NA1 – Administrative and Technical Coordination Alberto DI MEGLIO, CERN Project Director 2nd EMI Periodic Review Brussels, 12 June 2012

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Outline Context Objectives and Recommendations Project Coordination Consortium Management Conclusions 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels NA1 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Objectives Coordination: Lead the EMI project through a successful execution of its objectives, ensuring consistency of the overall resources used and the work performed and control the progress of the work so that the results of the project adhere to the grant agreement Conflict resolution Progress monitoring and reporting, project QA (deliverables) Participation in outreach, strategy development, sustainability IPR management Contribute to Sub-objectives 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 by negotiating and monitoring Service Level Agreements with DCI projects Contribute to Sub-objectives 4.2 and 4.3 by negotiating and monitoring MoUs with other projects and with commercial companies and promoting high-level coordination initiatives 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 1 1. Appoint a Strategy Director to the project who has strong “marketing/relations building” capabilities so he/she can build bridges between the various User Groups as well as deploying a more Pro-Active partnering approach with the other projects in the DCI ecosystem. Strategy Director selected and appointed New WP (NA3) defined under his responsibility to Actively address the EMI long-term relationships with other projects and user communities Define sustainability and exploitation plans Set up and coordinate the appropriate organizational mechanisms 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 2, 3 2. Improve cost forecasting, reporting and management so that all individual partners and the overall project, clearly link the actual costs incurred with the work carried out and compare these against those planned in the DoW. 3. Improve resource reporting, particularly time (Person Month) and financial consumptions against forecast rates of consumption. Try to avoid different reporting principles by the partners, which result in a distorted overall reporting pattern (e.g. reporting of travel costs). Budget fully revised based on 18-month expense profile Reporting templates improved and streamlined Effort and costs clearly linked to work performed 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 4 4. Implement the changes to the project, which were presented to the reviewers, taking into consideration the suggestions made elsewhere in this review report. Proposed changes implemented as suggested New Strategic Director and NA3 WP created JRA1 WP put under the Technical Director leadership Refocused on implementation rather than strategies All QA and QC activities consolidated in SA2 GA Amendment submitted to and approved by the EC 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 5 5. Reduce the number of deliverables and improve their coherence as suggested elsewhere in this review report. Reduce the number of actual printed pages of the various reports. Deliverables and milestones revised and adapted to changes D/M of similar nature consolidated in individual, more consistent documents Number of deliverables decreased from 36 in Year 1 to 13 in Year 2 (partly as planned and partly due to the consolidation) The number of pages limited to the minimum necessary 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 6 6. Improve the sustainability plans and commit to a specified period of support for EMI software and services after the end of the project (e.g. the Monte Bianco release), which is more convincing than the currently anticipated 3 months Sustainability plan revised and expanded New collaborations established New open source initiative launched (ScienceSoft) Long-term partners’ commitment after EMI project assessed Being discussions with EGI and the main user communities 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 7, 8, 9 7. Improve the outreach, promotion and marketing of the project and its values. 8. Improve online promotion and marketing to increase traffic to website so that many more people will use the website than the currently reported numbers. 9. Improve the website, taking into consideration the suggestions made elsewhere in this review report Web site redesigned More articles published, hired science journalist to help Product Fact Sheets designed and published Videos, social networking tools 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 10 10. Increase the level of detail in technical deliverables, using examples only of the work done; full technical designs are not required. Level of technical details increased in the reporting part of the deliverables Examples????? 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 11 11. Establish a formal relationship with PRACE. Relationship with PRACE being formalized with MoU Commitment to participate to common events in the coming months 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 12 12. Improve the industrial engagement in order to achieve a more clearly informed and forward-looking sustainability strategy, and which leverages upon the lessons learnt from previous relationships (e.g. Google). Scope revised and refocused Addressed companies with a more suitable profile Clearer product and market definition Collaboration with dCore (FKA TheSyrrus) being implemented (demo later) 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 13 13. Establish a clear EMI market positioning with respect to Cloud computing. Understand and focus on the security issues around virtualisation and consider how grid technologies do not present these issues. Requirements for cloud technology assessed via interviews and surveys Perceived “cloud requirements” matched to EMI products features (e.g. user-defined exec environments) Provided “bridging” technology (WNoDeS, ARGUS-EES) 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Recommendation 14 14. The visibility of EMI (as opposed to host institutes or companies) should be increased by those participating in standards body-related activities. Many EMI-sponsored sessions organized at OGF and other events Clearly label EMI contributions as such 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Relationships building In year 2 NA1 extended the network of collaborations with other projects and companies by negotiating critical MoUs Particularly challenging the work on the MoU with PRACE designed in collaboration with NA3 and formalizing the common objectives and collaboration channels between PRACE and EMI Of great relevance for the sustainability plan the MoU with dCore to exploit a number of EMI services within the company commercial portfolio (more on this in the NA3 presentation) 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels SLAs The Service Level Agreement established with EGI in year 1 has been consistently applied by SA1 and monitored both by EMI and EGI Some difficulties related to the lack of support in GGUS for SLA monitoring (being resolved), workaround put in place by SA1 with scripts to extract info from raw DB dumps 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Project Management Regular PEB, TCB, ECB, CB meetings 2 All-Hands Meeting (Padova, Oct 2011 and Hamburg, May 2012) 1 Vision Meeting at CERN in December 2011 1 ScienceSoft Workshop at CERN in February 2012 Deliverables/Milestones QA process Quarterly and final reports Budget and effort monitoring, analysis and reporting 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Budget and Effort Monitoring Budget and effort consumption have been carefully monitored and managed every quarter To address recommendations 1 and 2: Assessed actual costs in the first 18 months and implemented a budget revision for the second 18 months to realign budget and costs Improved reporting template to ensure uniform beneficiaries reports in both structure and content Improved effort assessment: by task, by Product Team and by objective 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Project Deliverables/Milestones 13 planned and delivered + 2 resubmitted from year 1 Milestones: 15 planned, 14 delivered, 1 late (MJRA1.12 - Common Security Architecture Assessment) Issues with delays in submitting experienced in the first year have been reduced Number of documents has decreased as recommended Year 1: 36 D and 23 M Year 2: 13 D and 15 M 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Performance Drivers and KPIs EMI “Efficiency” Comparison between COCOMO estimates and actual costs and effort Empirical approach What does it mean? In P2 the actual costs and effort are closer to COCOMO estimates More maintenance than development compared to past projects Increasing adoption of software engineering practices Difference in EMI effort between EMI 1 and 2 is due to a better understanding of how much effort goes into software development and maintenance EMI P2 COCOMO Diff. EMI 1 SLOC (M) 1.92 - 2.38 Effort (p/y) 47 57 21% 64 83 29% Cost (MEUR) 5.3 7.7 45% 6.1 11.5 88% 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Budget and Effort Stats 8,432,556 € or 97% of planned budget Effort: 927 PM or 108% of the planned effort 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Budget and Effort Stats MGT cost deviation due to higher personnel rates (CERN, JUELICH, LU) and variations in exchange rate (CERN,LU) OTHER and RTD deviations due to lower than estimated personnel rates 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

Budget and Effort Distribution 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Conclusions NA1 has lead the project through the second year constantly monitoring all performance indicators and ensuring that the overall project objectives were achieved It has taken a very proactive approach to address any identified issue and to bring the budget and effort consumption in line with the estimates, revising the estimates were necessary and proposing efficient corrective actions It has monitored the project progress and managed the overall project QA process ensuring that all planned deliverables and milestones were delivered It has actively promoted the project values and vision by participating to relevant high-level events with users and funding agencies and formalizing collaborations with other projects and initiatives 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels

2nd Periodic Review - Brussels Thank you EMI is partially funded by the European Commission under Grant Agreement INFSO-RI-261611 12/06/2012 2nd Periodic Review - Brussels