1. Deliverables, final review and final reporting
Simon Lambert
STFC
All Hands Meeting, Amsterdam, 25 September 2014

2. Remaining deliverables
End of October 2014 (M46)
D42.2 Report on definition of curricula and course contents, summary of liaison actions and co-operations (FTK)
End of December 2014 (M48)
D11.5 Report on a common vision of digital preservation (STFC)
D11.6 Virtual Centre of Excellence development (STFC)
D13.3 Report about standardisation activities (ICT)
D16.2 Software repository: final (APA)
D22.4 The Interoperability Framework implementation with added value services (FRD)
D41.3 Event planning and summary report (LTU)
D44.5 Annual report on communication activities (ONB)

3. Remaining deliverables
Internal (and external?) reviews
Dates and deadlines
Addressing the recommendations from the third review

4. Preparation for final review
Date/where/who? How long?
Agenda
Main messages
Response to previous review recommendations
Final report needed in draft

5. Review recommendations
Recommendation 1 – A process to both elicit and accommodate contributions from outside the project to the deliverables should be further developed and maintained through the whole duration of the project. Evidence of such process for all future deliverables and the results for Year 4 should be presented at the 4th Year Review.

6. Review recommendations
Recommendation 2 – Within the deliverables that report on evidence gathering, quality criteria should be added when a list of existing solutions are proposed. In other words, rather than only elaborating potential options, deliverables should, whenever possible, include sets of recommendations and/or lessons learned and thus more directly contribute to the “Integrate/Recommend” activities of APARSEN (part C in Figure 4 of the Description of Work). The deliverables can feed most directly into both (1) the Common Vision and (2) the planned activities and offerings of the VCoE, if they articulate specific guidance statements and summative findings about how to make digital preservation decisions.

7. Review recommendations
Recommendation 3 – Stream 1 and stream 2 deliverables should be revised and enhanced to better reflect the work actually done by the project. During the 3rd Year Review meeting, APARSEN project personnel presented many important ideas, accomplishments and findings that in some cases were not reflected at all in the deliverables and in some other cases were only mentioned but not sufficiently explained. See our discussion of the specific work packages for comments on specific deliverables.

8. Review recommendations
Recommendation 4 – The Common Vision should be significantly revised in order to build more directly upon the products of individual work packages. As stated above, there has been substantial progress on further articulating the Common Vision. However, the Common Vision is both lengthy and very high-level. While we are not suggesting that all of the existing text should be abandoned, we do suggest the thought exercise of asking and then answering the following question: If we were to start from scratch on writing the Common Vision document, how could we build it from the substantive contributions (empirical findings, recommendations, guidance statements, definitions and concepts) of the individual work package deliverables?

9. Review recommendations
Recommendation 5 – There should be a stronger link between the Common Vision and communication strategy, in order to prioritize and plan for communication of specific points from the Common Vision. Recommendation 6 – Better and more clearly define objectives and benchmarks for success in community engagement and outreach. Such objectives and benchmarks should match the scale and ambitions of the project. Recommendation 7 – Consider hiring and tasking a dedicated staff member responsible specifically for communication and external engagement activities. This recommendation could directly support a response to Recommendations 5 and 6.

10. Review recommendations
Recommendation 8 – Be more clear and concise in characterizing what sets APARSEN apart from other efforts. This applies to the deliverable documents, as well as to the APARSEN web site, publications, presentations, and training offerings. Possible examples of points to emphasize could be the APARSEN strategy of targeting primarily scientific communities that often have not been reached by previous digital preservation projects, the focus on preservation as value, and the key role of the VCoE as a broker of digital preservation expertise. Recommendation 9 – Roles, functions and rules for the VCoE and associated experts need to be better and more clearly articulated. We address this issue in more detail within our discussion of WP 11.4.

11. Preparation for final reporting
What is required
Final report
Including individual WP reports
To check: is a separate Year 4 report needed?
Effort figures for Year 4
Form Cs (cost statements)
Deadlines: 60 days after end of project

13. Final payments As usual the EC will make the final payment to STFC
STFC will release money to partners, including the 10% retention
Partners whose accepted costs are less than or equal to their contractual EU funding will receive their costs in full

14. Network of Excellence