- This event has passed.
Mid-term Review Meeting
September 9, 2019
Achievements, Progress, Resources used, Deviations and Outlook
Short Minutes
Dear all,
Participants:
- Alberto Garcia – FCH JU PO
- Jörg Starflinger – Reviewer
- Ruben Beneito – Reviewer
- Thomas Jordan – KIT
- Laurence Bernard – AL
- Simon Jallais – AL
- Alexandros Venetsanos – NCSRD
- Simon Coldrick – HSE
- Mike Kuznetsov – KIT
- Donatella Cirrone – UU
- Dmitriy Makarov – UU
- Andreas Friedrich – PS
Impressions and the first feedback from the Mid-term Review Meeting
After a short introduction of all participants an overview of the status and then each work package was presented.
The main feedback was as follows.
Achievements
The general objective for supporting standardisation should be kept in the focus. So, we should continue to take care for SDOs / industry involvement and for appropriate conversion of experimental results and simulation work into recommendations and engineering correlations suitable for standards and regulation. The WP3, WP4 and WP5 the links between experiments, analytical work and CFD should be improved. All partners with corresponding contractual obligations should pro-actively contribute to those work packages.
Progress
Although in principle the project seems to be on track, the delay in the experimental program of KIT/PS and INERIS is critical. It should be tried to start and finalise all delayed experiments asap. The next 6 months seem to be critical for this. Additionally, to leave sufficient time also for modelling, writing recommendations, general sustainable exploitation it was recommended to extend the project by 6 months without changing the budget. The proposal for the extension was also motivated because the delayed experimental program still might have some effect on remaining work.
So, I need more details about achievements, progress, dependencies, problems of each open experiment. I am suggesting a detailed Gantt chart for each experiment highlighting all necessary sub-steps (conceptual design, pre-calculations, instrumentation, infrastructure, key resources and constraints, risk assessment, detailed design, final test matrix, construction including purchases, dates of execution, etc)
Use of resources
There are deviations and too high PMs in WP1 (mainly caused by KIT, AL, HSE) and WP2 (mainly because of AL). This was discussed – however, in my perception this was not seen critically. HYSAFE and UWAR did not use the budget appropriately. For the case of UWAR this is seen critically. UWAR has to provide proper explanation or exclusion from project might be considered.
Diverse
IPR protection was discussed, but found to be of minor issue.
It was realised that AL and HSE did not succeed in submitting the financial report. The explanation from both sides was summer season and too late information of their financial departments to submit the statements electronically.
The logos of FCH JU, Horizon2020 and the EC are missing on the website and in the acknowledgement in our ppt-templates. The website lacks user statistics. The deliverable template has a hidden link to IDEALHY, which pops up if you open the pdf.