L 2C
Learning to Collaborate
Project Overview and Management and Progress
Report (WP 7)
Albert Angehrn & Alicia Cheak, INSEAD
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
1
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Structure of the Presentation
1.
Project Overview
2.
D7.1 Quality Assurance Plan
3.
Management and Financial Report
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
2
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Project Overview
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
3
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
L2C: Learning to Collaborate
The objective of the project is to address and significantly
advance the state-of-the-art (both theory and practice) in
two relevant areas:
1.
Technology-enhanced learning of Collaboration
Dynamics and Competencies Development.
2.
Design of Advanced Simulations based on models of
human behaviour in different contexts (organizational,
group/team and interpersonal).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
4
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Three Project Outputs
A comprehensive online Knowledge Base and active Virtual
Learning Community on Advanced Collaboration
Dynamics & Technologies (ACDT).
ACDT Framework: An eLearning Framework to address the
effective development of Collaboration Competencies in
the Information Society.
ACDT Simulation Games Prototypes: Validated computerenhanced solutions deployable in educational and
organizational contexts.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
5
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Relationship among L2C outputs
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
6
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Mid-Team Review Milestones
Milestones
Review 1
• Knowledge harvesting, State of the Art review, common
concept building among the partners
• A set of L2C Simulation Games prototypes
• Set up the Knowledge Base
• Set up the Virtual Learning Community
• Set up the Quality Assurance Plan
• Dissemination and Exploitation Plan
• Definition of the Evaluation Framework
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
7
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Overview of the L2C Project
Phase 1 : Conceptual foundations (M1-6)
• Workpackage 1: Knowledge Harvesting and Integration
• Workpackage 2: Knowledge Management tools development
Phase 2: Prototype development (M7-12)
• Workpackage 3: ACDT Framework, Simulation Scenarios and Design
Phase 3: Piloting and continuous
improvements
to the prototypes (M 12-24)
Learning
to Collaborate
• Workpackage 4: Pilots and piloting cycles
• Workpackage 6: Embedded, continuous evaluation
Phase 4: Deployment and dissemination (M 1-24)
Workpackage 5: Dissemination and exploitation
Project Management (M 1-24)
• Workpackage 7: Project management
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
8
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Simulation Design & Development Process Overview
FOUNDATION
(WP 1)
KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
(WP 2)
DESIGN & MODELLING
(WP 3)
PILTING & TESTING
(WP 4)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
DEPLOYMENT & DIFFUSION
(WP 5)
CONTINUOUS EVALUATION
(WP 6)
9
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
D7.1 Quality Assurance Plan
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
10
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Project Decision Making Structure
Project Steering
Project
Co-ordinator
and AssPC
European
Commission
Committee
Technical
Co-ordinator
Work Package
Leaders
WP 1
WP 2
...
Project Team
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
Technical
Committee
Exploitation &
Dissemination
Board
WP N
Relation with Institutions
and others Products
11
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Three Project Committees Created
1. Project Steering Committee
•
•
To update the strategy of the project, review the progress of work, update plans and set
priorities, to establish and enhance communication with third parties (the participation to
international events and conferences included), and to resolve conflicts, whenever
necessary.
Meetings held: October 10, 2006
Meetings planned: April 15,2007
2. Technical Committee
•
•
General technical implementation issues (technologies adopted, methodologies,
validation circumstances, etc.). Review and update the solutions adopted, the technical
directions of the project and identification of new solutions.
Meetings planned: April 15, 2005
3. Exploitation & Dissemination Board
• The Exploitation & Dissemination Board defines the commercialisation and
dissemination strategy in accordance with the project sponsors in the individual
companies, and possible assigned consultants
• Meetings planned: May 2007
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
12
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Project Steering Committee Members
Organization
Main representative of each partner for the project
INSEAD
Albert Angehrn
UCSC
Federico Rajola
UAFM
Rainer Marr + Alexander Fliaster
OFAI
Prof. Robert Trappl
OU
Siv Vangen
SCIL
Taiga Brahm
IF
Ruggero Cesaria
ALBA
Nikos Mylonopoulos
UC
Anna Simioni
Metis
Thanos Giamas
FVA
Susanna Albertini
Alpha
Martina Eckert
SU
Chris Huxham
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
13
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Technical Committee Members
Organization
Representative (WP Leaders)
INSEAD
Alicia Cheak
UCSC
Federico Rajola
UAFM
Alexander Fliaster
OFAI
Paolo Petta
Metis
Thanos Giamas
FVA
Louis Ferrini
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
14
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Exploitation & Dissemination Board Members
Organization
Representative (Marketing and Business ties)
INSEAD
Albert Angehrn
UCSC
Chiara Frigerio
UAFM
Alexander Fliaster + Florian Schloderer
OFAI
Dr. Sabine Payr
OU
Siv Vangen
SCIL
Taiga Brahm
IF
Luigi Buson
ALBA
Tarsinos Panagiotis
UC
Mr. Gualtiero Insalac
Metis
Vassilis Argyroulis
FVA
Susanna Albertini
Alpha
Martina Eckert
SU
Pam Hearne
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
15
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Project Monitoring
1. Progress and Status Reports
1.
