2019_02_06_Steering_committee_meeting_minutes

Compleap steering committee meeting

Date: 6 February 2019

Time: 12 - 14 (Finnish time)

Location: CSC office Espoo, Keilaranta 14, meeting room Nuuksio

Steering committee:

Stina Westman, Director, CSC – IT Center for Science (Chair)
Raakel Tiihonen, Director, Finnish National Agency for Education
Susanna Pirttikangas, Professor, University of Oulu
Dik van der Wal, Manager International Services, Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs
Rauni Gylden, Student service manager, Gradia Jyväskylä - virtually
Tomi Kytölä, Senior officer, Ministry of Education and Culture - joined at 12.13. stepped out at 13:25
Antti Laitinen, Project manager, CSC – IT Center for Science (Secretary)

Visitor:

Anu Märkälä, CSC – IT Center for Science (assistant)

Agenda (supporting material / slides)

Welcome and opening (12:00-)
1. Meeting was opened at 12:04 by the chair.
Greetings and presence (slide 2)
1. Rauni Gylden attending virtually
2. Noted some changes in steering committee as Vera Mol took over WP5 lead, Dik van der Wal succeeds her in as the DUO steering committee member. The steering group would like to thank Vera and welcome Dik.
3. Introductions of steering group members and visitors.
Approval of the agenda
1. Proposal to move 7. Financial matters to under 6 Midterm review
2. and to discuss all 6 a, b and c together under the midterm review umbrella
3. So decided?
Approval of the previous meeting memo (12:05-)
1. Any comments? None received so far
2. Approved?
Management update (Antti Laitinen) (slides 3-5)

Partner/associated partner update (12:10→ 12:15 -12:15)
1. Review of current situation
  1. National collaboration with Redu and OSAO at a good level, Salpaus has been more passive. Should we consider some other partner for piloting? AP: Need to discuss with Salpaus and write their role into the piloting plan. (Decision: AP: Antti/CSC together with Tarja from Gradia and Topias Kähärä at EDUFI to plan how to approach Salpaus on two tracks: their associated membership and the practical plans for piloting)
  2. Internationally German piloting planned with Die EU Geschäftsstelle der Bezirksregierung. Netherlands still under preparation as SBB and SurfNET are interested, DUO organizing. Piloting timeline is after the summer holidays.
  3. Lot of expectations from the EC as to documenting the validity of the prototypes internationally
Steering committee decision log review - Antti Laitinen will present the current state with the decisions - show decision log (12:15-12:25) (slide 6 + wiki)

Decision No.24: Framework architecture updates
1. ability to map many national infrastructures to the model
2. multiple instances of the architecture model should be published, e.g. Finnish national service ecosystem, local ecosystem
Decision No.23: Mid-term review and reporting (see 6 a)
Decision No.22: Piloting plan
1. Working document, to be updated as part of the project roadmap (see 6 a)
2. Phases and different deliverables to be deployed i) framework ii) learning analytics iii) learner path
Decision No:21: Video production - will be added to the website soon.
Decision No:20: Positioning the Compleap prototypes internationally (see 6 a)
1. New EuroPASS advisory group, van del Wal is a member and can connect to there with CompLeap matters. Also a OKM member. EuroPASS still needs time and work for practical solutions to emerge. Differences between countries.
Decision No. 7: software code licensing
1. EUPL as the license, official EU license used by EDUFI, copy-left license which means that any further work will carry it too
2. vielä puuttuu miten päätellä kuka omistaa IPR:n vai onko kaikki Opetushallituksen? Kommenteilla Erja Nokkasella 5.2. AP Antti

