected format: each task requires a short text reporting on work done. I also like the idea of including a subsection describing « what we will do in the coming year » (I’m borrowing it from Erik). Leader may ask contributions from other partners/task leaders.

You also need to contribute in later sections (as well as the first section 1.1 going over the project’s objectives).

(Page 1) Section 1.1 Objectives (thanks Alberto for taking the lead on this one)

(Page 18) Section 1.3 Impact

(Page 19) Section 2 Update of the plan for exploitation and dissemination of results

It is here we want to provide explanations on how we dealt with budget re-assignment. Luce takes the lead, partners make sure they agree with how things are reported.

(Page 20) Section 3 Update of the data management plan

(Page 21) Section 5 is where partners may provide useful information about how unplanned situations were dealt with. Budget only partially used, tasks only partially completed or later than planned, etc.

Technical report Part A is partially redundant with part B, but it is mandatory. My understanding is that Part A should adopt a “Executive summary” style.

Section 1.1 Objectives has been taken care of by @Alberto

Section 1.2 summarizes things that are reported in Part B / Section 1.2

Section 1.3 Progress beyond the state of the art – thanks to @Alberto and @Rossana_Torri for their contributions. We still need contribution from other WP leaders.

Section 5 needs contributions – see @Alberto comments in the GDoc.

Looks like we are done

Ok, just checked back. It looks like everything needed from Edgeryders is there.

OK for Comune di Milano

I added some more paragraphs about our activities/impacts just yesterday (our contributions are marked by Comments such as "Done for Comune di Milano).

I guess we are done with the document, even though we are available to further contributions/clarifications once the general frame of WPs will be completed by WP leaders.

Tomorrow I’ll check again!


WP6 - Report on Task 6.3 by SCIMPULSE

WP6, SCIMPULSE as task 6.3 leader.

This is just a reminder for @markomanka

A round of review by @Alberto ER, on the whole of WP6 will be much appreciated when the writing is done. UBx will go over task 6.1 and 6.2 again this week.



Save the dates – March 8 or 9

Please all WP leaders and partners broadcast to all, @Alberto (ER), @markomanka (SCIMPULSE), @Costantino (WeMake), @Rossana_Torri (Città di MIlano), @Lakomaa (EHFF) and @LuceChiodelliUB

Loretta finally announced the potential dates for the review: March 8 or 9.

She also asks whether our Brussels partner could provide find us a room for the venue (!). I was astonished – just as you must be right now – but she did ask this question. She more precisely wrote “It would be great if your Brussels partner could have a meeting room venue (let me know if this is possible) otherwise the EC room availability will decide which day to have the review here in the EC Beaulieu offices.”

Please shout loud if the date is a problem, but only shout if it is a major problem with no solution — in other words, try finding a solution before shouting.

Major problem :slight_smile:

… for the 8th. I am doing this: I Dinosauri live a Roma . No easy solution to this one: it was booked months ago, tickets are being sold and the show can’t happen if I’m not there. :-)

I could catch an early flight from Rome to Brussels on the 9th, and be there late morning - lunchtime.

That week, the 8th is my only commitment so far. 6th and 7th would be possible, in the sense of being in Brussels for the full day. 10th is now free, but it could become full.

Alternatively, I could ask one of my colleagues to replace me.

March 10 it will be

Just got a vonfirmation letter from Loretta, our review will take place in Brussels on March 10.

Our three reviewers are:

It is a good idea to have a close look at who are these persons, what scientific interest they have, and try to “guess” how they might read our research, and of course evaluate our work. It is also good to, in a sense, prepare our report and presentation with this in mind.

(Copy-pasted content of invitation letter)


Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology

Net Futures

Next Generation Internet



Prof. Guy Melancon

Université de Bordeaux

351 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence, France

Sent by email only

Subject:           H2020 Project OPEN CARE – 688670

Invitation to the First Review on 10th March 2017

Cher Prof. Melancon,

In accordance with Article II.4, II.5 and II.23 of the Grant Agreement, I hereby inform you of the Commission’s intention to hold the final project review meeting on 31st January 2017 in Rome at the DSI Fair premises.

The objective of my monitoring or review meeting will be to establish:

  • the degree of fulfilment of the project work plan for the final period and the completion of all contractual deliverables;
  • the scientific results and project results dissemination;
  • the resources planned and utilised in relation to the achieved progress, in a manner consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness;
  • the management procedures and methods of the project;
  • the beneficiaries’ contributions and integration within the project;
  • the expected potential impact (to social innovation) and the beneficiaries' plan for the use and dissemination of results;

In accordance with your contractual obligations (article II.4), please submit to the Reviewers named below all period reports and deliverables ten days prior to the review meeting date. Reporting obligations must be completed within 60 days following the end of the reporting period. For reporting templates and instructions see: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/project_reporting_en.pdf

At the review meeting, reviewers need to see an overview of the progress of work, project, including OPEN CARE achievements and attainment of milestones identified in the grant agreement. Reporting should include the differences between work expected to be carried out in accordance with Annex I and work actually carried out (table and explanation of the use of the resources per WP and per beneficiary). The EC needs to receive an electronic financial statement from each beneficiary together with a summary financial report consolidating the claimed Community contribution of all the beneficiaries in an aggregate form, based on the template Form Cs (Annex VI) accurately completed by each beneficiary. You can submit these reports and financial statements using the NEF tool found at the following link: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/nef/frontoffice/.