Bi-annual activity reports
2.
Annual cost statements and financial report
3.
Auditing of processes
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
16
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Project Coordination and Communication
1. L2C Internal Project Space (www.calt.insead.edu/livinglab/moodle)
Responsible partner: INSEAD
•
•
Temporary collaboration platform on moodle for project coordination
and communication while the L2C Knowledge Community
(Workpackage 2) is under construction.
Contains the key/basic tools: chat, forums, wikis, calendar,
differential admin and editing rights, online status, email, document
upload/download, search function, folders, etc.
2. L2C Website (www.l2c.net)
Responsible partner: MeTis
•
Project website to communicate the project’s objectives and outputs
to the general public.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
17
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Project Coordination and Communication
3. L2C Knowledge Community (http://www.l2c.fvaweb.net/)
Responsible partner: FVA
•
Collaboration platform for L2C partners, consisting of


•
Knowledge Base: uploading, categorizing, organizing and assessing
content generated within the L2C project.
Virtual Knowledge Community: collaboration space to facilitate
discussion and collaborative work on the research, design, and
deployment of L2C simulation games
Detailed description of the L2C KC and status will be presented in
the WP 2 presentation.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
18
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management & Financial Report
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
19
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Annual Management Report for Year 1
The Annual Management Report is officially due on April 15.
However, the EC required a draft copy of the report for the first
L2C review meeting on March 31, 2007.
Status: A draft version of the Annual Management Report from
all partners was submitted March 23,2007. A final version will be
submitted by April 15, 2007.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
20
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report:
Overall Progress for the Period
• Good Interaction and collaboration among the partners.
• Key communication and collaboration mediums have been
set up.
• All the deliverables and prototypes have been delivered.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
21
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report:
Deliverables Submitted for Review (M1-12)
Del.
No.
Deliverable name
WP no.
Lead
Nature
Dissem.
D7.1
Quality Assurance Plan
ACDT Knowledge Harvesting
and Integration report
Dissemination and exploitation
plan
ACDT Knowledge Management
tools
Evaluation plan
Technical and pedagogical
criteria and metrics
ACDT Framework, simulation
scenarios and design
ACDT Simulation Games
prototypes
Evaluation report of the first
prototypes
WP7
MeTis
Report
R
M02
WP1
UAFM
Report
R
M06
WP5
MeTis
Report
R
M06
WP2
FVA
R
M08
WP6
UCSC
Report +
prototype
Report
R
M08
WP6
UCSC
Report
R
M08
WP3
OFAI
Report
R
M12
WP3
OFAI
Prototype
R
M12
WP6
UCSC
Report
R
M12
D1.1
D5.1
D2.1
D6.1
D6.2
D3.1
D3.2
D6.3
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
Delivery
date
22
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report:
Workpackage Status
Planned
Start Date
Actual Start
Date
Planned
Completion Date
Actual
Completion Date
WP1– Knowledge Harvesting
and Integration
M1 (Mar 2006)
M1 (Mar 2006)
M6 (Aug 2006)
M7 (Sept 2006)
WP2– Knowledge Management
Tools Development
M5 (July 2006)
M2 (Apr 2006)
M8 (Oct 2006)
M8 (Oct 2006)
WP3 – ACDT Framework &
Simulation Games Prototypes
Development
M7 (Sept 2006)
M7 (Sept 2006)
M12 (Feb 2007)
M11.5 (Feb 2007)
WP4 – Pilots & Prototyping
Cycles
M13 (Mar 2007)
Has not started
yes
M24 (Feb 2008)
WP5 – Exploitation and
Dissemination
M7 (Sept 2006)
M1 (Mar 2006)
M24 (Feb 2008)
In progress
WP6 – Embedded, Continuous
Evaluation
M6 (Aug 2006)
M 6 (Aug 2006)
M23 (Jan 2008)
In progress
WP7 – Project Management
M1 (Mar 2006)
M1 (Mar 2006)
M24 (Feb 2008)
In progress
Work Package
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
23
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report:
Quarterly Consortium Meetings
Date
Location
Topic
11-12 January 2007
Metis, Athens, Greece
4th Project meeting
14-15 September 2006
UCAC, Milan, Italy
3rd Project Meeting
24-25 May 2006
ALBA, Athens, Greece
2nd Project Meeting
6-7 March, 2006
INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France
Kick-off meeting
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
24
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report: Status of Individual
Workpackages
•
•
•
WP 1, 2 and 3 are now complete.