Current news (Antti Laitinen) (slides 7-12)
1. State of the art of the project activities for information
  1. WP timelines and updates (for reference) (12:25-)
    1. Status of prototypes
      1. new subcontracting from Reaktor for EDUFI
      2. key to finish this so other WPs can continue
    2. Monthly webinars
      1. AP plan for 26.2. webinar that takes into account to necessary replanning and gets real measurable feedback
    3. Workshop 14.3.
      1. AP Antti: invite and planned agenda to be circulated to the the steering group
  2. Mid-term seminar in Helsinki December 4th (12:45-12:50)
    1. osallistujakooste 45 participants (check)
    2. palautekooste - unfortunately we could not collect wide feedback, perhaps a glitch with the system.
  3. Deliverables reporting
    1. Main project deliverables due by the end of May
    2. Need to split these into measurable subgoals so we can keep track
  4. Mid-term reporting and review (12:50-13:10)
    1. Mid-term reporting material
      1. Material submitted to the EC on January 17th consisted of report and financial reports
      2. Review presentation and main points available in wiki https://wiki.eduuni.fi/x/_ijTB
    2. Feedback from project officer and reviewers:
      1. e.g. budget and deliverable timings raised as issues, next steps
      2. Modified project plan to be submitted by the end of February to project officer (13:30-13:50) (slide 26)
        What happens after the end of February, how do we know if our plan was accepted. We should structure the plan show we have already changed, what we are going to change within the context of the Grant agreement, and what we are proposing for their decision
        Also plan B: what happens if we cannot succeed in our goals
        Project roadmap: (Deliverable 8, not yet submitted) to be updated to wiki as a living document in wiki which should be updated throughout the rest of the project
        How to show that we are in control
        Need one page that collates existing information, efforts and plans
        Must cross WP and deliverable boundaries
        Finances: plan for changes with the budget (subcontracting etc.)
        Internal re-allocations of resources between different WPs if needed
        each partner should check the current situation
        Necessary reallocations between partners/subcontracting
        Prototypes: WP3 resources and the prototype development
        Prototypes: additional document in M18, functionalities in beta version for May and for September
        e.g. what are the criteria for selection, specification, functionalities (EDUFI)
        clarifies project plan: concept and what is a prototype
        shift emphasis to components that are usable in the international context, e.g. learning analytics
        Deployment: How to organize and document the deployment (Finland + Netherlands + Germany)
        new task: Case study Compleap-Europass and possibilities for collaboration (to be reported as apart of WP4 - Deployment, which deliverable? AP Antti
        deployment, clear planning, activities, steps, commitment and time to reiterate
        deployment and dissemination, opportunities for going beyond the FI &NL: make a case study with Europass. Clear indication digital environment can be linked and feed to compleap. This would be a great results for the project, feed into sustainability and impact. Realised with a workshop with Europass system interface and data form Europass feed into Compleap and vica versa. Could create impact on European level.
        EMREX user group AP DUO
        Nordforum AP CSC
      3. Deliverables below to be updated by the end of February - to be updated with a new section: New feedback gained between due date and M12, "write the story" to aide in deployment
        Del. 35 Stakeholder management plan (DUO)
        Del. 18 User scenarios (EDUFI)
        Del. 15 Desk research (EDUFI)
      4. siirretty 7. Financial matters (Antti Laitinen) (13:10-13:30)
        Finance reports (slides 16-25) Follow-up on resource spending
        All: 33% of PMs used, 19% of costs used
        CSC: 47% of PMs used, 29% of costs used hoituu sisäisillä siirroilla ja tuntien kirjaamisella
        EDUFI: 22% of PMS used, 14% of costs used
        EDUFI has not been able to accomplish having their own regular staff involved in the project as was desired. Lot of other development ongoing. Changes to subcontracing
        Oulu: 40% of PMs used, 27% of costs used
        Oulu has a person in recommender systems and analytics,
        Gradia: 36% of PMs used, 11% of costs used
        DUO: 50% of PMs used, 37% of costs used
    3. Next steps
2. Emerging issues (slides 27-28)
  1. Risk management plan and emerging risks
    1. Note that the personnel risks have actualized, now on the track of replanning
  2. Building international network
  3. Communication and information sharing
3. Upcoming events
  1. Prototype development
    1. Plan to be made
  2. Reference group collaboration
    1. Next webinar 26.2., on the agenda "a demo session on our CompLeap prototype".
    2. How could we get measurable feedback and input for for the next development steps in CompLeap project
  3. Piloting collaboration with the associated partners
Next steps (slides 29-30)
1. Steering committee meetings (13:50-13:55)
  1. Next steering committee meeting time in spring 2019 to be decided
  2. Friday 29.3. 10-12 am, Doodle if not convenient
    1. Agenda: Status review according to updated plan
  3. Big deliverables at the end of May so we should meet before
2. roadmap
  1. CSC suggestion
3. replanning
  1. AP: Susanna to inform CSC and OPH what the costs would be for addition
  2. AP: CSC to check project officer or internal contracts are preferred
  3. AP Planning meeting (prototype planning and resourcing) to be discussed in the PMC, then invites. Also Erja Nokkanen to be invited from EDUFI
  4. AP: PMC monday status of all WPs
4. resubmissions - each deliverable leaders takes changes
5. Decision items: the items coming from midterm review
Any other business (13:55-14:00) (slide 31)
Closing the meeting

Background material:

• Project website: https://www.compleap.eu/

• Shared working area in Eduuni: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/display/csccompleap/CompLeap+Home

• Project plan: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/display/csccompleap/Application+documents?preview=/54692026/58187308/Annex%20I.docx

Space shortcuts

Page tree