SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
PRIORITY [#]
[PRIORITY TITLE]
Contract for:
INTEGRATED PROJECT
Revised Annex I - “Description of Work”M37-M48
Project acronym: RURAL WINGS
Project full title: RURAL WINGS
Proposal/Contract no.: FP6-IP 516161
Related to other Contract no.: (to be completed by Commission)
Date of preparation of Annex I: 04/03/2009 (12th version)
Start date of contract: (to be completed by Commission)
1
1. Table of Contents
1.
PROJECT SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) ........................................................................................................................ 4
3.
PARTICIPANTS LIST ............................................................................................................................... 9
4. RELEVANCE TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AERONAUTICS AND SPACE PRIORITY/
ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 11
5. POTENTIAL IMPACT .................................................................................................................................. 14
5.1 CONTRIBUTIONS TO STANDARDS…………………………………………………………………………...14
5.2 CONTRIBUTION TO POLICY DEVELOPMENTS………………………………………………………………..18
EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE………………………………………………………………………………….18
5.3 RISK ASSESSMENT AND RELATED COMMUNICATION STRATEGY……………………………………………19
6. OUTLINE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE FULL DURATION OF THE PROJECT ............. 20
6.1 RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION ACTIVITIES………………………………23
6.2 DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES………………………………………………………………………………42
6.3 TRAINING ACTIVITIES………………………………………………………………………………………42
6.4 MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSORTIUM ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………..43
6.B PLANS ........................................................................................................................................................... 44
6.5 PLAN FOR USING AND DISSEMINATING KNOWLEDGE ................................................................ 44
6.6 GENDER ACTION PLAN ........................................................................................................................... 47
6.7 RAISING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND AWARENESS ................................................................... 48
6.C MILESTONES ............................................................................................................................................. 49
6.8 MAJOR MILESTONES OVER FULL PROJECT DURATION............................................................. 49
7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 50
8. DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN – THIRD 18 MONTHS .......................................................... 61
8.1 INTRODUCTION - GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND MILESTONES ……………………………………………….61
8.1.1
PILOT SITES IN RURAL WINGS ................................................................................................... 66
8.1.2
E-PLATFORM AND E-TOOLS PROVIDERS ................................................................................ 85
8.1.3
PROJECT MILESTONES FOR THE THIRD 18 MONTHS DURATION .................................. 99
8.1.4
PARTNERS RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................. 100
8.2 PLANNING AND TIMETABLE ............................................................................................................... 108
8.3 GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF WORK PACKAGES .................................................................. 108
8.4 WORK PACKAGE LIST /OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 109
8.5 DELIVERABLES LIST ............................................................................................................................. 110
8.6 WORK PACKAGE DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................................................................... 112
WORK PACKAGE DESCRIPTION (18 MONTHS PERIOD, MONTH 25 - 42) ...................................... 112
9. PROJECT RESOURCES AND BUDGET OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 149
9.5 IP MANAGEMENT LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCES AND BUDGET ............................. 165
9.5.1 PERSON MONTHS ................................................................................................................................. 168
9.5.2 BUDGET ISSUES .................................................................................................................................... 170
10. ETHICAL ISSUES...................................................................................................................................... 188
11. OTHER ISSUES (OPTIONAL) ................................................................................................................. 188
2
Project summary
In recent years there have been several initiatives in the field of satellite telecommunications
applications, in order to address the needs of rural communities. This indicates the unique advantages
of satellite technologies for providing high quality wireless broadband connection to any type of
population within large geographical areas. Rural Wings is an ambitious project that proposes to
develop an advanced learning platform through satellite DVB-RCS access technologies, promoting a
user-centred methodological approach which constitutes its major innovation. The main aim of the
present approach is to support the creation of a new culture in rural communities promoting digital
literacy and reducing resistance to the use of new technologies. It will go step further, encouraging
users to add their significant contribution to the emerging applications by involving them in meaningful
activities, tailored to address the needs of different user groups. Thus, Rural Wings aims to offer
stimulating and creative learning environments to support vibrant user communities and will attempt
an extended implementation in dozens of pilot sites in 15 European countries. It is expected that Rural
Wings project will help to catalyse the satellite broadband take up in Europe and beyond.
The Rural Wings project will be based on innovation practices and techniques deployed in industrial
environments, aiming to the optimization of the new products’ development process. The ultimate goal
is the transfer of knowledge and the adjustment of these practices in different knowledge spaces (at
school, at work, at home) as a mean for interaction between user needs and technological
developments: The needs of users in rural areas feed the integration of the educational environment
with dynamic requirements for new services or for the adaptation of existing ones. In this way the
users’ perception of their problems/needs leads the development of technology and of learning
practices.
3
2. Project objective(s)
The project’s approach is aiming at the development of a cognitive based open learning system
and environment that can generate creativity and a capacity of learning to learn in the users, through
the development of a new learning culture. It will offer to the users (students, teachers, doctors and
health personnel, farmers, local administrators and public authorities) ubiquitous access to the
learning content. The Rural Wings integrated learning services environment will be developed through
the effective utilization of a wide range of ICT applications for educational purposes (e.g. WebTV
channel for students, virtual visits to museums, science centres, research laboratories) based on a
participatory methodology in which users will play a very active role in creating additional components,
through the creative use of constructionist principles and related ICT technologies. The Rural Wings
integrated learning services environment will also support the exchange of material between users and
experts, it will allow for easy uploads and downloads of relevant material, it will facilitate the direct
communication between the users and the networking activities of all the actors involved. Such a
service offers high speed two-way connection that gives the opportunity to deliver content utilizing
completely the capabilities of multimedia tools. High quality video streaming broadcasted can be
delivered to users at school, at work or at home. Real-time on-line seminars can be realized in this
way, while the users will have the opportunity to download simultaneously educational and training
material and supporting documents or software according to their needs.
Overall, the Rural Wings project aims to improve the functionality, usability and acceptability of
future information products and services through the development of innovative models for the
provision of learning services, fully exploiting the potential of ambient intelligence technologies,
enabling ubiquitous, interactive, personalized and tailored access to learning and knowledge on
demand. It will develop advanced learning schemes at school, at workplace and at home and will
encourage lifelong learning, thus reflecting the needs of a knowledge-based economy.
Specifically the Rural Wings project’s objectives are:
 To perform an extended validation process and a usability evaluation during the
development and integration to the final system of the technology, scenario settings and services
that will be offered to the users. The goal is two-fold: a) to specify all the tasks (users’ activities within
the pilot scenarios) that are relevant to the Rural Wings system and to evaluate the users’ task on job
demands in terms of characteristics and context and b) to mobilise a large group of stake holders to
take-up the results and create a sustainable plan for exploit them, and to further explore the potential
domains of their application. The objective would be
 To determine how the DVB-RCS platform will need to evolve in order to fulfil increasing
user expectations and to compare this with current developments that are under way at the
equipment manufacturers. The Rural Wings project proposes to develop innovative ways of
implementing the DVB-RCS platform in order to demonstrate the huge potential of communication via
satellite to the users in rural areas. The objective will be to select the most appropriate applications,
and propose a roadmap up to the operational status including demonstrations and technical
developments in order to promote and facilitate the use of satellite communications over Europe and
beyond.
 To create of a world-wide network of Learning Hubs in rural areas. These centres (in the
initial phase schools, public offices and health centres will serve as Learning Hubs) will be equipped
with the necessary infrastructure in order to support the project’s implementation. These Learning
Hubs pilot sites will serve as working models and demonstration sites within which the project’s
activities will take place. The Learning Hubs should not emulate traditional training centres. The
Learning Hubs will be a place for digital creation, fostering the human spirit, civic development and
collective efficiency. The tools available should be wide ranging, from computers, broadband access,
digital cameras and a variety of supportive software tools (e.g. for creation of web-pages, video
capturing and editing).
 To introduce a new learning culture. The aim of this project is not to impose solutions
but rather to empower people in all the stages of their life to invent their own solutions. The
project is going to demonstrate the use of a new generation of technologies and applications that
enable people to design, create, and learn in new ways, helping them to become more active
participants in their communities. The aim is to empower rural communities to both use and generate
4
knowledge that is relevant to their basic needs by developing their local capacity to use ICTs in a
creative way that allows them to create sustainable rural livelihoods and improve their quality of life.
The Rural Wings consortium will test these ideas and technologies in pilot sites around the world,
helping individuals and communities to develop new strategies in their daily activities ranging from
commerce to agriculture to health care –and, more broadly, to transform the ways they learn and
evolve. The present applications are supporting a “constructionist” approach to life-long learning, by
helping people take charge of their own learning throughout their lives.
 To provide a range of learning methods that will enable users to become independent
learners. The project targets several types of users. As each person has different ways of learning
and understanding, the competence-based scheme should provide a wide variety of instructional
approaches. The methodology has to support learners to work independently, co-operatively and in an
increasingly self-organizing way. This will be achieved through the development of different
educational scenarios (educational pathways) that will cover different contexts (Learning at School,
Learning at Work and Learning at Home), users (students, teachers, doctors and health personnel,
farmers, local administrators and public authorities) and will touch upon several subjects from different
perspectives. The scenarios will attempt knowledge construction at several levels: (a) access to
information, (b) adaptation of learning material, (c) knowledge sharing and (d) technology potential
(depending on the usability and the features they offer) and they will enhance a factor that guarantees
success in every educational approach: the “fun factor”. The users will be involved in a series of
“learning to learn” situations. As research in pedagogy demonstrates, successful learning can be
achieved in authentic situations. Furthermore, very much related to constructivist learning theories, the
learner should be encouraged to actively explore “the world” by himself/herself instead of adopting
teacher-oriented approaches which are often based on the idea of “knowledge transmission”. In the
framework of the activities, the users will be able to personalize a set of resources for reference and
problem solving.
 Provision of eLearning tools that can be used by all members of the local community
who are in need of continuous training, education and support. Apart from the students and
teachers, the local community members in need of such support include farmers, people in the tourist
industry, small/very small businesses, etc. The key to the present framework lies in the decomposition
of knowledge into independent, reusable “eLearning modules”. This can be achieved by an efficient
representation of knowledge in reusable modules by means of semantic mark-up and by devising
algorithms that can efficiently match the requirements of prospective trainees to a sound combination
of “eLearning modules”. Professional Development Portals (PDP) will also be created in order to
support the proposed activities and to act as stimuli for further communication between the user
groups. These portals will be linked to relevant annotated documents, databases and interaction
forums and will serve as a repository for locally produced materials, including archives of presented
streaming sessions.
 Utilization of the ICT capabilities for promoting the local community’s interests. Special
attention will be given to the use of ICTs to serve the local community’s goals. The use of ICTs is
expected to contribute strongly to the connection of the young people’s education with real life in their
community and the transformation of the Learning Hubs to communication centres for social and
economic development. This will be achieved with the active involvement of the users (teachers,
students, farmers, health personnel, local administrators) in the organization/materialization of
activities (scenarios) that will demonstrate the benefits of the use of ICTs (self-training and learning,
virtual and collaborative applications) for the local community and economy (e-shops for agricultural
products, e-newspapers, weather forecast etc).
 Enhancement of the communication between rural communities. The aim of Rural Wings
is to create a virtual learning community where people will be encouraged to communicate and will
get familiarized with the idea of cooperation and networking. The Rural Wings learning environment
will be, among others, an integrated communication tool. People will be able to participate to videoconferences through the Rural Wings integrated system itself, to have electronic discussions with their
partners on the problems, to learn about other countries and cultures.
Potential Establishment of Working Groups
In order for the Rural Wings project to meet its ambitious objectives a multidisciplinary team
(satellite communications’ providers/operators, software experts, telecommunications
companies, experts in distance and life long learning methods as well as a large number of
users’ communities in Europe and Africa) has been established. The partnership will support and
contribute to the creation of working groups on educational (distance and life long education
5
methods and applications) and technology (method of installing or utilizing the existing and emerging
technologies) issues aiming in the enhancement of dissemination and clustering between the
members of these potential working groups. Representatives of running or former projects, under
relevant action lines of EC or ESA programmes (integrated projects, Networks of excellence, STREPs
and actions of the ARTES), will participate in such working groups, the aim being to reinforce the
dissemination of the results. The working groups will furthermore support the effective clustering
collaboration between the running projects and will build upon the results of former projects, in order to
demonstrate a model of active synergy among a network of people working with similar targets. Some
of the partners of the consortium also participate in other related initiatives and thus will provide
cooperation of the Rural Wings project with these programmes (RCST, TWISTER as it will be
described in the following, ZEUS, MUSE, SchoolSAT, AMERHIS, BARRD, RIA, NMB, VERDI) in
terms of dissemination of the results and clustering. Additionally the Rural Wings project will attempt to
collaborate in this respect with two major research consortia, the Digital Nations and the E4P, both
coordinated by the MIT Media Laboratory. Both projects are developing technologies for learning in
rural areas of developing countries across the world (Thailand, Costa Rica, Colombia).
Additionally the work of the support action SATMAC on the socio-economic benefits and impact of the
projects addressing the 'digital divide' will be taken into account. It is foreseen to establish potentially a
communication with the coordinator of SATMAC to exchange relevant information on the cost-benefit
analyses undertaken.
The Rural Wings consortium will also attempt to collaborate with the recently approved ESA-ARTES 1
project “Investigation of advanced satellite applications adapted to development needs in
insular and mountainous regions”. The specific project focuses at the geographical landscape of
Greece with its inhabited island and rural communities, and the neighbouring mountainous SE
European countries, create a unique study platform which will benefit not only the communities
residing in the above areas but also the European satellite industry in its entity.
In this framework the Rural Wings consortium will deploy a series of interaction points with the other
consortium during the lifetime of your project (invitation to meetings for dissemination activities, maybe
a dedicated meeting to exchange views) in order to facilitate the process of the development of a
common plan for future actions and developments in the field.
IMPORTANT NOTES
As referred previously the Rural Wings consortium intends to initiate collaboration with other relevant
projects in the field in order to exchange views and ideas on the specific key action line. However, in
this point of the Technical Annex and in line with the fact that some of the Rural Wings consortium
partners participate in other projects, the following should be made clear:
a) the collaboration with currently running or former projects (like RCST, ZEUS, MUSE, SchoolSAT,
AMERHIS, BARRD, RIA, NMB, VERDI that were mentioned earlier or Digital Nations and the E4P and
ESA-ARTES 1 project is meant only in terms of dissemination of results or clustering activities. In this
sense joint dissemination results may occur (i.e. invitation of other projects representatives to the
Rural Wings infodays, conferences or workshops) but in no way this would result in exchange of
Deliverables or any other mean that would imply overlapping of project activities and thus would result
in double funding by the EC. Rural Wings has a specific implementation plan which mainly focuses in
the provision of tele-education services in approx. 135 pilot sites all over Europe; this is not the aim or
the goal of the other project mentioned above. Moreover, the pilot sites that are and will be used in
RURAL WINGS are totally different from the pilot sites used in the above projects (i.e ZEUS, which
on the other hand does not use DVB-RCS satellite platform) and furthermore the RURAL WINGS
consortium will not benefit from existing or double equipment, while in parallel, the consortium will
make all the necessary precautions to ensure that such a situation is avoided. It is hereby declared
that wherever, in the following paragraphs and Sections of this Technical Annex, collaboration with the
above projects is referred it has strictly the meaning of dissemination and clustering purposes.
b) Regarding the collaboration with TWISTER project the following should be noted explicitly since a
unique situation occurs. The TWISTER project (“Terrestrial Wireless Infrastructure integrated with
Satellite Telecommunications for E-Rural applications”) is leaded by Astrium SAS who is also a key
partner in the present RURAL WINGS consortium. The work of TWISTER project will mainly affect the
RURAL WINGS project only on the feasibility study (which lies in the 2nd WP of the RURAL WINGS
project as it can be seen later in the Section 8.6 Workpackage Description) of the architecture and the
6
technologies used in the pilot sites. Already an agreement has been reached, by exchange of formal
letters between the Coordinators of the two projects TWISTER and RURAL WINGS, concerning the
non-cost basis provision by the TWISTER to RURAL WINGS, of Feasibility Study on DVB-RCS and
WiFi Technologies to be used in the framework of RURAL WINGS project.
Regarding the rest of the TWISTER activities the following should be mentioned in order to be
absolutely clear that overlapping between the TWISTER and RURAL WINGS is absolutely avoided:
The objective of the TWISTER project is to develop hybrid satellite – wireless broadband solutions
allowing providing innovative broadband services and applications meeting the needs of rural user
communities. TWISTER consists of a 12 partner’s consortium and will deploy and operate up to 105
validation sites throughout Europe. These validation sites will combine bi-directional satellite
broadband services with wireless local networks to provide applications to rural user communities. The
TWISTER consortium aims at the selection, definition, deployment and operation of validation sites to
evaluate usage and performance of applications and networks. The overall planning of TWISTER
consists of analysis of users and services requirements, system design and development, system
integration and validation on test beds, validation site deployment, usage and evaluation. The
TWISTER project starts with a baseline of 35 validation sites already defined while in the future will
identify more than 70 more sites for statistically valuable results on network and application
performance while the majority of the TWISTER deliverables are directly connected with the site
validation issues in terms of system performance.
Based on the above can be easily seen that the purpose and the implementation plan of RURAL
WINGS project are totally different ensuring that no overlapping of activities will take place. First of all,
the RURAL WINGS pilot sites are not and will not be the same with the TWISTER ones. This implies
that totally new equipment (DVB-RCS terminals, antennas and networking etc) will be purchased for
the RURAL WINGS pilot sites which prevents the consortium of exploiting existing equipment if the
pilot sites were the same with TWISTER or other projects (and thus ensures that overlapping of
activities and double funding by EC is absolutely avoided). Furthermore, TWISTER is focused mainly
on the validation of the system architecture and performance from the technical point of view while
RURAL WINGS goes far beyond that; RURAL WINGS is based on a network and system architecture
in order to actually provide tele-education services and not just to validate the correct technical
performance of the network. In this respect RURAL WINGS gives specific and significant importance
on the evaluation of the pedagogical aspect of the tele-education services that will be provided as it
can be seen from the relevant WPs 3 and 8 and also the total set of the RURAL WINGS Deliverables
which are different from the TWISTER both in type and resulting aim.
Additionally the RURAL WINGS is differently organised taken into account that 25 partners are being
involved. Since the pilot sites between the two projects are different with different needs and demands
the corresponding system architecture that will be adopted is totally different from the one used in
TWISTER while the use of WiFi wireless networks is not mandatory to all the sites but will be used
only to facilitate the provision of services. Thus, it can be said with no harm that TWISTER is
Technical performance oriented while RURAL WINGS is application and services oriented and
focused on the end user. On the other hand in the RURAL WINGS many different e-platforms and etools will be used for actual education services to support three major pathways Learning@school,
learning@work and learning@home. These e-platforms and e-tools will be adjusted to comply with the
DVB-RCS platform while pedagogical evaluation outcomes will become from their use. On that issue
TWISTER uses just the relevance competences of its specific partners to validate the proper technical
usage of similar e-tools and not to extract pedagogically evaluation results. Finally, it should be noted
that ASTRIUM being a participant to both project does not carry out the same tasks in both of them;
ASTRIUM’s role in RURAL WINGS is not to provide system design and development and technical
equipment to the whole project but to facilitate the technical installation and proper function of the
RURAL WINGS sites. Finally, RURAL WINGS is different from TWISTER in the following very
significant additional issues:




RURAL WINGS has already identified the end users both in location and type
the usage of the National Coordinators which is not found to any other project
RURAL WINGS incorporates active involvement of the local communities
All existing e-learning and e-training platforms and tools along with those that will be further
developed and adapted through out the project will be integrated in a unique system e-service
7
From the above it is clear that TWISTER and RURAL WINGS are different projects and overlapping of
activities is totally avoided. The only common point is the conclusions of the TWISTER’s feasibility
study that will be provided to RURAL WINGS by ASTRIUM on a non-cost basis to support the RURAL
WINGS definition of system architecture.
8
Participants List
List of Participants
Partici
pant.
Role*
Parti
cipan
t. No
Participant name
Participant
short name
Country
Date
enter
project
Date
exit
project
CO
1
Institute of Communication
and Computer Systems
ICCS
Greece
1
48
CR
2
Astrium SAS
ASTRIUM
France
1
48
CR
3
Avanti Communications
AVANTI
United Kingdom
1
48
CR
4
WITHDRAWN
CR
5
WITHDRAWN
CR
6
EUTELSAT
EUTELSAT
France
1
48
CR
7
Ellinogermaniki Agogi
EA
Greece
1
48
CR
8
Insead
INSEAD
France
1
48
CR
9
Stockholm
University
(STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET) Institute For International
Education
Sweden
1
48
SU/IIE
EDEN
United Kingdom
1
48
Greece
1
48
Cyprus
1
48
Spain
1
48
Greece
1
48
Romania
1
48
Estonia
1
48
DBC
Switzerland
1
48
UoA
Greece
1
48
Germany
1
48
CR
10
European Distance And ELearning Network
CR
11
WITHDRAWN
CR
12
Q-PLAN S.A.
CR
13
HELLASSAT
LTD
CR
14
WITHDRAWN
CR
15
University of Barcelona,
Department of Didactics
and
Educational
Organisation
CR
16
Q-Plan
Consortium
HELLASSAT
UB
Institute
of
Computer
Science, Foundation for
Research and Technology
– Hellas - ICS-FORTH
FORTH
CR
17
Universitatea "Politehnica"
din Bucuresti
UPB
CR
18
Alfa
–
Communications
A&O
CR
19
Digital Broadcast Channel
CR
20
Omega
University of Aegean
CR
21
Technical
University
(AEGEAN)
of
TUD
9
Dresden
CR
22
WITHDRAWN
CR
23
FORTHnet S.A. – Hellenic
Telecommunications
and
Telematics
Applications
Company
FORTHnet
European
Council
ERC
CR
24
CR
25
CR
26
Resuscitation
TELEMEDICI
Telemedicine Technologies
NE (TTSA)
Ben Gurion University –
Center For Futurism In
Education
BGU
FOURIER
CR
27
Fourier Systems Ltd
CR
28
WITHDRAWN
CR
29
Progress
&
Foundation
CR
30
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi
State University
LAE-TSU
CR
31
State
Engineering
University of Armenia
SEUA
Business
PBF
Greece
1
48
Belgium
1
48
France
1
48
Israel
1
48
Israel
1
48
Poland
1
48
Georgia
10
48
Armenia
10
48
*CO = Coordinator
CR = Contractor
** Normally insert “month 1 (start of project)” and “month n (end of project)”
These columns are needed for possible later contract revisions caused by joining/leaving participants
10
4. Relevance to the objectives of the Aeronautics and Space
Priority/ activity objectives
Europe needs an extended space policy, driven by demand,
able to exploit the special benefits that space technologies
can deliver in support of the Union’s policies and objectives:
faster economic growth, job creation and industrial competitiveness,
enlargement and cohesion, sustainable development and security and defense.
White Paper “Space: A new European frontier for an expanding Union”, COM (2003)673
The potential developments of broadband applications is tightly connected to important economic and
regulatory issues that involve both the government intervention and the attitude of private forces, but
an equally or even more important role will be played by communities of different nature and types (P.
Cohendet (2003), Report for ESA: “The Digital Divide in the European Enlarged Economic Scenario:
An Assessment of the Socio-economic Effects”). In fact, the wide development and application of
broadband satellite communication applications will not depend on the availability of technology
but rather on the interest and responsiveness primarily of the users’ communities. In particular
in the case of rural communities, ambitious initiatives should be developed that address a range of
issues that are of interest to the local communities, affect the local economy and provide content that
is locally relevant. In other words, these initiatives should “create effective and sustainable uses for
technology that are integrated into local society”. And maybe this is the key reason why many of
the numerous local initiatives offering a range of applications such as tele-centers, tele-medicine,
training, innovative business applications, etc have ultimately failed to be embraced by local
communities.
Validation of satellite technology for educational purposes
The Rural Wings project aims to perform a wide-scale validation of the use of satellite technology for
educational purposes. The objective will be to select the most appropriate wireless access
applications, placing also emphasis on ESA developed applications, and to propose a roadmap up to
the operational status including technical developments and demonstrations within the project’s
framework. In this way it is hoped to promote and facilitate the use of satellite communications over
Europe and beyond. This project seeks to use advanced technology as a tool to foster Human
Development, in order to use the great potential that the new technologies might have for addressing
major societal challenges. The success of the new technological applications depends heavily
on the acceptance of the end-user. The Rural Wings project will add its contribution towards this
direction and will act as a change agent in charge of driving change in the community of users, i.e.
first diagnosing and understanding the ‘players’ and their context and then trying to ‘convince’ them.
Initially the consortium will deploy a series of scenarios that will be addressed to a range of users
(students, teachers, doctors and health personnel, farmers, local administrators and public
authorities), in different learning contexts (school, work and home) and that will touch upon a range of
subjects from different perspectives. This is vital for building user awareness and clarifying user
requirements. Initial “hand-holding” with the users’ groups encourages them and helps to build trust
and confidence vis-à-vis to the use of technologies. User groups have to develop a frame of reference
that allows them to take the new technological applications into account when defining their
application requirements. The implementation of pilot scenarios-demonstrations is critical for
developing applications that meet core user and community requirements. Defining and implementing
an application is a highly interactive process wherein the application helps the user group to
understand and appreciate the technology and its potential, leading to a specific scenario of use for
the community or user group. This approach is time-consuming but is essential for effectively
introducing new technology-based applications. In the framework of the Rural Wings project an
extended validation process and a usability evaluation will be performed during the development
and integration to the final system of the technology, scenario settings and services that will be offered
to the users. The goal is two-fold:
11


to specify all the tasks (users’ activities within the pilot scenarios) that are relevant to the Rural
Wings system and to evaluate the users’ task on job demands in terms of characteristics and
context.
to mobilise a large group of stake holders to take-up the results and create a sustainable plan
for exploit them, and to further explore the potential domains of their application.
The Rural Wings project proposes to develop innovative ways of implementing the DVB-RCS platform
in order to demonstrate the huge potential of communication via satellite to the users in rural areas.
Additionally the satellite/WiFi combination will be adopted by the participating communities, given the
ability of this new technology to facilitate the emergence of flexible interpersonal communication
patterns, which in turn will help to develop and strengthen “learning networks” around important
community issues. In this way, the project Rural Wings will go beyond the Learning Hubs experience,
evolving in the direction of “learning networks and communities” that can more proactively
integrate various social actors in a decentralized and participatory approach to knowledge generation
and use relevant to community issues. These innovations will change profoundly the current teaching
and learning methodologies and will encourage the development of new pedagogical tools, better
suited to meet the challenges of a global knowledge-based society. The vision and impact of projects
such as Rural Wings, could best be expressed in the words of Dychtwald (1988) who states that “By
2020, the traditional ‘linear life’ paradigm in which people migrate through education, then work, then
leisure/retirement, will be replaced by a new ‘cyclic life’ paradigm in which education, work and leisure
are interspersed repeatedly throughout the life span. It will become normal for 50 year olds to go back
to school and for 70 year olds to start new careers”.
Bridging the digital divide
The European policy concerning the use of space as is expressed in the Green Paper action (COM
(2003) 17 final) clearly states the objective of setting-up a competitive knowledge society where all
citizens may have access to advanced technologies and services. It furthermore states the necessity
of social “digital” inclusion in terms of communication, circulation of cultural content and access to high
quality services of all European citizens. Globalisation of this European policy is envisioned (White
Paper “Space: A new European frontier for an expanding Union”, COM (2003) 673), encouraging
international co-operation with leading space powers and building international partnerships that
promote specific actions for developing and third countries. The issue of “Bridging the digital divide” at
a global level to ensure that all parts of the world can reap the benefits from the information society,
was at the heart of the World Summit on the information society, held in Geneva (2003). In particular,
the European Space Policy White Paper (COM (2003) 673) recommended actions include the issue of
digital divide, accessing possible solutions and setting up of pilot projects. The forum on the digital
divide set up by the European Commission will examine amongst others, issues such as the definition
of the users’ needs to be addressed under a digital divide initiative, the identification of best practices
from already running initiatives and a cost benefit analysis of the various technological options
including the space-based ones. The Rural Wings project will address and contribute to different
degrees, to all the above issues. The approach of the Rural Wings aims to put together the private
sector (ICT and SatCom companies) and the civil society (rural communities), in order to develop pilot
initiatives that are grounded to the needs of different local users’ communities and can be integrated
into the local economy to ensure sustainability. Leveraging the experience gained from such pilot
applications it is expected that in turn will affect changes in government policies and laws that will
encourage and support the effective implementation of a universal service encompassing and
benefiting all the population.
Integration of research activities
The European Union has recourse to space technology as a generic tool when it provides useful
support for various Community policies (“Demand Pull”). On the other hand ESA is giving strong
priority to scientific and industrial mastery of the technology and systems (“Technology Push”). This
tendency is clearly presented in most of the ESA projects in which the technological parameter is
mainly stressed. The combining of the two approaches in a common vision of the European space can
be particularly fruitful.
The Rural Wings project will add its contribution to this direction as it intends to build on the projects
(EC projects, ESA projects as well as National projects) in the field of satellite applications for rural
areas that preceded it and to follow the development of currently running ones. In particular the project
will closely follow work that is taking place not only in Europe (TWISTER as described in Section 3
and WP2, ZEUS, MUSE, SchoolSAT, AMERHIS, BARRD, RIA, NMB, VERDI) but also in Canada (the
12
SMTS -Satellite Multimedia Trials for Schools- project, which brings high speed communications to a
selected number of schools within the provinces of Newfoundland, Quebec, and Ontario; the RCST –
Remote Communities Services Telecenter- project, which aims to the development of a shared-use
facility for under-served and lightly populated areas to provide tele-education, tele-health, Internet and
information access services through a conventional network facility (telephone or cable) or, as is more
likely in remote regions, through the use of shared wireless satellite communications facility) and in
Australia (the Electronic Outback project, which uses satellite technology as a communications
linchpin for remote communities). The Rural Wings project will push the current boundaries
farther by providing a platform that integrates contextual information into learning settings,
due to the breadth and strength of the Rural Wings partners, their theoretical underpinnings
and their advanced experience in this field.
13
5. Potential Impact
Strategic impact
Within the framework of the mid-term review of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan
in early 2004, the European Commission will propose to set up a Forum on the
Digital Divide. This Forum will bring together all stakeholders in the area
of the Information Society and electronic communications,
including the satellite constituency and ESA,
and will analyse how to bridge the digital divide.
White Paper “Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union”, COM (2003) 673
Traditional learning modes whether theoretical (school) or practical (professional training) have been
constrained in the past by physical distance. ICTs on the other hand offer potentially unlimited access
to the stock of knowledge in society and dramatically contribute to the social modes of learning by
enhancing connectivity between like-minded user communities who are distant in space. This coupling
of local and global knowledge and exchange of best practices fosters strong learning potential and
enhances the individual’s competence and experience. Ultimately, ICT rewards its users with
increased incomes and greater cultural and political advantages.
Based on these ideas, the Rural Wings project comes to maximize the role of ICT in lifelong and
distance learning of professionals and individuals in rural or isolated areas, guaranteeing
access to a wealth of information at all times (as they are no longer restricted for instance to library
opening hours and limited material when researching a topic) so that they can carry out professional
and skilled work, being no longer at disadvantage due to their geographical location. The Rural Wings
project proposes to develop and implement an advanced learning environment based on satellite
technologies which constitute appropriate solutions for rural regions. Their cost effectiveness
compared to traditional (wired) services will be indicated through specific applications that will address
several and varied users communities. The project’s approach will be developed along three main
axes: learning at school (teachers and students), at work (professionals’ communities) and at home
(individual citizens). It is expected to:

assist professionals with their personal adjustment and professional adaptation in order to live
and work in rural areas

offer to professionals in rural areas support tools for successfully carrying out their projects
and missions

help them develop professional competence, skills and abilities to understand and use new
methods and technologies in their fields, in order to maintain the high standards (academic/
medical service) that exist in urban areas

provide quality staff development without the expense of traveling, substitutes and lodging

create regional and global networks (e-communities) of professionals that support each other
sharing -information and experience, and thus enable the diffusion of best practices
The ultimate goal of the Rural Wings project is to (a) develop a general set of guidelines (including
technical, social and financial aspects) which will be possible to adapt for use in different areas and
inversely (b) to develop a plan per region that will guarantee self-sustainability of the local professional
workforce.
5.1 Contributions to standards
Introducing standards to the development process is crucial in better organizing markets and therefore
providing improved services for citizens. According to many studies, EC identifies standardization as a
key strategic topic and recommends extending further the links with official organizations,
because such links can serve to increase the general acceptance of systems, and its rapid and
pervasive deployment. The Rural Wings consortium has already establish such a contact with
CEN/ISSS in order the project’s output into its standardization processes (production of CEN
workshop agreements, see Annex I). Also considering these recommendations, the overall Rural
14
Wings system will be based on international standards.
DVB Return Channel via Satellite (RCS) standard
The development of the DVB Return Channel via Satellite (RCS) standard, recently accepted by
ETSI (EN 301 790), is the first attempt at introducing a wide-scale satellite access standard. Since this
access is packet-based and on-demand, once the session is established with the hub, the link is
permanently open, thus providing an “always-on” IP connection, with efficient use of satellite resources
(provided the duty-cycle of the terminals is low on the return link). The new standard includes such
advanced features as a software-radio system (the terminal acquires the characteristics of the
transmission parameters it has to use from signals broadcast by the hub), network synchronisation in
the digital domain (all terminals are synchronised to the same precise clock transmitted digitally by the
hub), sophisticated bandwidth-on demand protocols which can mix constant-rate, dynamic-rate,
volume-based and best-effort bandwidth allocation and advanced forward-error-correction turbo
coding.
The Rural Wings consortium will work in line with this standard and will provide a wide scale validation
to the usage of the DVB-RCS platform for educational purposes in both developed and developing
countries. The consortium includes partners that played key role in the introduction of the standard
(e.g. ASTRIUM, EUTELSAT) and is going to cooperate with the responsible Organisations (e.g ETSI)
and the working teams that have formed. The objective of the work (mainly the work in the framework
of WP.5) would be to determine if and how the DVB-RCS platform would need to evolve in order to
fulfil increasing user expectations and to compare this with current developments that are under way
at the equipment manufacturers.
A list of additional standards and Working papers, from ETSI and ISO Organizations that are going to
be used and will be taken into account by the consortium is presented in the Table I below:
Table I: Indicative List of Standards to be considered in the framework of the Rural Wings project’s
application.
ISO 13818 – 1
ISO 13818 – 2
ISO 13818 – 3
ISO 13818 – 6
ETR 154
ETR 162
ETR 289
ETR 290
EN 300 421
EN 300 468
ETS 300 802
ETS 300 813
ETS 300 814
EN 301 192
101 198
Draft EN 301
199
TR 101 200
TR 101 201
Early Draft
TR 101 202
Early Draft
TR 101 205
Draft EN 301
210
TR 101 790
Information Technology – Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information. Part
1: Systems. ISO/IEC International Standard IS 13818, November 1994.
Information Technology – Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information. Part
2: Video. ISO/IEC International Standard IS 13818, November 1994.
Information Technology – Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information. Part
3: Audio. ISO/IEC International Standard IS 13818, November 1994.
Information Technology – Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information. Part
6: Extension for Digital Storage Media Command and Control. ISO/IEC International Standard IS
13818, November 1994
Implementation guidelines for the use of MPEG-2 Systems, Video and Audio in satellite, cable and
terrestrial broadcasting applications
Allocation of Service Information (SI) codes for DVB systems
Support for use of scrambling and Conditional Access (CA) within digital broadcasting systems
Measurement guidelines for DVB systems
Framing structure, channel coding and modulation for 11/12 GHz satellite services
DVB Specification for Service Information (SI) in DVB Systems
Network-independent protocols for DVB interactive services
DVB interfaces to Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH) networks
DVB interfaces to Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) networks
DVB specification for data broadcasting
Implementation of Binary Phase Shift Keying (BPSK) modulation in DVB satellite transmission
systems
Interaction channel for Local Multi-point Distribution Systems (LMDS)
A guideline for the use of DVB specifications and standards
Interaction channel for Satellite Master Antenna TV (SMATV) distribution systems; Guidelines for
versions based on satellite and coaxial sections
Specification for data broadcasting; Guidelines for the use of EN 301 192
Guidelines for the implementation and usage of the DVB interaction channel for Local Multipoint
Distribution System (LMDS) distribution systems
Framing structure, channel coding and modulation for Digital Satellite News Gathering (DSNG) and
other contribution applications by satellite
Interaction channel for satellite distribution systems; guidelines for the use of EN 301 790
15
Wi-Fi Standards
One of the possible configurations of the Rural Wings system is the use of wireless technologies in
order to extend the geographical coverage around DVB-RCS terminal access points. The baseline for
the wireless component of the pilot site will consist in combining several categories of equipment
based on the 802.11x WLAN standard in order to interconnect several remote sites or buildings
(outdoor links through Wi-Fi equipment). For broadband access to the Internet, one Wi-Fi access point
will represent the bridge for the network to be connected on the one hand with the DVB-RCS terminal,
and on the other hand with the Local broadband network of the experimental zone. The indoor
component of the SIT will be connected with the local LAN.
The IEEE 802.11 specifications are wireless standards that specify an "over-the-air" interface between
a wireless client and a base station or access point, as well as among wireless clients. The 802.11
standards can be compared to the IEEE 802.3™ standard for Ethernet for wired LANs. The IEEE
802.11 specifications address both the Physical (PHY) and Media Access Control (MAC) layers and
are tailored to resolve compatibility issues between manufacturers of Wireless LAN equipment. Wi-Fi
is broken down into two basic components. The physical layer, which handles transmission and
reception and something called the MAC, which stands for media access control. Basically, the
physical side is the radio and the MAC is the software side of the receiving device be it a laptop, PDA
or other Wi-Fi enabled gear.
The physical standards are designated 802.11a, b and, now, g, and define the data transfer rates and
the frequencies upon which data rides the airwaves. 802.11b, at 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) and 11 Megabits
(Mbps), came first, followed by 802.11a, which runs at 5GHz and 54Mbps. There is also a new
backbone protocol, 802.11g, approved in June of 2003, which runs on the same frequency as 802.11b
but has higher data transfer rates of 54 Mbps. 802.11 supports both infrastructure and ad hoc
operating modes. In infrastructure mode, nodes communicate using an intermediate base station. In
ad hoc mode, nodes communicate directly with one another. To support communication between
nodes that are not within range of each other, intermediate nodes act as message routers on behalf of
their peers, building an infrastructure-independent, multihop store-and-forward network. This mode is
available even if there are no base stations within the nodes’ range. The advantage of these so-called
mobile ad hoc wireless networks (Manets) is that, because they don’t need an infrastructure, they are
quickly deployable and highly flexible. Hence, Manets can extend the Internet beyond its traditional
scope to new, previously inaccessible areas, making Web services available “anytime, anywhere.”
This will enable novel applications that will combine with existing software and infrastructure, and
exploit available Internet knowledge. Enhanced automobile routing based on current traffic conditions,
for example, could be deployed in cars based on the temporary formation of on-demand networks.
The Consortium is going to cooperate with all the working groups of IEEE concerning the Wireless
networks:




IEEE 802.11
IEEE 802.15
IEEE 802.16
IEEE P1451.5
Educational Technology standards
The Rural Wings consortium will propose applications and tools that are aligned with basic educational
technology standards in order for the viability and the exploitation of the project services to be
safeguarded.
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36
The Scope of SC36 is standardization in the field of information technologies for learning, education,
and training to support individuals, groups, or organizations, and to enable interoperability and
reusability of resources and tools. Particularly interesting for the project objective are the following
working groups:
• SC36/WG2 Collaboration Technology;
• SC36/WG3 Learner Information;
• Management and Delivery of Learning, Education, and Training Ad Hoc Committee.
ADL SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model)
The purpose of the ADL (Advanced Distributed Initiative) is to ensure access to high-quality education
and training materials that can be tailored to individual learner needs and made available whenever
16
and wherever they are required. The Rural Wings service will contribute to the longer term expectation
of ADL: to encourage technologies that enable so-called dynamic learning where content is
custom-assembled and delivered to learners according to their own personal pace and need. ADL
developed the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), incorporating many of the
emerging standards into one content model, based on AICC data model.
CEN/ISSS WSLT
CEN (the European Committee for Standardization), CENELEC (the European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardization) and ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) were
all invited to identify the needs for European standardization initiatives in the domain of "Learning
Technologies and Educational Multimedia Software". Reading the CEN/ISSS Learning Technologies
Workshop's report, Rural Wings partners will contribute to the Recommendation 10:
Collaborative Learning: Learning technology standards often emphasize automated learning and
interactions with a learning technology system. It is recognized that a European learning society will
also require tools for collaboration and communication between learners or between learners and
mentors or tutors. The field of collaborative systems should be investigated to determine the
appropriateness of standards that support collaboration and communication.