WP 5, 6 and 7 are ongoing.
WP 4 will officially start on April 1 (but some initial
testing with actual users has already begun)
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
25
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report:
Effort Declared in Y1
Current situation
Used (Year 1)
Budget (Total- Year
1 + Year 2)
%
WP1
48,12
55,5
86,7%
WP2
49,07
52,5
94,5%
WP3
48,63
68,5
70,9%
WP4
0
76
0
WP5
21,27
65,5
32,5%
WP6
14,77
46,5
31,8%
WP7
5,45
10,8
50.5%
Total
187,31
375,3
49,9%
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
26
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
WP
Status
Analysis & Adjustments
Activity completed with minor
underspending.
Comment: No particular comment.
Reallocation: The unspent resource
workpackages (namely WP 4).
Activity completed with minor
underspending.
Comment: No particular comment.
Reallocation: The unspent resource will be moved to other
workpackages (namely WP 4) towards the ongoing development of the
knowledge management tools.
Activity completed with an
under spending of almost
29% under the estimation.
Comment: The time allocated for conducting this activity was
overestimated given the short time frame for the development of the first
version of the 5 different prototypes.
Reallocation: The unspent resource will be moved to WP 4 since WP 4
is a natural extension of WP 3 activities, involving pilot testing and further
developments to each of the prototypes.
Not yet started.
Comment:
Reallocation:
WP5
Ongoing Activity over 2 years,
with 32,5% spent in the first
year.
Comment: We expect to increase our dissemination activities in Year 2
when the prototypes will have been defined, tested and deployed.
Reallocation: No reallocation needed.
WP6
Ongoing activity over 1.5
years, with 31,8% of effort
spent in the first year.
Comment: Significant evaluation will start with WP 4.
Reallocation: No reallocation needed.
WP7
Ongoing activity over 2 years,
with 50,5% of effort spent in
the first year.
Comment: No particular comment.
Reallocation: No reallocation needed.
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
will
be
moved
to
other
27
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Management Report:
Budget Readjustments for Year 2
Budgeted
(in DOW)
New Budget
diff
WP1
55,5
48,12
-7,38
WP2
52,5
49,07
-3,43
WP3
68,5
48,63
-19,87
WP4
76
106,68
30,68
WP5
65,5
65,5
0,0
WP6
46,5
46,5
0,0
WP7
10,8
10,8
0,0
Total
375,3
375,3
0,0
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
28
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 1:
This workpackage has not met any major problem. As the project started in March
2006, M6 which is very important for Workpackage 1 fell in the vacation period in
August.
Therefore the planning for Workpackage 1 was extended for one additional month to
M7.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
29
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 2:
No major problems were encountered.
Longer period of development required for KM tools. WP 2 started in M2 instead
of M5 (with the allocated resources stretched out over this time period), in order to
allow enough time for the design and development of the knowledge management
tools.
In order to integrate all the features requested by the partners, a few MM were
shifted internally from WP 5 to WP 2.
Further refinement to the knowledge management tools will take place during the
piloting phase in WP 4.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
30
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 3:
Tight development schedule. Five prototypes were under parallel construction
within a 6 months period.
Translating theory into practice took more time than originally anticipated. The
large amount of information about different models and theories of collaboration
(from WP 1), and the fact that many of these models/theories do not distinguish
clearly the three different levels of collaboration addressed, were the major
challenges in the identification of specific dynamics for each of the simulation game
prototypes.