As reviewers I have selected three out of the four independent experts below:

  • Prof Frauke Behrendt, University of Sussex (UK)
  • Prof Pietro Lio', Cambridge University (UK)
  • Prof Andriana Prentza, University of the Aegean (GR)

Please note that you may raise objections with regard to one or several experts within one week of receipt of this letter. These objections must be based on grounds of commercial confidentiality. I remind you that all direct contacts with the experts concerning the project review appraisal before the meeting must be avoided. Please get in touch with me as your project officer in case you need to contact them. Make sure to give the reviewers access to all deliverables.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and inform your partners of its content. A list of individuals and organizations attending the review meeting to represent the project needs to be agreed two weeks prior to the review meeting. Also the reviewers need to have access to all the first year deliverables no later than one week prior to the review meeting.

Looking forward to the review meeting,

Yours sincerely,


Loretta ANANIA

Programme Officer

Enc:                          Agenda

Prof Frauke Behrendt declined

Loretta wrote to inform us that Prof Behrendt declined her invitation to review the project (I would have expected reviewers to be confirmed before sending the invitation, but I guess things had t happen fast). As I was telling Loretta:

“I had noted that Professor Behrendt is knowledgeable in digital cultures, urban governance, her link with the MacArthur Foundation, etc. To me she was a best fit for our jury (!).”

"The other two reviewers’ profile show they are knowledgeable in healthcare issues which is also quite good. Andriana Prentza’s profile seems more ICT-technology oriented (software engineering, semantic web, …), while that of Pietro Lio’ is closer to bio-informatics and bio-medicine

(neurosciences). At first sight, they seem less connected with the CAPSSI alternative culture we nurture and build upon."

“I might be wrong — I suppose you know them well. And they must have had a look at the proposal abstract and objectives before accepting to review the project.”

I have asked whether we could suggest names of experts (with whom we have not directly worked, of course).

Please let me know if you have any idea.


How about Pedro Oliveira or someone from Patient Innovation?

Or Gareth Presch or someone from WHIS?


call - doodle

so, are we going to have a call?



Hi @costantino ! So far we only have 3 answers: yours, Alberto’s and Guy’s.

sorry for late reply …

I filled the doodle right now and I’m available in the afternoon, even though I would have liked to involve @Matteo Matteini in the call, but unfortunatly he’s the whole week not in office

thank you for participating

Hello @Rossana, thank you for participating ! I hope @Matteo is doing well in Senegal. If he wishes to keep up with the on-going topic of our meeting with Loretta, he can have a look at the following link: meeting with Loretta_03022017_0.doc - Google Docs


No problem.We’ll add any remaining stuff before the deadline.

More info on the review meeting

Make sure you can be at meeting prior to its start at 9:30am, and make sure you do not leave before the end 5:00pm. I personally will have to arrive the evening before (and I might have to leave the next morning …)

  • Alberto was asking about the number of people we should bring to Brussels:

— I am assuming all partners representatives (you all) and for most WP leaders will attend. You may also invite collaborators you feel can usefully answer questions we may have, or are a better fit to give an oral presentation. It’s up to you.

  • Costantino was asking about how the oral presentation and report compare:

— You do not need to replicate the written report in your presentation. It’s actually a pretty bad way of putting forward the work done, and probably not the best way to catch the reviewer’s attention. I would suggest to highlight a realisation, or event held, for instance, that better demonstrate the work done, the methodology followed, the objectives reached, the emerging innovation etc.

Agenda (will prepare a doc and circulate it soon)

Each of us won’t get much time anyway. The meeting spreads over about 6 hours, of which we have about 4.5 - 5 hours (there might be coffee breaks). Each partners will probably (I will confirm) have a 30 min including questions (total = 3 hours), to which we may had a 30 min overall introduction, a 30 min conclusion, and time for interaction with reviewers.

Can ER help find a place where to hold the meeting?

Our officer Loretta Anania asked whether our Brussels’ partner could provide a room to host the meeting. (This was a condition to allow the meeting to happen on March 10.)

Tell me whether ER can help. If not, we (UBx) will try to solve this remotely.

Review meeting March 10 – Found a venue

The Aquitaine region is quite happy to host our review meeting in their Brussels office (located at 21 rue Montoyer, 1000 Bruxelles).

@LuceChiodelliUB and I are waiting for a confirmation with all related info. Will keep you posted.