The remote review took place in June. The reviewers evaluated the following reporting documents that were delivered by the end of May 2019:
Del. No | Title of Deliverable | WP number | Lead participant number | Type | Delivery date |
3 | Standard management report Q3 | WP1 | CSC (no. 1) | Report | M15 |
7 | Standard progress report P3 | WP1 | CSC (no. 1) | Report | M18 |
20 | Running prototypes in cooperation with WP3 | WP2 | EDUFI (no. 2) | Prototype | M12-M18 |
21 | Feedback and specifications to user scenarios | WP2 | EDUFI (no. 2) | Prototype | M6-M18 |
24 | Open source code for all components, including example code | WP3 | EDUFI (no. 2) | Document | M7-M18 |
25 | Technical documentation, including glossary, model and architecture | WP3 | EDUFI (no. 2) | Document | M18 |
| Task | Issue | Assignee | Comments from project team members | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Develop a detailed case study template to present the key dimensions explored and identified to interlink CompLeap and EUROPASS. Document and describe in detail:
| Eva Neffling | Notes from the Europass workshop: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/x/TaJ_Bg Case Study document: https://tt.eduuni.fi/sites/csc-compleap/Shared%20Documents/Europass%20case%20study/CompLeap%20comparing%20Europass.docx?d=w0b2942eb205040f0b2831645e07b8e33 Meeting with Mika Launikari on Thursday 8th August ESCO team contacted - no response. New contacts asked from William O'Keeffe | Final version delivered as an additional document by the end of November. Europass events (virtual, workshops, seminars) to be added to D38 and D39 |
| 2. | Provide more details on project progress by monitoring and reporting KPIs e.g. | These should be collected and presented also in the final report. | ||
| Topias | Piloting page will be updated with more accurate information later: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/x/XQxXBQ Especially in D30, D31, D32 reports | ||
| Anu | Participant data has been added to CompLeap events: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/x/pgmQAw Especially in D22, D39 reports | ||
| DUO | DUO has access to website statistics. e.g Website activity report 03/2018-05/2019 Twitter statistics available in Twitter. Action point for WP5 & WP1 to discuss where to document these. Especially in D38 report | ||
| Topias, Tarja Gradia | Workshops for associated partners have been documented well but summaries are mainly in Finnish: | ||
| Anu has requested more information on the past dissemination events. See the column "Feedback, facts and figures": https://wiki.eduuni.fi/x/kpCsAw Add key figures from piloting to final report. | |||
| 3. | Detail how piloting activities inform development and contribute to refinements of the final beta version. Present in detail how the results from the piloting (including information on how many users, particularly NEETs and immigrants, have been involved in each iteration; key data collected in each country) informed the refinement of the consolidated Beta version. | EDUFI, Gradia Topias, Outi | Especially in D31 + D32 report List to be integrated into D11 Final report: | |
| 4. | Detail how final outcomes of the project can be integrated in real-life environments. Present in detail any differences from real-life APIs to the mock-up data used, and how the CompLeap results can be integrated into existing services or frameworks, hence creating added value for service providers and for users. | EDUFI + developers DUO (Netherlands) Germany? Croatia? | ||
| 5. | D24 Open source code for all components, including example code: EUPL v1.1. is an adequate licence for the project code. Please add this licence to the GitHub repository too. | EDUFI | This has been done. Can it be changed to EU PL v1.2? For reporting purposes: should we include an additional report on post-May development? | |
| 6. | D26 Three prototypes: Ensure release notes and bugs are accessed publicly. | EDUFI | These are already accessed publicly. Minor fixes done. Can be reported in extra documentation or in final report. | |
| 7. | In total though around 60% of the planned resources have been spent in the first 18 months taking into account the budget redistribution. This makes it highly unlikely that the project will be able to spend the 40% rest budget in the remaining 6 months. D3 does not provide a breakdown of effort per partner, but from the “Used vs budgeted PMs for the whole project” presented, we can conclude that EDUFI is still underspending despite the change in the budget distribution. Developing a spending plan for the last six months of the project associated with tasks to be performed, would be beneficial. | Antti WP leaders | To be reported during August and also in D4 (to be delivered by the end of August) | |
| 8. | Dissemination: The project reach is still more evident in Finland. More effort is still needed to reach a European audience. | DUO & WP 5 | Estonia and Croatia workshops held (after Netherlands and Germany) Project joining the EU networks Learning by Leaving Conference Existing EU networks contacted via national contact points in Finland (Europass, Euroguidance) - invited to final seminar |