Initial evaluation of theoretical and design soundness of the prototypes. At the
time of reporting for D6.1 Evaluation of the First Prototypes in February 2007, the
partners had the design specification (i.e. D3.1) as a point of reference.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
31
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 3:
Early user feedback is key. Initial pilots have been conducted in the form of three
tests of three prototypes with three groups of managers (user feedback collection).
A reallocation of resources of partners from WP3 to WP4 was undertaken, with WP 4
a natural extension of WP 3.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
32
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 5:
This WP has not faced a major problem.
Rich discussions were conducted on how to design an effective website to
communicate about project results. They will be integrated in the next project phase.
Ideally, communication should start at Day 1. The consortium decided after a
communication with our Project Officer that the WP should start M1 and finish in
M24.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
33
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 6:
No major problems have been encountered.
Strong coordination and planning is key. However, due to the closeness of the
evaluation process activities to the evolvement of other WPs, it was essential to
reach a strong coordination among WPs to work along together.
Because the deliverable was delivered a month before expected, so that it could be
considered in the first review meeting, a full evaluation of the working prototypes was
not possible.
•
•
The Knowledge Base and Virtual Community dimensions were evaluated from a
technical point of view. More detailed and continuous evaluation will continue in WP 4.
For the evaluation of the simulation games prototypes, the design specifications were
assessed, as represented by the description of the design, pedagogical and
implementation guidelines of each of the 5 prototypes currently in development. A more
detailed evaluation covering both pedagogical and technical dimensions of the actual
prototypes will take place, as planned, during the piloting phase (WP 4).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
34
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 6:
Challenge of development and evaluation at the same time. Finally, it was not
always easy to manage partners’ needs and requests of time extensions when they
are involved in several evaluation activities. What happened is that an output is
evaluated as it is being completed, and that these evaluation activities had to be
completed in a very short period of time. This issue will be better managed in WP 4
which spans a year and will allow for more well planned and properly timed
evaluation (i.e. corresponding to pilot tests).
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
35
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Current Experiences and Insights
WP 7:
•
No major problems were encountered. However, due to how the project has
unfolded, some workpackages required less effort or a longer time frame than
had been anticipated.
•
Some partners were new to EC projects and needed particular support.
•
The Consortium Agreement took more time than expected due to involvement of
legal departments of partner organizations.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
36
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Financial Cost Statements
The Financial Cost Statements are officially due on April 15.
However, the EC required a draft copy of the financial report for
the first L2C review meeting on March 31, 2007.
Status: A draft version of the cost statements from all partners
has been submitted. A final version will be submitted by April 15,
2007.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
37
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Financial Cost Statements
The Financial Cost Statements are officially due on April 15.
However, the EC required a draft copy of the financial report for
the first L2C review meeting on March 31, 2007.
Status: A draft version of the cost statements from all partners
