Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D2.3.2
Title: DNA2.3.2 Dissemination and Use of Knowledge Plan Doc. identifier: EMI_DNA2.3.2_TOC.docx
Author(s): P. Salente, et. al. Due date:

Identification of the reviewer
Name: A. Di Meglio Affiliation: CERN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA1

Review date 01/12/2011
Author(s) revision date mm/dd/yyyy
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link

General comments

Thanks for the TOC. Before submitting the full deliverable, please wait for comments on the TOC before finalising the document. The reason why we asked to circulate the TOC well in advance is to make sure we agree on the structure and general content BEFORE the document is written.

I have indeed some comments. From the current structure of the doc I can see the following:

1) There is an excessive emphasis on the web site restyling, it's about a third of document and it goes in my opinion in excessive technical details. The main point to make is that we need to address the reviewers' recommendations and make it more user-friendly and informative, but it should not be a web site technical manual
2) There is a list of planned events organized and attended, but there is no explanation about why those events have been chosen. I miss the "plan" again. There is a final section titled "technical dissemination plan", but if that is the plan, it should come first and explain the dissemination strategy and the expected results. How does the dissemination strategy fit with the overall project objectives?
3) I do not see anything about "use of knowledge". How is the "knowledge" created by EMI used by the partners, the users or inside the project? Any knowledge transfer (it's not the same as training)? If not, why not? How are EGI or other projects using the information we disseminate, what is the impact of EMI? How do we measure it?
4) There is no assessment of the activities done until now. Any lesson learned (apart from the web site), any result we can report about after the first half of the project?

The reviewers will not be as forgiving next year as in the first review, they will want to see this type of information. For the moment I can only see a description of the web site and a list of events

I've included my comments in the change-tracked document attached below. As a general comment, I beleive this document contains some useful material, but it still doesn't describe the dissemination strategy and its implementation. I'd like to see a clear progression from :

- Identification of the high-level messages EMI should disseminate: this is not about GLUE 2 or EMI-ES, but about explaining what grids are useful for, why researchers should use them, what are the benefits, etc. The individual middleware feature must be disseminated of course, but if we don't explain whay people should use EMI and to do what, we will not be able to explain why having GLUE 2 is a good thing - for each main message to disseminate, identify the user categories to be addressed. The document talks about "user base" but there is never any mention of who they are: other developers? system admins? site managers? researchers? managers having to take strategic decisions? what are the different messages we should give to each type of user? - for each type of users identify what are the most effective communication channels: mentioning events, web site, online journales is good, but are these means all equal in their effectiveness? If we go to an conference do we reach developers, researchers, mangers, all of them, none of them? Plan for it, describe how to reach the different users. Also I see always the same channels, web, online, events. What about the "aggressive marketing strategies" the reviewers were asking for? Any survey, mail broadcasts, advertising? - For each communication channel identify its effectiveness in reaching the intended target and explain what measurement methods are used. Add some risk assessment, what happens if the chnnel is not as efficient as expected? corrective actions? - Explain how the feedback is used within EMI to steer the project in doing even better and making users even happier. What changes have been done on the project as a consequence of the dissemination efforts?

The section on the web site is too long. The analysis of the google analytics is useful, but it should be put in the Metrics section and explained better, I still donot understand what I'm looking at, are the numbers good or bad? Rating EMI on the basis of how better or worse it is than EGI is not a good approach. Are we good or bad in general. And if we are bad what is NA2 proposing to improve?

Make sure the reviewers comments are explicitly addressed. It is worth adding a section where the reviewers recommendations are explicitly discussed and addressed.

The Technical plan for 2012 contains little more than events to organize and attend and work to improve the web site. The web site improvement should have been finished in September according to the plan (we said "in time to be announced at the EGI Technical Forum in Lyon") therefore it cannot be used as implementation plan for 2012. Explain how material for dissemination will be collected and used, what the expected impact of each event is and how you are ging to measure it. Explain what EMI dissemination should achieve in one year time, how many more users are we going to have, what is the expected trend?

I've now reviewed the new version. It looks good to me, I've accepted all changes and removed all previous comments in the document I attach here. I have one final question (it's also in the document, see the comment): it is not very clear to me how the Scientific Gateways can be used as dissemination channels. Can you elaborate a bit more?

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N Page Section Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    
2          
3          
4          

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- FloridaEstrella - 04-Nov-2011

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Microsoft Word filedoc EMI_DNA2.3.2_v0.1_ADM.doc r1 manage 1354.0 K 2011-12-01 - 12:22 UnknownUser  
Unknown file formatdocx EMI_DNA2.3.2_v0.1_ADM.docx r1 manage 1232.8 K 2011-12-01 - 11:40 AlbertoDiMeglio ADM review
Unknown file formatdocx EMI_DNA2.3.2_v0.2.4_ADM.docx r1 manage 1306.4 K 2012-01-11 - 10:13 UnknownUser  
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 2012-01-11 - unknown
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback