Mid term review : unsatisfactory project direct recommendations i – ix revision of deliverables period 1 & 2 within 3 months reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c) Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA more active approach: websites, dissemination, cooperation with other projects Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(i) A revised DOW –done, contains points i-vi and viii –contains revised budget distribution identical to latest CPF –has more graphs on methodology, but should be looked over for consistency and: is the main idea/potential communicated? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(ii) internal communication and management plan project management group panels for methodology and e-textbook end-of-month meetings collaborative spaces chapter teams contribute to website and survey other projects Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(iii) strenghtened advisory board Carys Jones, Peter Groffman and Jorma Enkenberg as old members Advisory board actions in 2009 Focused action at three points of time is foreseen: (1) when the revised draft chapters are uploaded early 2009, (2) attending the Workshop 4:‘editing the e-textbook’ preliminarily set for March 2009 in Brussels, (3) in summer 2009 when the chapters are finalized and submitted for testing (see WP6) and then submitted for an external peer-review. According to their own decisions as to dividing the work, the advisory board will report to the project coordinator giving recommendations on the quality and orientation of the e-tool. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(iv) engaging stakeholders  through the e-LUP work process of contacting EC for information, material, opinions etc.  a stakeholder session at the extra Workshop in Brussels, March 2009  a training session as part of WP6 (months 42-44)  possibly, a launching event of the finalized tool  requisites “profiling” of primary stakeholders  help from other projects who have done inter-views etc. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(vi) external & internal review –INTERNAL: Each chapter editor/coeditors from the project should evaluate at least the chapter assigned to her/him by a random ordering. A detailed critique statement structured through a short standard form is required from each reviewer. –EXTERNAL: A comprehensive external peer review will be implemented. Engaging seven expert reviewers is planned. –ALSO: Inviting contributions from other projects will give feedback on contents, ‘the chapter pages’ on the project website will stimulate internal feedback on contents. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(vii) Survey of related projects a new WP2 report exists, the 1st version about 50 pages, describes other projects and their relevance for e-LUP but, a 2nd version is needed – a closer analysis of the projects will be of great help in (a) tailoring the new e- LUP methodology, (b) selecting projects to be contacted, (c) conclusions on state of the art in SIA tools for our Chapter 3 Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(viii) time chart / workplan Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(ix) updated Period 2+ reports Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

WP 6 Testing testing in 5 jurisdictions, originally 3 planning of questionnaires external compilation of results Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Website energized –updated –upsized –open and more engaging? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Revised WP report, outline Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Revised WP3 report outline Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Conclusions we think we have valuable case studies we think the model visualisations will be useful we know that the challenge is the QUALITY of the e-textbook/e-tool Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Thank you! intense learning process