has been submitted. A final version will be submitted by April 15,
2007.
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
38
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Effort Declared Per Partner M1-6
Reported effort & planned effort for each partner per workpackage (person months)
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
Name of
Partner
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
INSEAD
8,65
10
4,65
6
0
16
0
22
0,4
12
0
6
1,65
4
UCSC
5
5
1,2
4
0
3
0
4,5
0,8
4
1,5
7,5
0
0,5
UAFM
4,9
8
0,7
4
0
4,5
0
2,5
0,05
2
0
4
0,05
0,5
OFAI
(funded)
1,5
5,5
0
2
0
11
0
3,5
0
2
0
3,5
0
0,5
OU
5
5
0
2
0
2
0
0,5
0,1
2,5
0
3
0,1
0,5
SCIL
2,5
2,5
0
2
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
4
0
0,5
IF
1
1
1
2
0
2
0
5
0,5
3
0
2,5
0,25
0,5
ALBA
2,5
4,5
2,5
3
0
3
0
6
1,5
6
0
4
0,2
0,8
UC
1,1
1
0,5
2
0
2
0
5,5
0
3
0
2,5
0,2
0,5
MeTis
2,5
2,5
4,5
6
0
4
0
12
4
15
0
4,5
0,3
1
FVA
1,81
2
7,84
11,5
0
8,5
0
5,5
0,6
7,5
0
1
0
0,5
Alpha
3,5
3,5
4,35
5
0
7,5
0
5,5
0,2
5
0
0
0,1
0,5
SU
0,75
5
2,4
3
0
1
0
0,5
0,25
1,5
0,05
4
0
0,5
TOTAL
40,71
55,5
29,64
52,5
0
68,5
0
76
8,4
65,5
1,55
46,5
2,85
10,8
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
39
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Effort Declared Per Partner M7-12
Reported effort & planned effort for each partner per workpackage (person months)
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
Name of
Partner
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
INSEAD
1,35
10
1,35
6
16
16
0
22
2,85
12
1,25
6
1,6
4
UCSC
0
5
2,8
4
0,8
3
0
4,5
0,5
4
1,76
7,5
0
0,5
UAFM
1,92
8
2,02
4
1,13
4,5
0
2,5
1,02
2
0,56
4
0
0,5
OFAI
(funded)
0
5,5
0,5
2
6,6
11
0
3,5
0
2
0,9
3,5
0
0,5
OU
0
5
2
2
1,2
2
0
0,5
0,9
2,5
0,45
3
0,15
0,5
SCIL
0
2,5
1,35
2
2
4
0
3
1
2
2
4
0.25
0,5
IF
0
1
1
2
2
2
0
5
0,5
3
1
2,5
0
0,5
ALBA
0
4,5
0,5
3
2
3
0
6
1,5
6
2,5
4
0,2
0,8
UC
0
1
0,5
2
1
2
0
5,5
0,4
3
1
2,5
0,1
0,5
MeTis
0
2,5
1,5
6
2,5
4
0
12
4
15
1
4,5
0,3
1
FVA
0,39
2
5,16
11,5
4,9
8,5
0
5,5
0
7,5
0,8
1
0
0,5
Alpha
0
3,5
0,65
5
7,5
7,5
0
5,5
0,05
5
0
0
0
0,5
SU
3,75
5
0,1
3
1
1
0
0,5
0,15
1,5
0
4
0
0,5
TOTAL
7,41
55,5
19,43
52,5
48,63
68,5
0
76
12,87
65,5
13,22
46,5
2,6
10,8
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
40
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Effort Declared Per Partner M1-12
Reported effort & planned effort for each partner per workpackage (person months)
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
WP7
Name of
Partner
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
Report
Plan
INSEAD
10
10
6
6
16
16
0
22
3,25
12
1,25
6
3,25
4
UCSC
5
5
4
4
0,8
3
0
4,5
1,3
4
3,26
7,5
0
0,5
UAFM
6,82
8
2,72
4
1,13
4,5
0
2,5
1,07
2
0,56
4
0,05
0,5
OFAI
1,5
5,5
0,5
2
6,6
11
0
3,5
0
2
0,9
3,5
0
0,5
OU
5
5
2
2
1,2
2
0
0,5
1
2,5
0,45
3
0,25
0,5
SCIL
2,5
2,5
1,35
2
2
4
0
3
1
2
2
4
0,25
0,5
IF
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
5
1
3
1
2,5
0,25
0,5
ALBA
2,5
4,5
3
3
2
3
0
6
3
6
2,5
4
0,4
0,8
UC
1,1
1
1
2
1
2
0
5,5
0,4
3
1
2,5
0,3
0,5
MeTis
2,5
2,5
6
6
2,5
4
0
12
8
15
1
4,5
0,6
1
FVA
2,2
2
13
11,5
4,9
8,5
0
5,5
0,6
7,5
0,8
1
0
0,5
Alpha
3,5
3,5
5
5
7,5
7,5
0
5,5
0,25
5
0
0
0,1
0,5
SU
4,5
5
2,5
3
1
1
0
0,5
0,4
1,5
0,05
4
0
0,5
TOTAL
48,12
55,5
49,07
52,5
48,63
68,5
0
76
21,27
65,5
14,77
46,5
5,45
10,8
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
41
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Targets/Plan for Third Semester:
Activity
WP
Resp. Partner
Agent Brain Module Implementation
4
OFAl
Integration of Brain Module in Agent Prototype
4
INSEAD and AlphaLabs
Specification of New Dynamics for Simulation
Prototypes (Detailed Scenarios)
4
All
Implementation of New Dynamics in Simulation
Prototypes
4
INSEAD and Alphalabs
Fine-tuning of Pedagogical Material for Simulation
Prototypes
4
All
Further development of L2C Knowledge Community
site
4
FVA
Pilot Runs
4
All
Evaluation of Users Feedback from Pilot Runs
6
UCSC
Production of Effective Communication Material
7
MeTis
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
42
Project Overview, Management & Progress Report (WP 7)
Thank You for Your Attention
Review Meeting – INSEAD, Fontainebleau – 30 March 2007
43