IEEE LTSC (Learning Technology Standards Committee)
The mission of IEEE LTSC working groups is to develop technical Standards, Recommended
Practices, and Guides for software components, tools, technologies and design methods that facilitate
the development, deployment, maintenance and interoperation of computer implementations of
education and training components and systems. While the Rural Wings project targets to review
and adapt IEEE LTSC standards for learning, particularly interesting for the project objective are the
following working groups:
• Learning Object Metadata (IEEE P1484.12);
• Learner Model (IEEE P1484.2);
• Competency Definitions (IEEE P1484.20);
• Content Packaging (IEEE P1484.17);
• Localization (IEEE P1484.9).
• DCMI Education Working Group
• The Rural Wings approach will have a close look to the findings and the qualifiers of the Dublin
Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). The scope of the work includes educational resources
applicable for many national education communities and cross-sectoral communities (e.g. preschool, K-12, further and higher education, vocational and technical training, and lifelong
learning).
Finally the following standards will be taken into account concerning the human centered design and
the usability issues.
ISO 13407: Human-centered design processes for interactive systems
The Rural Wings project will use this standard for its developments. It provides guidance on humancentered design activities throughout the life cycle of interactive computer-based systems. It is a tool
for those managing design processes and provides guidance on sources of information and standards
relevant to the human-centered approach. It describes human-centered design as a multidisciplinary
activity, which incorporates human factors and ergonomics knowledge and techniques with the
objective of enhancing effectiveness and efficiency, improving human working conditions, and
counteracting possible adverse effects of use on human health, safety and performance.
17
5.2 Contribution to policy developments
European added Value
The major consequence of the digital divide for European countries is to prevent the development and
achievement of a knowledge-based economy, at the very moment where the EU has set this as a
clear target for Europe, and has stated that Europe is to be the leading zone of the world in terms of
creation, exchange and use of knowledge. Furthermore, digital exclusion threatens the very coherence
of an enlarged EU with a more diversified geography and considerable inequalities in the level of
equipment and infrastructure. In particular there is the real risk of disconnection between rural and
urban Europe, the effects of which cannot be overstated: lack of access to ICT may be devastating to
growth, economic development, education, fiscal stability, quality of life and even survival (P.
Cohendet (2003), Report for ESA: “The Digital Divide in the European Enlarged Economic Scenario:
An Assessment of the Socio-economic Effects”).
The EU member states are currently committed to putting in place broadband national strategies with
a dynamic emerging market for the provision of broadband access in remote and rural areas. However
the picture remains fragmented and is also difficult for local or regional communities in many European
to create their own solutions. It would be more realistic to compare the needs of such communities in
many different countries and subsequently develop common solutions that can be shared among
them. The Rural Wings project comes to play an important role in this. It envisions that schools,
homes, training centers and work places not only be linked to the Internet but that they will be turned
into multi-purpose local learning centers, the Learning Hubs, accessible to all in the rural community.
Such local community networks will enable life-long learning for the entire population at their
learning/working/living place, which is of paramount importance to the European social model.
Ultimately, they will support and enhance local employment, civic and health services, will affect the
local decision making, and will promote a knowledge-based, sustainable local development.
Additionally, the active involvement of the S. African users’ communities in the project’s
implementation could provide a model of co-operation framework in areas where satellite technology
can best support development strategies and needs.
EU Rural Development Policy
For the 30 million people who inhabit mountainous and rural areas, which account for some 30% of
the Community territory, agriculture and its related activities are a key component of the rural
economy. Their future lies in the creation of a competitive regional environment where quality and
authenticity remain intrinsic attributes. Because the rural population has been in decline now for some
time, and an integrated approach is needed, particularly in remote mountainous areas, the EU rural
development policy extends beyond agriculture. Diversification on and off-farm (for example
encouragement of tourist and craft activities, training schemes, improvement of the infrastructure) aim
to ensure overall sustainable development. The Rural Wings project will add its contribution towards
this integrating approach by introducing a new learning culture to the citizens of the rural communities
and by developing core nodes in the rural communities (Learning Hubs and Learning networks and
communities at a later stage) and training the stakeholders of these communities to act as
facilitators of the community development.
Promoting Sustainable Regional Development
The rapid development of the tourism industry has not been accompanied by adequate investment on
infrastructure and awareness creation on key environmental issues. As a result the competitiveness of
the local tourism industry has gradually faded away and today such areas are increasingly vulnerable
to the economic recession. Moreover the quality of life and the environment have been affected in
such a way that immediate action is considered necessary. To regain the lost competitiveness,
investing both in infrastructure and in creating environmental awareness is required. The Rural Wings
project should contribute significantly to the creation of awareness and in the formation of the
appropriate culture, which in turn may ensure sustained prosperity at local and regional level.
The main element of the project’s methodology will consist of a bottom-up approach will be introduced
to confirm local concern and identify crucial details, which will provide the necessary input for the
successful development and elaboration of the pilot actions.
18
Among the variety of activities that will be proposed in the framework of the Rural Wings project are:










Training and building awareness (of local entrepreneurs and personnel of the tourism and
food industry and farmers) on environmental issues
Transfer experiences, examples of good practice and know-how from other areas
Overcome resistance to change and to innovation regarding environmental practices
Demonstrate the beneficial effect of sustainable development practices in the local economy,
employment and generally sustained competitiveness
To introduce and operate benchmarking initiative regarding IPP, based on environmental
indicators
To support individual and collective environmental action
To demonstrate Good Practice on IPP and business benefits through the pilot cases (to act as
a catalyst for the acceleration of sustainable development practices)
To contribute to the mitigation of environmental problems that the region is currently facing
To amend and avoid the repetition of mistakes of the past
To ensure economic progress with respect to the environment.
5.3 Risk assessment and related communication strategy
There are no potential risks for society or citizens associated with the project.
19
6. Outline implementation plan for the full duration of the project
6.A Activities
Introduction
In recent years there have been several initiatives in the field of satellite telecommunications
applications, in order to address the needs of rural communities. This indicates the unique advantages
of satellite technologies for providing high quality wireless broadband connection to any type of
population within large geographical areas. Rural Wings is an ambitious project that proposes to
develop an advanced learning platform through satellite DVB-RCS access technologies, promoting a
user-centred methodological approach, which constitutes its major innovation. The main aim of the
project approach is to support the creation of a new culture in rural communities promoting digital
literacy and reducing resistance to the use of new technologies. It will go a step further, encouraging
users to add their significant contribution to the emerging applications by involving them in meaningful
activities, tailored to address the needs of different user groups. Thus, Rural Wings aims to offer
stimulating and creative learning environments to support vibrant user communities and will attempt an
extended implementation in 128 of pilot sites in 8 EU member countries and 4 associated to EU
member states (Romania, Georgia, Armenia and Israel). It is expected that Rural Wings project will
help to catalyse the satellite broadband take up in Europe and beyond.
The Rural Wings project will be based on innovation practices and techniques deployed in industrial or
urban environments, aiming to the optimization of the new products’ development process. The
ultimate goal is the transfer of knowledge and the adjustment of these practices in different knowledge
spaces (at school, at work, at home) as a mean for interaction between user needs and technological
developments: The needs of users in rural areas feed the integration of the educational environment
with dynamic requirements for new services or for the adaptation of existing ones. In this way the
users’ perception of their problems/needs leads the development of technology and of learning
practices.
Project Evolution Scheme
The general project evolution scheme is shown in the diagram of Figure 6.1.
The project will begin with a Feasibility Study (WP.2) of the project services and networks, and an
Analysis of the Needs of Users in rural communities (WP.3). The users profile will be identified
based on the needs analysis. The goal of this study, in the framework of the project, is the
specification of all tasks that are relevant to the Rural Wings platform under development, and the
evaluation of the users’ tasks on job demands. As each person has different ways of learning and
understanding, the competency-based scheme should provide a wide variety of instructional
approaches. The proposed methodology should encourage learners to work independently, cooperatively and in an increasingly self-organizing way. This can be achieved by the development and
progressive implementation of several educational scenarios (educational pathways) that will be
addressed to a range of users (students, teachers, doctors and health personnel, farmers, local
administrators and public authorities) in different (but still strongly interconnected) learning contexts
(school, work, home) and that will touch upon a range of subjects from different perspectives. The
proposed scenarios will be developed along three main axes, Learning at School, Learning at Work
and Learning at Home, each following a different instructional design model (WP4). Each of these
models will offer a choice of learning activities, role of participants and goals of the learning process.
The choice of instructional design will depend on the ability of the chosen medium to support relevant
social learning objectives, such as critical thinking and spirit of inquiry. The Rural Wings project will
adopt the design-based research, which blends empirical educational research with the theory-driven
design of learning environments.
Design-based research is an important methodology for understanding how, when, and why
educational innovations work in practice. Design-based innovations embody specific theoretical claims
about teaching and learning and help us understand the relationships among educational theory,
designed artefact, and practice. Design is central in efforts to foster learning, create usable knowledge,
and advance theories of learning and teaching in complex settings. Design-based research may also
20
ultimately facilitate the implementation of subsequent educational reforms. This stage (WP.4) will be
the basis for the project’s development and evolution. Based on the outcomes of the previous WPs the
project team will integrate a long series of tools (e.g. e-Learning platforms, e-commerce tools,
multimedia applications, Web-TV applications e-laboratory tools, e-training platforms) that will be
made available to the users through the adaptation of Platforms and Tools (WP.5). One of the main
objectives of this WP will be to determine how the various offered e-platforms and e-tools will need to
evolve in order to fulfil the DVB/RCS integrated services offered by the satellite providers.
Next, an extended implementation of the specific scenarios that were developed in the previous
stage will be realised (WP6.A). These will be treated as case studies and will be tested in real
environments throughout different countries and user groups. At later stages of the implementation
some of the users will be invited to design their own applications and to propose scenarios that meet
their needs. This is an essential step in order to estimate the required modifications in the technical
infrastructure and in the educational and informational content and methods. Examples of good
practices will be derived based on the results of the extended implementation and evaluation phase
(WP.7) covering a wide range of applications, from simple training sessions (WP6.B) to more
advanced learning and teaching scenarios. In that framework, the partnership is planning to include an
extended evaluation regarding the integration of the system and its application in the specific
contexts so as to meet the users’ needs.
