Participants: Antti , Annica, Vera, Tarja, Anu (minutes) Monique, Hanni

Not present: Vera

Agenda and meeting notes


Agenda

  1. Previous meetings
    1. The meeting was opened at 14:00
    2. Minutes of the previous project management committee (PMC) on October 28th were accepted.
  2. Project road map
    1. Status report following the road map table (finance; progress: key performance indicators; deployment; risk identification)
      1. Road map monthly view
        1. Framework architecture
        2. Analytics
        3. Prototype development:
        4. Communication & dissemination:
        5. Deployment and evaluation
          1. External evaluation: Draft version of the report to be fact checked between November 15th-19th

          2. The WP leaders are in the process of reading and commenting the text at the moment.
            1. Comments to the newest version, please (linked above)
            2. WP leaders aim to add their comments by tomorrow 10 am after which the steering committee will read the evaluation report through.
          3. Fact check for FINEEC to be ready by 19.11. 
        6. Project management
          1. Monthly financial figures to be sent to the coordinator
  3.  Reporting
    1. Deliverables reporting - timeline for reporting

  4. Final review
    • Periodic report (second project year) + final report (whole project) ready by January 9th - other deliverables in the original timetable
      1. Flight schedules delivered
      2. Preparation meetings in December / January - Monday afternoons
      3. The objective is to have the final report ready before the Christmas holidays.
        1. Some of the WP leaders find it difficult to find time for reporting in December. 
        2. In order to cope with the situation, the PMC agreed to utilize the previous reporting as much as possible.
        3. Antti will keep the time slot for weekly meetings (on Mondays at 2 pm) in the calendar in case there is need to get to together to discuss the reporting.
      4. Hanni asked how the final report relate to the external evaluation.
        1. Antti answered that there will be some repetition of course. The final report is from our perspective and we can refer to the external evaluation in the text.
  5. Other
    • Edufutura forum Jyväskylä (16.11.)
      • Around 30 people attended the workshop. Good feedback.
      • Annica will present the project´s results in "osaamisen ennakointifoorumi" organized by EDUFI next week. It will the last official dissemination event of the project. 
    • Closing event for the project team members in Helsinki (28.11.)
      1. Let Antti know by tomorrow whether you are going to participate.
    • Sustainability plan: action points
      • Please, fill in the table based on the sustainability plan and the additional document "further development of prototype".
  6. Closing of the meeting
    1. The meeting was closed at 14:55.


WP LEADERS: Please update the current situation (status report) with each task to this table and add what should be done by next PMC. The traffic lights are assigned to both the previous month (current status) and the next month (foresight) to indicate if the task is on track and how its outlook appears.

Green = Progressing as planned in the modified project plan and roadmap. 

Yellow = Delays or deviations. Guidance needed.

Red = Major challenges. Replanning needed.


Main goals and project results

Responsible / Work package 

Identified  risks

(constantly monitored)

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) - measurements 

Done by September 16th 

Current: Past month

Status


To be done by October 7th


Foresight: Next month

Deliverables to be updated 

Framework architecture

Main architecture aspects and system requirements


Ecosystem and modules user scenarios

WP2

  • EDUFI: Pauli, Annica
  • CSC: Ari, Antti, Anu


Deployment

WP4

  • Gradia: Tarja
  • CSC:
    Ari, Antti, Anu
  • EDUFI
    Pauli, Topias

International deployment: "To tailor the functionality of this framework so that it´s suitable across Europe" (Annex I p.3)

  • suitable, interested international partners missing
  • "in cooperation with international partners/networks" (Annex I p.4)


Is "improved recognition practices" included? (Annex I p.3)


"particularly addressing the needs of the citizen at risk of exclusion" - is this clear enough? (Annex I p.4)






Deployment progress monitoring

  • evaluation events progressing as planned
  • possible new partners joining deployment
  • how many of such partners willing to join the deployment in other countries

Minedu, EDUFI, associate partners and Ministry of Labour evaluation workshops held

Architecture design updated


Workshop in Cologne May 14th

  • framework evaluation with German stakeholders


Updates to current sketches by Pauli / OPH, and further documentation on technical architecture

International deployment 

Netherlands:

It is not possible to download Diploma Data from the Dutch Diploma Register in the Framework because of the lack of information that is available in the Dutch DR to use it properly in the CompLeap Framework.

  • Work in progress: make a document where these findings are explained.


Deploymetn workshop in Estonia September 18th


Virtual workshop in Croatia September 20th


Reporting to be finalized


D21 Feedback and specifications to user scenarios



D25 Technical documentation, including glossary, model and architecture


D27 Pilot deployment of the architecture (Tarja, Ari, Pauli)


D30 Report on pilot deployment of architecture (evaluation? Tarja, Topias, Ari, Pauli)

Analytics prototype

  • Finnish national curriculum (ePerusteet) mapping  to ESCO
  • Recommendation system

WP2 TF-LEA

  • UOulu: Hanni, Egle, Antti, Abhi
  • EDUFI: Annica  


Deployment

WP4

  • Gradia: Tarja
  • UOulu: Hanni, Egle, Antti K.
  • CSC:  Antti, Anu
  • EDUFI  Topias


  • Legal and other restrains to use actual user data


  • Preparation of user scenarios suitable to use outside Finland


  • "Learning environments and analytics form an integrated part of the project proposal to explore the alternative ways to support learner"(Annex I p.4)
  • "Various feedback loops such as analytics about learner profiles, graduate feedback or national competence requirements" (Annex I p.4)

Development progress monitoring:

  • progressing in cooperation between UniOulu, EDUFI and Reaktor

Deployment progress monitoring

  • detailed plan for deployment of analytics in additional document M18 where is this? > link (review feedback)
  • international partners interested and joining Compleap analytics work (measurable)

Uni. Oulu to research and carry out ontology mapping from ePerusteet to Esco Competencies


Uni. Oulu found the task of re-classifying ESCO keywords infeasible. This task is
not being continued anymore by any project participant.
○ Uni. Oulu will focus on providing user competences based on prior verified
education (study units based on Koski data). The task has been discussed
together and Uni. Oulu has provided initial results. The results were difficult to
evaluate and did not seem to be at an immediately usable level, yet. Further
iterations of the task are being carried out by Uni. Oulu at the moment.
○ If the competence break-down is successful, the education unit-based
competences can be added to the POC user interface, given sufficient time to do
this.


