13b

The Consortium   is not able to collect measurable data from the communications

1

4

Pre-planning   of the communications

DUO, CSC, EDUFI

12

Quality of the   deliverable reports is not good enough

1

4

Separate   deliverable report preparing meetings organised – project management   responsible – detailed timetable

CSC

11

Impact   evaluation study is not been able to organise as planned

1

3

Consortium   will organise the impact evaluation study internally

Gradia

10

Finding suitable international piloting   partners in other EU countries

2

3

The Consortium   should turn on to existing partnerships of partner organisations – steering   committee supporting

Gradia

9

Staffing - Project team also involved in   other projects

3

4

Make sure that project team staff has enough   resources and time to contribute to Compleap and that simultaneous projects   are synergetic

All partners

8

Difficulties with the portability of prototypes:   extra work needs to be done to implement the prototypes (for example national   databases)

1

3

Learner plan   modules  were chosen to avoid this risk

EDUFI

7

The outcome   of  the project does not meet the objectives and requirements

1

4

The chosen   agile  project method will be strictly used to ensure continuous   adjustment of the   project work towards the agreed steps and goals

All partners

6

There     is insufficient key professional resources available for this project

2

4

The workload   of the persons assigned to the  project is being monitored to ensure   sufficient allocation for the project.   For every key role in the   project there will be a responsible person and a   substitute person   nominated.

All partners

5

Deliverables   developed are not available in due time of the   project.

2

4

Periodic     progress reviews allow decision to lower level of ambition and reduce     likelihood of this becoming an issue.

CSC

4

Failure to     choose the right

technologies

2

4

Select   technologies   on basis of community interfaces and on international   standards. Support multiple   interfaces and/or adapt community services   to comply with international   standards.

EDUFI

3

Failure to     engage effectively with stakeholders

(e.g.,     weak attendance to shared seminars)

2

3

Project     already has a interested stakeholders on board. In addition, representatives     in all work packages act as ambassadors.

All partners

2

Failure to     define the right architecture incl. organisational and business   model  required to ensure a sustainable uptake.

2

4

Start   work  on this early and allow for several iterations. Involve   stakeholders in the discussion. Learn from the experiences of similar   initiatives such as EMREX.

CSC, EDUFI

1

Lack   of response and cooperation from one individual partner preventing   timely delivery of project results, including deliverables.

1

4

Early     intervention of Project Coordinator, leading to escalation to Project     Management Committee and ultimately, to Steering Group, and decision over     corrective actions, such as reassessing responsibilities and tasks   among the consortium.

CSC