At the end of the pilot user trials, the designers of the Rural Wings’ system will have an accurate
picture of the users’ needs, of the relevant tasks and of the specific context in which these are
performed. All technological infrastructure and training methodologies developed or enhanced for the
purpose of this project will contribute to the development of a roadmap for the implementation and
provision of end-to-end satellite telecommunication system applications to the user
communities. In parallel, a Usability Evaluation scheme in the framework of the project’s Evaluation
WP (WP7) will be developed and applied in order to test the user friendliness and acceptance of the
integrated services. Users’ feedback concerning the acceptance and usability of the project
infrastructure and services will be very important elements for further exploitation of the satellite
applications for distance learning and beyond. The partnership will conduct a Market Investigation in
order to identify the users’ requirements, the potential uses and their characteristics and the market
opportunities, the aim being to commercialise the developed system (WP8). A Business Plan will be
produced at this stage. A variety of Dissemination Activities (WP9) will be performed throughout the
project, in order to demonstrate all generalised aspects of the applications and services that will be
developed within the framework of the project.
The user-centred approach adopted in Rural Wings will thus allow to:



initially study, in a design and integration phase, the user requirements for integrated services;
this phase will lead to the definition of services, tools and functionalities that the educational
platform will provide to its users;
provide guidelines for quality modifications and improvements of the final service, based on
the user needs analysis and initial usability studies;
perform a long series of user trials in order to investigate how the innovative technology
affects the users throughout the specifically developed applications and to monitor their
satisfaction from the offered integrated services, collect the results of the final usability study
and the system’s overall evaluation and formulate an integrated report on the possible future
steps and improvements and on how the potential future users will accept the product.
21
Figure 6.1: The Rural Wings project’s evolution. The project’s pathway advances through a process of continuous interaction between the User Need (horizontal
axis) and the Technology Push (vertical axis). The development of three families of advanced learning scenarios for different contexts (Learning at School, at
Work and at Home) is the driving force for the project’s advancement and the provision of value-added services to people that live and work in rural areas.
22
6.1 Research, technological development and innovation activities
Feasibility Study (WP.2)
The feasibility study has addressed the technical and financial issues relevant to the overall viability of the
use of advanced satellite networks and infrastructure as introduced by the RW project:
The user needs and the user profiles as expressed in the final report of WP3 (D3.1) have been analysed
based on past experience coming from other market studies and similar research projects in order to assess
the current broadband development situation of candidate RW pilot sites and derive a general bandwidth
profile per learning hub.
RW communities identified are small, isolated, economically underdeveloped (means with limited financial
resources), scarcely populated but with the same expectancy levels of broadband service as in urban areas,
especially for service pricing. Therefore flexibility, scalability, easy implementation and cost efficiency are the
key success factors for candidate broadband solutions.
The user needs of these rural communities, as expressed in WP3 (Task 3.1), have been turned into technical
requirements. This led to the definition of the best broadband solution and services to be implemented for
the RURAL WINGS sites.
The technical feasibility analysis has led to conclude that satellite DVB/RCS broadband solutions combined
with a last mile wireless access network are the best answer to build the RW technical solution. DVB-RCS
satellite standard, that was the project’s primary choice, is confirmed as the best satellite technology to be
adopted by the project to guarantee long term viability of broadband networks deployed in RW validation
sites. No doubt also that WiFi is a standard wireless technology that the project can easily adopt with a
minimum risk and that enable cost efficient hybrid broadband infrastructure. Based on the previous
experience gained through trials or pre-competitive projects, sustainability of hybrid satellite wireless for
isolated rural communities has been demonstrated. Nevertheless technical issues regarding architecture of
networks (wireless coverage area) and their operation, quality of service and bandwidth management have
to be carefully investigated for each category of sites and user communities selected by RW.
The project team has also addressed financial feasibility issues. It has analysed the business viability of RW
solutions proposed by satellite service providers through their broadband business models for two-way
satellite networking services. Cost factors related to satellite and terrestrial bandwidth, infrastructure,
marketing and financing levels of service pricing, have been investigated by each satellite service provider
involved in the project.
A market analysis shows that, under conservative assumptions, estimates of total market size for satellite
broadband solutions are sufficient for a commercially viable business. The challenges for Satellite Service
Providers are to get bandwidth and hardware prices to acceptable levels. A strong focus on innovative ways
of delivering connectivity and content is key to success. Partnerships with bandwidth providers to make
available low cost satellite capacity will achieve this goal combined with expected increased sales and
reduced cost in the DVB RCS equipments. A detailed view of the business model has been provided by each
Satellite Service Provider.
User Needs Analysis (WP.3)
The role of the work in this WP is two-fold: a) to set the basis for the development of the scenarios that will
be introduced to the users’ communities during the project’s implementation and b) to provide the project
team with all the necessary information concerning the users’ demand in order to proceed to the Market
investigation. In the framework of this WP the consortium will perform an assessment of the users’ demand
for the satcom applications and services for distance learning and training. It has to be noted that the
consortium is bringing together significant experience from similar surveys that have already been done or
are in their final phase (e.g. RIA - Rural Internet Access, BARRD - Broadband Access for Rural
Regeneration using DVB-RCS, Multimedia Services Evolution and the Role of Satellites, Market Survey
for Small Communications Satellites). The objective would be to identify the drivers and barriers to e-
23
learning participation - both in the supply and demand side – including user requirements, potential uses and
their characteristics, as well as the potential market.
The goal of this study in the framework of the project is the specification of all tasks that are relevant to the
Rural Wings system and the evaluation of the users’ task on job demands in terms of characteristics and
environment. The User Needs Analysis (task 3.1) - Month 1- Month 5)- is thus an analysis of what is
currently done by the Rural Wings system’s final users (citizens of rural areas), an estimation of their future
needs and a comparison of the present and future tasks, as well as description of the equipment and
environment into which the Rural Wings system will fit. It is intended that the users of the system will be
introduced to “new ways” of learning. "How to learn from distance" is to the consortium’s view a necessary
addition that is centred on the Human factor in the system’s implementation. Apart from any technological
consideration, the users involved (individually and as a group) must also change their perceptions of
traditional learning methods and often their attitudes towards the use of emerging technologies, and this is
where a careful pedagogical approach is needed to be realized through the implementation of the proposed
scenarios (WP.4). The approach adopted in this project focuses on minimizing the necessary educational
resources while maximizing the progressive build up of the users’ experience with the system. The User
Needs’ Analysis will be incorporated into the Rural Wings system’s analysis framework as a representation
of the user’s viewpoint, adding an explicit user dimension to the Rural Wings System requirements
specifications that will be treated in the framework of task 5.1 and to the adaptation of the e-platforms (tasks
4.4 partially and 5.2).
The partnership’s approach to this work package involves:




Identifying and establishing existing e-learning indicators. This will provide an initial understanding
of the “market” for e-learning and baseline for sizing.
Conducting initial segmentation of the market. The consortium will propose a segmentation of the
group of “Satcom Addressable Users” according to characteristics of their needs. Each of the
segments shall be subject of a separate description presenting all aspects of their needs that would
influence the service provision. The criteria used for this segmentation should include: geographical
location (distance from the closest broadband access point), technical requirements (average and
peak data rate needed, criticality of the availability of the service, average duration of the session,
traffic pattern), affordability - including the available budget and willingness to pay for the service
(maximum monthly subscription, maximum installation costs, maintenance fees, funding scheme
available to finance the service). The findings will be summarized in a matrix
(segments/applications)
Assessing needs, potential uses and requirements through the conduct of surveys and open-ended
interviews. These will be conducted amongst key stakeholders and will be conducive to
establishing, amongst other things, best tools and interfaces, e-learning settings and scenarios, and
attitudes.
Assessing factors that would yield to e-learning participation and the design of courses and material
for an e-learning environment
In this Investigation is intended to include the analysis of the strategic context of the integrated service and to
eventually demonstrate that this initiative is conceived to lead to an operational exploitation within the context
of integrated applications using satellite communication systems and at the same time bridging the digital
dived in Europe and beyond.
The ultimate purpose of defining the users’ needs is not only to specify what the Rural Wings learning
system should actually do but to also enable comparative measurements later and the extent to which the
users’ needs are met successfully by the Rural Wings system. The User Needs Analysis thus will integrate
two components: a) the identification of user characteristics as documented in user profiles; b) the
tasks specification (tasks 3.2, 3.3 - Month 5- Month 11).
Scenarios Adaptation and Development (WP.4)
This stage will be the basis for the project’s development and evolution (reference to Figure 6.1).
At this stage the two driving forces of the Rural Wings project, the User Demand and the Technology Push
are met. Initially the implementation parameters will be determined (tasks 4.1- Month 1 – Month 4). Issues
like the language, the use of ICT, the educational level will be taken under consideration before the design of
the scenarios. As the effort of the project team is to create a Virtual Learning Community these issues are of
24
major importance. Then a number of specific scenarios will be designed to address a range of users
(students, teachers, doctors and health personnel, farmers, local administrators and public authorities) in
different (but still strongly interconnected) learning contexts (school, work, home) and that will touch upon a
range of subjects from different perspectives. The scenarios design will take into account the process of
knowledge construction on several levels based on (a) the access to information, (b) adapted learning
material, (c) knowledge sharing and (d) the potentials of the technologies (depending on the usability and the
features they offer). A series of modules for the different scenarios will be adopted and developed as a
consequence of a design-based research methodology based on collaborative, experiential, role-playing
and peer-to-peer learning models (task 4.2- Month 4 – Month 10).
Design-based research methods respond to emergent features of the setting. Micro-analyses of learners
interactions with activities based on this principle will enabled redesign and refinement of the activities and
ultimately refinement of the underlying interest-driven learning framework. Thus, emergent behaviours of
learners in response to activities drive the development of both intervention and theory, which would have
been unimaginable in the absence of real learners’ choices. Finally, in a design-based research, practitioners
and researchers work together to produce meaningful change in contexts of practice. Such collaboration
means that goals and design constraints are drawn from both the local context and the researcher’s agenda,
addressing a concern of many reform efforts (Robinson, 1998). Engaging in such partnerships across
multiple settings can uncover relationships between the numerous variables that come into play in classroom
contexts and help refine the key components of an intervention. In particular, these partnerships can help us
distinguish between a “lethal mutation” (Brown & Campione, 1996) -a reinterpretation that no longer captures
the pedagogical essence of the innovation- and a productive adaptation -a reinterpretation that preserves
this essence, but tailors the activity to the needs and characteristics of particular learning environments-.