Recommendations:

○     Both ePerusteet and Tarjonta services have been crawled for data and prepared for modeling

The first version of the recommendations API has been implemented and
deployed. The user interface has been connected to use the API and the actual
end-to-end functionality has been demoed.


International deployment 

  • Netherlands:

Analyse 'How to support Dutch citizen in exploiting data for Live Long Learning'. Item is on the Backlog for DR_team DUO. Resource and finance problem. 

 

















D28 Pilot deployment of analytics prototype (Tarja, Antti K., Egle, CSC, EDUFI)

D31 Report on pilot deployment of analytics (Egle, Tarja, Hanni, Edufi)

D26 Three prototypes (???)

Learner plan prototype incl 3 modules

  • Initial functionalities incl. interface, content and associated services
  • Reference group review of functionalities
  • Finalized definition of functionalities incl. interface, content and associated services

WP3
  • EDUFI: Annica, Marcus, Outi
  • Reaktor 


Deployment

WP4

  • Gradia: Tarja
  • EDUFI: Annica, Topias
  • UOulu:
  • CSC:  Antti, Anu

○     There is already a substantial backlog of prioritized additional features and other work items; many of these will go beyond the scope of this POC, but can serve as informational artifacts or a possible starting point for future development.

○    Increasing the number of backlog items at this point is likely not beneficial.


  • "Technological solution will be easily adaptable to different geographic locations and circumstances" - is it? (Annex I p.4)
  • "Several separate modules that are connected" (Annex I p.4), "Since each building block would be modular and autonomus"
  • "Iterative development process runs within partner organization in the Netherlands and results in a final product that is the project aimo to implement at least in Finland and Netherlands" (Annex I p.16)

Development progress


Deployment progress 

  • detailed plan for deployment of learner plan in additional document M18 (review feedback)
  • amount of end-users
  • amount of other staff involved 
  • international partners interested and joining Compleap learner plan work (measurable)

Work in progress and accomplished work:

Multiple critical user interface features have already been implemented, deployed to the test environment, and demoed

https://poc.compleap.testiopintopolku.fi/

  • Validating the POC’s design with the target groups:

○   effort  ongoing to get to validate the designs with the target user groups

Preliminary report available here: 

  • Finding out user interests:

○     The user interface for finding out user interests has been designed, implemented and demoed

  • Education information for foreigners:

○     A design has been done how the lack of Koski information can be compensated for in the case of users with no Koski information (i.e., foreigners’ use case)

○     The user interface for the design has also been implemented and demoed

○     Connecting the user interface to relevant data (i.e., connecting national ISCED classification to corresponding ePerusteet information) has to be done still

National education classification (2016) has been added as the data source for
the feature for gathering foreigners’ education information.


Koski mock data:
○ The usage of Koski mock data (pre-defined user profiles) has been designed,
implemented, and demoed.
○ The POC comprises four profiles matching the main focused user groups:
■ Two profiles: graduated from a vocational institution (nature, arts)
■ Two profiles: discontinued vocational studies (technical, social)


User testing:
○ User tests have been carried out with participants from Ohjaamo, Gradia, and
test users recruited by Tutkimustie, with the following main findings:
■ No critical problems were found in the interactions of primary
functionalities.
■ Especially the section displaying suggested education was deemed
useful.
Agenda, steering group 5/2019
■ The group of potential users who would significantly benefit from the
version being implemented given the technical and time related
restrictions of wp3 is quite small.
○ The test sessions have been debriefed and the outcomes have been reported,
together with a break-down of potential actions.

Deployment:

A user testing training has been held and planned with Gradia to assist in a successful piloting phase 10.4.2019.


Netherlands:

It is not possible to download Diploma Data from the Dutch Diploma Register in the Framework because of the lack of information that is available in the Dutch DR to use it properly in the CompLeap Framework.

There are a lot of different organisations who has this kind of information. It would be very complex to implement this.

  • Work in progress: make a document where these findings are explained.

































D20 Running prototypes in cooperation with WP3


D24 Open source code for all components, including example code


D25 Technical documentation, including glossary, model and architecture


D26 Three prototypes

Case Study with Europass 

WP5

DUO / EDUFI

Willingness of Europass to start a cooperationWorkshop(s) organised succesfully in Compleap - Europass collaboration 

Europass Innovation WG meeting in Budapest in June - virtual participation

Europass meeting in Groningen 4th July - preparations going on 

Eva Neffling doing a desk study on this issue.







D39 Targeted workshops and seminars
Engaging communications of project resultsDUO

all contributing


Measurable data about the efficiency of communication
  • events
  • publications
  • social media
  • website 

Good news from Finland

Autumn dissemination event preparations

Final seminar preparations




D22 Final seminar in cooperation with WP4 and WP5
Effective management of project CSC 
Monthly financial reporting and monitoring in monthly project management committee meetings

Action points for the whole project team based on the remote review in June 2019.



Main goals and project resultsDefinition of conceptsResponsible / Work package 

Identified  

(constantly



Indicators (KPI) - measurements 


Done so far


To be done


Deployment








  • No labels