BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media GaLA Game and Learning Alliance The European Network of Excellence on Serious Games DELIVERABLE REVIEW PROCESS Alessandra Barbieri NURC 1

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media DELIVERABLE REVIEW STATUS Due date NrDeliverable TitleWPStatusPartnerReviewers 3D10.23Quality Plan10CompletedNURCNot foreseen 3D9.1GaLA Dissemination Policy Draft9CompletedOUNLBerta, - 6D8.8Gala Social Network analysis approach8CompletedCYNTELIXRiccardo Berta, Wim Westera 6D9.2Gala Dissemination Policy9CompletedOUNLSylvester Arnab – Christian Schneider – Milos Kravcic 6D9.3Gala Website Release9In ReviewUNIGEDamien Djaouti (IRIT) Milos Kravcik (RWTH) 8D8.1GaLA VRE equirements8To be completed Before review UNIGEPablo Moreno Ger (UCM) and Wim Westera (OUNL) 9D4.1Market and value chain analysis 14To be completed Before review ATOSBIBA and INESC-ID 10D2.1Technical Committees Research Fields Report 12To be completed Before review COVUNI Igor Mayer (Delf) and Michael Kickmeire (TUG) 12D1.1Strategic Coordination activity report1To be completed Before review UNIGESara de Freitas, Jeff Earp 12D 3.1SG thematic Application fields report3To be completed Before review CNRStill not communicated 12D 4.5Annual report on technology transfer4To be completed Before review BIBAMarco Luccini 12D6.1Report on the integration of SGs in Educational Processes 6To be completed Before review UWS/TudelftStill not communicated 12D7.1Report on theintegration of SGs in corporate training settings 7To be completed Before review UNOTTJannicke Baalsrud Hauge (BIBA) 12D8.3GaLA VRERelease8To be completed Before review UNIGERui Prada (INESC –ID) e Theo Lim (UCM) 12D8.4LL Requirements8To be completed Before review BIBAStill not communicated 12D9.5GaLA Dissemination Report9To be completed Before review OUNLStill not communicated 12D10.19Outreach Advisory Board Activity Report 110To be completed Before review UNOTTStill not communicated 2

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media DELIVERABLE VERIFICATION 3 Process involving: WPL - Reviewer - QM - Coordinator Process involving: WPL - Reviewer - QM - Coordinator Iterative Process Deliverable Quality Report Revision task created on Project Website

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media FORMS TO BE USED WP QUALITY PLAN DELIVERABLE REVIEW FORM 4

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media WP QUALITY PLAN WP Plan prepared by WPL and uploaded on project website. – GANTT chart (or equivalent) showing Tasks Milestones and deliverables Responsibilities and timelines – 1 paragraph for each deliverable detailing quality standards (formal std + specific objectives) 5 Required by the approved Quality Plan Reviewers may expect to see it Required by the approved Quality Plan Reviewers may expect to see it

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media DELIVERABLE REVIEW FORM Lessons learned from first trial Process in need of clarification Few key points: –Only one form, with sequential versioning –Accuracy in filling it in is a key factor –Will be a proof of accurate review 6

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Pay attention to page 1 7 Revision log refers to the DELIVERABLE QUALITY REPORT and NOT to the DELIVERABLE BEING REVIEWED This means that it should start from 1.0 and not from the version of the draft being reviewed. It shall be updated by all reviewers to summarize what they did what actions they recommend All steps must be recorded in sequence in the same form. NO NEED TO CREATE A NEW FORM FOR EACH STEP All steps must be recorded in sequence in the same form. NO NEED TO CREATE A NEW FORM FOR EACH STEP

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media How does review cycle work? 8 These are derived from WP Quality Plan (JUST COPY & PASTE) These are derived from WP Quality Plan (JUST COPY & PASTE)

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media How does review cycle work? 9 These are derived from WP Quality Plan (JUST COPY & PASTE) These are derived from WP Quality Plan (JUST COPY & PASTE) REVIEWER PROVIDES ASSESSMENT Text provided is just a placeholder PUT YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE!! REVIEWER PROVIDES ASSESSMENT Text provided is just a placeholder PUT YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE!!

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media How does review cycle work? 10 These are derived from WP Quality Plan (JUST COPY & PASTE) These are derived from WP Quality Plan (JUST COPY & PASTE) REVIEWER PROVIDES FEEDBACK Cycle process 1 PARA - 1 STEP! PUT YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE!! REVIEWER PROVIDES FEEDBACK Cycle process 1 PARA - 1 STEP! PUT YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE!! REVIEWER PROVIDES ASSESSMENT Text provided is just a placeholder PUT YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE!! REVIEWER PROVIDES ASSESSMENT Text provided is just a placeholder PUT YOUR NAME IN THE TITLE!!

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media First Trial:  11

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Keep track of what you do! 12 ALL REVIEWERS AND WPL document their activity in the roster This is intended to provide a chronological sequence of review steps ALL REVIEWERS AND WPL document their activity in the roster This is intended to provide a chronological sequence of review steps

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Keep track of what you do! 13 ALL REVIEWERS AND WPL document their activity in the roster This is intended to provide a chronological sequence of review steps ALL REVIEWERS AND WPL document their activity in the roster This is intended to provide a chronological sequence of review steps QM clears the deliverable after technical review before final delivery to EU through Coordinator QM clears the deliverable after technical review before final delivery to EU through Coordinator

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media DATA COLLECTION FROM INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS 14

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Detail on resource usage 15 T ABLE 3.1 P ERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR COST ITEMS FOR B ENEFICIARY 1 FOR THE PERIOD Work PackageItem descriptionAmount in € with 2 decimals Explanations Ex: 2,5, 8, 11, 17Personnel direct costs €* Salaries of 2 postdoctoral students and one lab technician for 18 months each* 5Subcontracting €*Maintenance of the web site and printing of brochure* 8, 17Major cost item 'X' €*NMR spectrometer* 11Major cost item 'Y' ……… €*Expensive chemicals xyz for experiment abc* Remaining direct costs €* Indirect costs TOTAL COSTS €*

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Manpower usage 16 Task Planned Manpow er Actual Manpow er (in period) Actual manpow er (from project start) Variance NrTitle Summary (points) of work dome Table 2: Manpower table A statement on the use of resources will be included in the Coordinator report Deviations between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work); shall be properly highlighted and explained A statement on the use of resources will be included in the Coordinator report Deviations between actual and planned person-months per work package and per beneficiary in Annex 1 (Description of Work); shall be properly highlighted and explained

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Financial Resources 17 Form C to be prepared and submitted Consolidated financial statement will be prepared by Coordinator Form C to be prepared and submitted Consolidated financial statement will be prepared by Coordinator

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media DATA COLLECTION FROM WPL 18

BREMEN September 2011 European Commission Information Society and Media Data to be included in periodic report summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task; Significant results; If applicable, reasons for deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning; If applicable, reasons for failing to achieve critical objectives and/or not being on schedule and explain the impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning (the explanations should be coherent with the declaration by the project coordinator) ; 19