IKTIMED project (2G-MED09-152) Kick-off Meeting

MINUTES 21th and 22nd October

2010

9:00 Barcelona – Spain Parc de Recerca

UAB

MEETING CALLED BY Marche Region – Department for Innovation and research

TYPE OF MEETING Kick off Meeting

FACILITATOR Patrizia Sopranzi

NOTE TAKER Anna Torelli

ATTENDEESIKTIMED Partnership with the exception of the representatives of Consortium Veneto Cultural Goods and Region of Western Greece

Agenda topics 21st October 201009:30 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS AND PARTNERS’

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

DISCUSSION

The day starts with the presentation of a DVD of the Marche territory from productive, territorial and economic point of views. Then, Ms Sopranzi describes the structure of regional system of innovation’s offer and the main instruments and results achieved.

Takes the word R. Bucksck which introduces the Science Park of the Independent University, project partners and organization that hosts the kick-off. Subsequently, Ms Torelli describes the agenda for the day and the objectives, inviting the participants to examine the printed material provided in the folder, already sent by email to all PP in the last days.The material is the following: n.1 document called RDP that includes all operational aspects and the allocation of specific tasks for any partner; n.1 document called Iktimed operation plan, which should allow all the partners to determine its own plan of work for each phase with indication of specific actions, expiration dates, staff involved, changes of budget. List of contacts and the form to submit with the information regarding the project coordinator, financial manager, the participant to the steering committee. It is also provided the printed Gantt chart with indication of timely implementation of the project with a reworking of the activities in delay.Then all the representatives of the present partners take the word and describe their own organization through power point presentations; the representatives of the Region of Western Greece and the Consortium Veneto Cultural Goods are not present. After a short break, the lead partner invites to assess the main themes that the project aims to face, the objectives and also the pre-conditions needed for the project start, as the completion of all internal procedures, the identification of the structure of management of the project and the need to go in anticipation for the partners and therefore to manage advances of liquidity. All the partners say that they have complied all procedures and are able to face the financial management of the project budget.

CONCLUSIONS

Beginning of mutual knowledge and competences of the partners. Execution of all necessary activities for the start of the project by all partners. Approval of the working documents for the management

12:00 PROJECT PLANNING: PROJECT MANAGEMENT; PROJECT CHRONOGRAM; WHAT / WHEN / WHO

DISCUSSION

The discussion continues with the LP, which presents the structure of the project, its main components techniques and key issues which the project intends to face up. The partners say they know the main themes of the project, but there is not a unique sharing of certain themes, for this purpose, the representative of TVT invites all to make an index of keywords with explanation. The representative of TVT proposes to use term less restrictive for the component 5 and not to use term Certification but more labelization or accreditation to avoid problems with the different national structures of the systems of certification. Also University of Algarve asks to better reflect on the term and the activities call as certification. The LP confirms that this problem may be considered but that it regards the implementation of actions. The partners of Maribor indicate that the project is in line with their priorities and is certainly a good project with very interesting prospects. Also the Greek partners confirm their extreme interest with the need to have results and objectives, more measurable and concrete as much as possible. The LP, for this purpose, proposes to have additional qualitative and quantities indicators to measure the success of the project, as regards to the indicators already planned in the project at the level of results. Some of the partners confirm this need especially concerning the introduction of criteria of quality, meanwhile the University of Cyprus and others confirm that the indicators inserted into application form are sufficient. The decision is for the moment to not add any additional indicator. Subsequently the LP introduces the organisational structure of the project management, by reference always to the document presented in the KOM folders for the partners. In questa fase si approva di non avere la PMU ma di rimandare poi al giorno dopo la discussione operativa sulla gestione delle fasi.The proposal is to have one coordinator for each phase and a components’ coordinating unit composed by three representatives and called PMU-project management unit. The debate sees some partners initially not convinced of need to have this unit, TVT and IAT in particular, maintaining only coordination of component and referring all to the Steering Committee. The LP notes that this organization may be less functional and efficient and refers to SC operational decisions, but in any case is a decision which has to be taken jointly. In this phase the partnership approves not to have the PMU, but to postpone this decision to the day after dedicated to the operational debate on the phases’ management.

CONCLUSIONS

Not create the PMU at the moment.To used indicators only those already included in the application form. Review component n. 5 and the system of accreditation of certification

14:00

PROJECT WORK PACKAGES AND PHASES AND DISCUSSION ON THE PROJECT OUTPUTS, DELIVERABLES AND EXECUTION FRAMEWORK. FIRST SECTION

DISCUSSION As already confirmed in the KOM invitation sent to all the partners, LP has invited a representative of JTS to take part in the kick-off. The invitation had been forwarded to Project Officer of the project, subsequently, the JTS has indicated Matena Iglesias, financial officer, as its representative within KOM. The representative of JTS confirms her participation only for the afternoon and the project partnership jointly decides to address mainly the financial issues. The representative arrives at 12 a.m. and attends the end of debate and partners’ presentation and takes part after the lunch at the session on the financial aspects. The debate begins with the request coming from TVT to be able to move the project starting date, considering the delay in starting the activities, and possibly the end date. Ms Iglesias confirms that the project starting date of course cannot be changed and the date of end, it may be postponed but not now, at the beginning of the project. The LP introduces and describes the financial reporting system and certification of expenditures and their types, with the use of Power point slides suitably prepared, also using material and information at disposal on the MED programme web site. It is described the path of financial reporting, payment and of expenditures’ certification. Following, the type of different financial lines version are described using printed materials made available, slides but also the use of the Presage CTE platform. Some partners had already attended to the presentation of the MED programme, some of them have Med Projects in progress. In any case the LP, to standardize the knowledge on the financial issues, introduces every aspect of the financial management requesting further clarifications to Ms Iglesias from the JTS. In particular the following clarifications are required by LP that the JTS person confirm: the budget changes among phases and subcategories not influence the financial management and they have not to be added to the overall project budget changes.

As regards the financial reporting of the level of expenditures during the project timeframe, the project must comply with the subsidy contract contents and not with the yearly level of expenditures indicated in AF. May not be required budget changes without having submitted at least one payment claim.

The allocation of travel costs may be in three different budget lines: travels associated to the staff costs, external expertise associated to the external staff costs, the “service” budget line as regards meetings and calls of people not directly involved in the implementation of the project.

Each document of expenditure must be perfectly allocated in the budget and the original must be stamped or must be codified in a precise manner to enable to trace the share or the total expenditures’ amount allocated in the project.The timesheets for the staff must indicate clearly the allocation of activities for each working day, indicating also any other project on which the human resource is working. The timesheets are not required for staff with work contract dedicated to the project.

The VAT is not an eligible cost if the organization retrieves it.The declaration included in the application form regarding the VAT status for each partner status is the one that is authentic and must be considered.

The debate proceed with the LP asking to all the partners to verify at this stage the right allocation of their own budget compared to the activities to implement, as often it happens with issues related to the time of approval and to changes within the partner organisations, budget changes may be needed for the activities’ implementation. For this purpose the LP asks all the partners for verifying their budget, available also in the section of Presage (HTML version AF) and checking its allocation. The LP asks the partners to provide financial details as much as possible addressed to an effective implementation of the activities and to suggest, at this stage, possible changes in order to enable possible compensation and to enable the LP to monitor in a preventive way possible budget changes. Then the LP asks the partners to analyse the documentation submitted and in particular a document known as Iktimed operation plan, which allows to define in detail the actions to implement and to present a reworking of the budget indicating all the movements necessary. The printed documentation in Word format for a better enjoyment and reading is also available in Excel format provided by LP. Some of partners show themselves sceptical about the possibility of varying the budget between the phases of different component, and in particular IAT and TVT, saying that this could lead to a management-administrative difficulty. The LP invites, instead, to make preponderant the operational efficiency of actions against the administrative aspects, which must certainly be implemented in a strict way and are an important component, but they must not drive the implementation of the project. Other partners as UAB, Patras Science Park agree with the proposal, of course taking into account the financial management. The partnership talks also about the participation of Greek Region of Western Greece. The LP confirms that the partner has confirmed, by email, its own participation and that the difficulties in this phase are due to changes, financial and institutional difficulties which Greece are facing, as already it is happened to many other Greek partners involved in other projects.Then, it is discussed the situation of first level controllers, which can see in this time only 4 partners with the controller assigned, but all the partners have started the procedures for this selection. The LP also confirms that the password for the controllers will be sent directly by JTS to controller and not through the LP. Ms Igrlesias confirms.

Then, it’s talked about the possibility to certify or validate the expenditures for the first period until 31st August. The LP, in agreement with the Project Officer, has already asked all the partners to insert on PRESAGE expenditures for that period that could quantify the work done for the project analysis and for the technical and administrative procedures set up including all the procedures for selecting the first level controller, that are part of the component 2 of the project.This, in addition to be correct from a management point of view, would facilitate the management of cash flow of budgets. But the partners declared that they are not interested in this procedure indicating that the activities of the project have not been started up. The University of Cyprus confirms that it has inserted some expenditures for this project, even for demonstrating its determination to be active partner in the project. The LP invites everyone to rethink this approach and refers to the following day for the technical discussion also regarding the allocation of tasks, timely roles

and times of the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Acquisition of all reference terms, financial management, budget lines budget and procedures for finantial reporting

Agenda topics 22nd October 2010

09.30PROJECT WORK PACKAGES AND PHASES AND DISCUSSION

ON THE PROJECT OUTPUTS, DELIVERABLES AND EXECUTION FRAMEWORK. SECOND SECTION

[]

DISCUSSION The LP proposes to discuss the allocations of working groups in consideration of the fact that the previous day have been dedicated mostly to the financial and organization aspects, particularly in view of the JTS presence in the afternoon in the previous day. The LP introduces the document called PSR - Project starting report in which are given all the working groups for phase and for each partner, in which phases they are involved as the coordinator and as participant to the working group. The LP, with the help of a Power point presentation that outlines times and working methods, describes the approach used and the detailed working methods in particular for the next month of November. The LP points out that the approach used foreseen: the implementation of an operational planning of the single project phases with a more operative allocation of tasks for working groups which sees codifications for specific activities assignable to a single human resource. A Greater involvement by the partners at this stage in order to allow for each activity to connect other actions and priorities of the various territories, creating project actions more effective and creating a leverage effect for the project Iktimed.

Than the LP introduces the document known as Operation Plan, which each phase coordinator must fill in together with the participants of its own working group to delineate operational arrangements of each phase. The LP askes to verify the correct identification of the work groups and phase and to create during the day small working groups. Some of the partners ask for clarification, on the meaning of some requirements included in the Operation Plan, but in general they approve the working method. Cyprus proposes that all the coordinators of the groups will prepare the document and send it to the participants to the working groups that make their additions. The proposal is accepted and the following deadlines are fixed: deadline: November 12th Operation plan submission by the coordinators to partners of the working group; 19th November closed Operation plan and sending to the LP; November 29th Operation plan approval by LP. The LP then invites to consult the Gantt of the project outlined for single task and delivered the day before in which is possible to identify all the individual task (sub component of the phases), their duration and allocation in the time until the end of the project. This document has been done to make everybody conscious of the implementation stage of the project and of the return plan of small delays made for technical activities up to this time.

The TVT proposes to rethink the constitution of PMU and proposes to have a unit of 4 members, the Marche Region and in addition a partner for each technical component, 3, 4, 5. Cyprus proposes to insert the partners with the highest budget, IAT indicated from LP as a member of the PMU says that has to check on her return to do so, since they budget may not be enough. The proposal to have a PMU of 4 members is accepted and it is decided to postpone the final decision on its composition to the next week. The LP explains the steps to realize during the following months that are: delivery of the progress report, achievement of all operating documents for the project management, the start of communication activities and particularly web-marketing 1.3; realisation Steering Committee. It’s decided to organise the SC in Ancona on the date of 21st January 2011.All partners regardings phase 3.3 proposed to consider at least 4 case studies as a general goal for all project area and not for each countries. Some of the partners start working in a group in particular the Working Group of the action 1.1. For this purpose the LP proposes some draft of a project logo, starting the debate on the image coordinated the project. At 12:00 some partners, for transfer problems must leave the working table. The debate continues on the individual phases also in the afternoon individually with each partner. The working day is closed at 16.00.

CONCLUSIONS

Presentation and sharing of all working groups and of work method – time arrangements and roles