Sustainable innovation requires understanding how and why an innovation works within a setting over time
and across settings (Brown & Campione, 1996), and generating heuristics for those interested in enacting
innovations in their own local contexts. In the early stages of the development process, the scenarios will be
used in order to plan the methodology and to characterise episodes or a sequence of activities (like in a
story). These “stories“ will provide the context within which activities will be carried out, so as to give us
insights about the needs, difficulties and motivations that users have in particular contexts. In this respect,
the scenarios are methods for providing the requirements fort he system’s development. A second usage of
a scenario-based design in the early stages of the development process is to depict how a new tool can
support a proposed course of actions. Towards the end of the task 4.2 the involvement of the National
Coordinators to the whole process will be made clearly visible. Each National Coordinator based on the
outcomes of tasks 3.1 and 3.2 and the whole work that will have already been carried out by the
pedagogical core group within task 4.2, will elaborate further in these scenarios adapting them to the special
needs of the selected pilot sites of their own countries and transforming these scenarios to pilot site oriented
cognitive procedures.
Based on the above analysis, scenarios can be regarded as a prototyping method, a design
proposal. Key elements for the Rural Wings scenarios are the users and their resistance to change, their
goals, their needs, the sources of information accessed during the activities, and the information generated
by the users themselves. The pedagogical team within the Rural Wings partnership will perform the selection
of the content for each scenario (task 4.3- Month 10 – Month 12). . In this task the involvement and the
contribution of the National Coordinators will be vital because they will have to specify exactly which will be
the content for the scenarios that are going to be implemented to the rural communities of their countries.
Where needed, the appropriate modules will be expanded so as to cover all the targeted users groups (task
4.4 – Month 12- Month 17). Additional modules that provide users with tools, skills and knowledge
necessary for adjusting to distance learning will be created, the idea being that in order for distance learning
to be efficient, users must undergo through a change process that involves many aspects. This applies to
both individuals and groups of learners. Such modules can be seen as a crucial addition (and even prerequisite) to any content-specific program that will be developed. Furthermore, the proposed scenarios
should include learning activities that support interaction and active engagement during the “class”.
Emergence of a community of inquiry does not happen by itself and does not emerge until considerable
group dialogue takes place. Teaching techniques and activities that promote student-student interaction and
that focus learning on problem solving and on applications to real-world experience, will enhance the
development of such communities. Task 4.4 in contradiction to 4.2 does not only involve the participation of
the pedagogical partners and the NCs. It requires the of support and active involvement of the platform
providers who will have to cooperate with the scenario and content developers for the necessary adaptation
to their platform modules in order to meet with the requirements of the specified scenarios at home at work
and at school (interaction with task 5.2-adaptation and integration of e-platforms).
What has been mentioned above refers to the first period of the project. WP4 in contradiction to WP2 and 3
will continue for the 2nd period of the project. Task 4.4 will be repeated twice, once after the termination of
25
the test runs and until the beginning of the phase A of final runs (M30-M36). The same procedure will take
place between the termination of the phase A of the final runs and the commencement of the phase B
(M38-M44). The necessity of the repetition of task 4.4 is obvious. It is certain that during the test runs period
(mainly) and the phase A of the final runs, there will be problems and difficulties to the foreseen
implementation due to certain deficiencies to the design of the scenarios and to the selection of the content.
These inconsistencies of the pedagogical framework will be corrected during these two repetition cycles of
task 4.4. It must be also noted that the main objective of the test runs period is exactly to facilitate the
consortium to identify the main technical and pedagogical problems that affect the proper implementation of
the project. So in conclusion task 4.4 will be re-run twice in the 2nd phase of the project, but in a different
perspective compared to the 1st phase of the project. In the 2nd phase (after the 18 month period), task 4.4
will also involve aspects of work that are within task 4.2 and 4.3 (scenario re-design and content readaptation). Thus task 4.4 for the period (M18-M48), could be regarded as an integrated work including
tasks 4.2 and 2.3 as they have been described above for the 1 st phase of the project. Once the final
scenarios have been clearly defined and validated through the two final run implementation phases (A and
B), there will be a final four month period (M43-M46) where any final remarks or corrections will be
incorporated into them in order to have the production of the final version of the scenarios (task 4.5).
In the following frame boxes typical examples of different types scenarios (school-based scenario and
learning@work scenario with SMEs,) that might be used for the Rural Wings project is being given:
26
Example Scenario A: Transformation of the Rural School to a core node in the local community
This specific scenario aims to the use of advanced communication channels in
order to provide a high quality continuous training programme to
multigrade schoolteachers. Multigrade classrooms play an important role in
providing access to education for people in remote, isolated and
underdeveloped rural areas. Multigrade schools are more than a reality in
primary education in many regions of Europe and the rest of the world,
constituting a very common educational form in problematic rural areas,
sparsely inhabited regions and urban areas with adverse social conditions. In
such areas, multigrade schools not only aim to encourage enrolment and
continuous attendance in school environments, but also to provide
knowledge and pedagogy of good standards and in addition to play a wider role in social
development. The unfortunate reality is though, that these schools form the most neglected part of the
education system. Due to the geographical oddities, the socio-economic peculiarities and the lack of
adequate school infrastructure and personnel, these schools still remain at the education’s world cut off.
The introduction of ICT in education contributes to the development of a technological culture in general,
that is believed to upgrade the education system, as well as to provide valuable knowledge on using modern
technologies in real life situations. The development of technological culture within the framework of
the multigrade school is considered to be even more important and valuable. The effective use of ICT
could act as a qualitative upgrade to the multigrade teaching, support students learning, and foster
social development of the local community. Usually, multigrade teachers are not trained to the use of
ICT. The training programmes, where available, treat the introduction of ICT as a goal by itself, while the
focus of training should lie on the exploration of multimedia, of the internet and of special software in order to
improve the teaching and learning process. Furthermore, such training programmes are performed for
specific periods of time and there are no measures to support the teachers’ professional development. It
should be mentioned that the mean duration of a teacher’s stay in a multigrade school is less than
one year. This means that most of the trained teachers will leave these schools in the next few years after
training and new, untrained teachers will replace them.
The proposed scenario presents a training framework for teachers, so that they actually become facilitators
of the rural community’s social development. In other words, the scenario aims at preparing the multigrade
schoolteacher to become the facilitator of the transformation of the multigrade school to a core node
in its community. The school as a community centre serves both as a resource for life long learning
development and as a vehicle for the delivery of a wide range of services. School resources such as
facilities, technology equipment, and well-trained staff can provide a range of educational and retraining
opportunities for the community. Part of the objectives of the scenario is to provide e-Learning tools that
can be used (with the assistance of the teacher) by all members of the local community, in need of
continuous training/education. Apart from the students, the local community in need of such support could
include farmers, people in the tourist industry, small businesses, etc.
A very successful example of such an activity, which was applied to rural areas in Europe, was the AgroWeb
project (http://www2.ellinogermaniki.gr/ep/agroweb99/). In the framework of this project, students in rural
areas of Europe were asked to collaborate with the local producers for the creation of a website that
promoted the agricultural products of their area. The products were promoted and available on demand
through the AgroWeb e-shop, which was developed by the students, in collaboration with the teachers and
producers. Such examples could motivate teachers to be actively involved in activities of high importance
within the local community, and the local community could in this way see the emerging benefits from the
use of ICT. The creation of such horizontal links from a school or a group of schools to their local
community is considered to be a major development (European Schoolnet, P. Scrimshaw (2002) “The
NOW Report: Technology in Education Futures in Practice”). The advantage of such development is that it
helps recruiting parents and the local community to support the students’ learning and possibly to provide
material and financial help to schools or vice versa. It furthermore provides valuable experience; skills and
contacts that can help students gain the confidence and knowledge necessary to seek employment and to
establish themselves within the adult community in the future. Needless to say, the role of the teacher is
very important for the success of such a development.
27
Example Scenario B: Development of a Web-based Information and Training Platform that will
provide technological support to SMEs operating in rural areas.
The objectives of this scenario would be:




Helping SMEs to retain managers in rural areas, reverting the tendency they would have, after a few
years, to move to larger companies in urban areas.
Provide to SME managers access to high-quality continuous development opportunities.
Support the development of SME competencies in the specific domain of international trading,
providing the information, connections and learning necessary to develop export competencies.
Develop a distributed community of peers to support collaborative learning, sharing of best
practices (particularly in SMEs export activities) and networking leading to SMEs collaborations
(exchange of services).
The project team would explore a variety of ways of using ICTs to support all forms of network activities,
focusing on eLearning and peer-to-peer learning oriented ones, but also including the introduction of ICT
tools enabling significant reduction of the costs associated with the development and management of such a
large SME network. A team of academic and research experts will select and process information and will be
responsible for encountering the specific needs of rural SMEs. This information will be distributed to citizens
through the regional office. Exploiting the potential of human-system interface will validate an existing
network of regional offices in this case. The regional offices will be equipped with all the necessary computer
hardware and software and with the appropriate connections in order to be able to provide adequate
services for all enquiring firms and citizens.
Two main cases can be deployed:

Satellite-based Social Simulations / Educational Games
- Experiential, role-playing based learning models
- Addressing both Learning at Schools and Learning at Work
In the 'Simulations' dimension, the network members will be involved in simulations focussing on
'Innovation in SMEs', (extending simulations developed in the framework of Verdi project - ESA) i.e.
learning experiences oriented to help SME managers to understand how to brake resistance to change
(e.g. to engage in more international trading taking advantage of ICTs) in SMEs located in rural areas.

Satellite-based Virtual Learning Communities
- Collaborative and peer-to-peer learning models
- Addressing both Learning at Work and Learning at Home
In the 'Virtual Learning Community' dimension, the project team could apply continuous education and
peer-to-peer learning applications.
28
Adaptation of Platforms and Tools (WP.5)
WP5 is one of the most important WP of Rural Wings project because it deals with the design of the end-toend architecture of the whole system (satellite and terrestrial network).
General System Architecture
The general architecture of the whole system is described in figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2: End-to-end system architecture for the provision of educational and training content to the rural
communities. Content will be also created locally and feed the advanced learning environment as the project
team aims to create conditions for the development of people, new ideas, new civic participation and new
tools and applications to move the community into positive participation in a more equitable digital future
In there the main nodes of the whole system are clearly defined. First there is the satellite, which receives
and re-transmits the signal coming form the earth stations (end users with DVB/RCS terminals s and HUBs).
The satellite for the Rural Wings case will not be only one because two satellite providers will be used
(HELLASSAT and EUTELSAT) meaning that we will have at least two satellites for the coverage of the pilot
sites. An important node of the whole systems is the HUB. The HUB can be regarded as the system “router”
that controls and directs the satellite signals to the proper users. It is the heart of the system, situated in
urban areas with direct connection to high quality Internet backbone (DSL, ADSL lines etc).
All the offered e-platforms of the system and their related content is uploaded to the HUB either through
servers that can be physically situated in the HUB area or though other servers that are in the premises of
the platform providers and are connected to the HUB through the Internet backbone. If the platform provider
cannot be supported with a fast Internet line connection to HUB for the uploading of the e-platforms and etools, this can be achieved through the satellite system itself with the use of a DVB/RCS terminal.
The third nodes of the system are the end users. These are the rural areas which are remote /isolated and
scarce areas with poor or complete lack of Internet connectivity. These rural areas (villages, houses etc) are
the pilot sites of the Rural Wings project. A clearer view of the architecture envisaged in the pilot sites is
shown in figure 6.3.
29
Figure 6.3: The Rural Wings Learning Hub and the Learning Community. The Learning Hub will play a very important role for training
people, providing a ‘lab’ where innovative ideas can be tried out, demonstrating the effectiveness of the advanced technologies and
opening the minds of people to new solutions. An important component of this project is the establishment of a wireless (Wi-Fi)
communications infrastructure, given the capacity of the new technology to facilitate the emergence of flexible interpersonal
communication patterns that may play an important role in developing and strengthening “learning networks” around important
community issues. This will allow the project to evolve in the direction of “learning networks and communities” that can more proactively
integrate various social actors in a more decentralized and participatory approach to knowledge generation and use, relevant to
community issues.
In the above figure the key node of the system is the so-called “learning hub”. The learning hub is the
centre for the Rural Wings project tele-education activities. It consists of the DVB/RCS terminal and its
antenna which is the “door” for the flow of information from the outer world. In the same physical area LAN
networks of PCs can be connected to the DVB/RCS terminal, which will enable all the interested users to
connect to the rest of the world. It must be clear that the term “learning hub” is a virtual term that refers to
the key node of the Rural area network (inside Rural Wings project) where the main infrastructure (DVB/RCS
terminal, LAN network, WiFi shapers and transmitters) is situated along with all the offered learning objects
(e-platforms and e-tools) that are downloaded through the DVB/RCS terminal.
So the “learning hub” is the centre of learning activity and the technical node of the pilot site. Around the
learning hub and in a radius of several Km, independent users (not directly located to the “learning hub”
premises) can be directly connected to the “learning hub” with the use of a simple PC, a WiFi receiver
equipment and a small WiFi antenna. If there are physical obstacles between the “learning hub” and the
independent users then the use of WiFi repeaters should be also included in the system’s local architecture.
Finally, it should be made clear that the use of the architecture foreseen in figure 6.3 is very general and it
will of course change form site to site. WiFis will be used selectively in a limited number of sites. In the rest of
the cases there could be architectures involving only the “learning hub”, or architectures that in which the
independent users will be connected to the “learning hub” through the LAN network on not, through the
WiFi alternatively.
Note: as mentioned earlier distinction between the HUBs (DVB/RCS HUBs already available from the
Satellite providers) and the “Learning Hubs” (term used in the Rural Wings project to describe the
centre of learning applications) should be made by the reader. Each pilot site is equipped with a
DVB/RCS terminal and each pilot site is a “Learning Hub”.
30
WP5 work overview
Based on the outcomes of the Feasibility Study (WP.2), the users’ tasks analysis (WP.3) and the proposed
scenarios (WP.4) the following general actions will take place:
A) High level satellite system architecture definition (task 5.1 – Month 7-Month 24).
Within the overall study logic of the Rural Wings project, the end-to-end system definition and assessment
activities have taken as inputs the main results and recommendations of WP 2 Feasibility Analysis as
presented in D2.1 and D2.3 as well as the key conclusions of WP 3 User Needs Analysis as described in
D3.1 and D3.2.
The project team has provided comprehensive technical and operational information about each provider’s
system components: teleport infrastructure, hub equipment, satellite link characteristics, network control and
user support facilities, ISP and application server farms and user terminal. Detailed analysis has allowed to
identify the satellite network elements and configuration parameters critical for the adequate performance of
the targeted Rural Wings pedagogical applications and e-learning scenarios.
Traffic modelling was carried out initially to ascertain to a degree of confidence that the bandwidth being
provided could support the desired number of users. This was based on previous operational experience
(with Internet users) and on the results from previous consultancy studies. Based on this analysis, Avanti and
Hellas Sat selected the most suitable commercial service package and TTSA/Eutelsat defined the size of the
IP CONNECT service. Whilst some headroom was built into the bandwidth estimates a full picture will only
be obtained during the course of the project.
The technological team has also analysed and assessed the ISP services and value-added applications put
in place by the Rural Wings services providers such as web hosting, email, accelerated VPN services and
VoIP call management services. In addition both Avanti and TTSA own and operate specific application
platforms: Community Channel and Entertainment Channel for Avanti and the MEDSKY platform for TTSA.
TCP Performance Enhancement Proxies are well known and widely used in satellite networks to improve the
performance of TCP by breaking the end-to-end nature of the TCP/IP connection and using an adapted
protocol on the satellite link. All three Rural Wings service providers have put in place TCP PEP
mechanisms, the characteristics of which have been analysed. Only the Avanti/STM solution includes today
HTTP acceleration mechanisms.
The project team has investigated the traffic shaping and QoS management implemented by the service
providers at end-user, satellite terminal and network level to ensure satisfactory performance of the targeted
Rural Wings applications over the satellite link.
Analysis of the regulatory directives applicable to the provisioning of satellite broadband services to the Rural
Wings pilot have shown that both for Avanti and Hellas Sat all licensing issues are currently in order. For a
number of Rural Wings countries where the TTSA will provide satellite broadband services, Eutelsat has no
blanket licence and hence any required local permits, permissions or licences will have to be dealt with on a
case by case basis in the framework of the pilot site deployment in WP 6.
In conclusion, the results achieved in WP 5 have allowed to prepare the pilot sites deployment and operation
(WP 6). The future tests runs and the associated evaluation activities (WP 7) will allow to assess the
performance of the services specified and analysed in this report and to make the necessary adaptations to
the specific needs of the pedagogical applications and e-learning scenarios of Rural Wings.
B) adopt and integrate a long series of e-tools
(e.g. e-Learning platforms, interactive multimedia applications, e-laboratories, e-commerce tools, , WebTV
applications) that will be made available to the users through the DVB-RCS platform (task 5.2 – Month 3Month 16).
The project’s approach is aiming at the development of a new a cognitive based open learning system and
environment. So the platform providers will have to make the necessary adaptation to their platforms in
order these to be able to be supported by the DVB/RCS standard. It must be noted that this task will evolve
in two separate phases. In the first phase (M3-M10) all the platform providers will examine all the issues
related with the adaptation of their platforms in order to be fully compatible with the DVB/RCS standard and
be able to be integrated to the service provision of HELLASSAT and EUTELSAT. The second phase of this
31
task (M11-M17) will be carried out in parallel with task 4.4 because the interaction with the scenario and
content developers is vital in order for the e-tools to integrate the foreseen adapted scenarios for the
applications in the pilot sites. At the end of this stage the integrated Rural Wings learning environment
that will be used in the fore coming implementation will be delivered. This environment is extensively
described in the next paragraph
C) The Rural Wings learning environment (outcome of tasks 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3)
The main outcome of the Rural Wings project will be the development of a cognitive-based open learning
system and environment (adapted to individual learners’ needs) that can generate creativity and a capacity
of learning to learn among the users, through the development of a new learning culture. It will offer to the
users (students, teachers, doctors and health personnel, farmers, local administrators and public authorities)
ubiquitous access to the learning content. The Rural Wings learning environment will be developed through
the effective utilization of a wide range of ICT applications for educational purposes (e.g. Training sessions,
WebTV channel for students, virtual visits to museums, science centres, research laboratories, seminars for
sustainable development or agro-tourism) based on a participatory methodology in which users will play a
very active role in creating additional components, through the creative use of constructionist principles and
related ICT technologies. The Rural Wings learning environment will also support the exchange of material
between users and experts, it will allow for easy uploads and downloads of relevant material, it will facilitate
the direct communication between the users and the networking activities of all the actors involved. Such a
service offers high-speed two-way connection that gives the opportunity to deliver content utilizing
completely the capabilities of multimedia tools. Video streaming (high quality in specific cases) broadcasted
by the selected training centres can be delivered to users at school, at work or at home. Real-time on-line
seminars can be realized in this way, while the users will have the opportunity to download simultaneously
educational and training material and supporting documents or software according to their needs.
Most important is the fact that the trainers’ team can deliver content simultaneously to more than one of the
participating users. Seminars’ material, contributions of the trainees, questions and answers will be
constantly fed to the platform so that a continuous interaction and dialogue, via bulletin boards and
extended use of videoconferencing through the Internet, will be stimulated. Users will form in this way a
Virtual Learning Community. This is envisaged in the following Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4: The Rural Wings learning environment is expected to provide access to the scientific and cultural
heritage resources (museums, science centres, research laboratories, collections and more) that will
qualitative upgrade teaching and learning (formal and informal) in rural areas. The project’s team – through
the scenarios - will involve the users in unique learning experiences (e.g. virtual tours, interactive exhibitions)
in order to introduce them in the new learning culture.
32
Among the objectives of the project with the creation of the Rural Wings learning environment, is to
provide tools and solutions that can be used by all the members of the local community who are in need of
continuous training/education. Apart from the students and the teachers, the local community in need of such
support includes medical staff, farmers, administrators, people in the tourist industry, small/very small
businesses, etc.
The key to the this framework lies in the decomposition of knowledge into independent, reusable “e-modules”
that can be intelligently put together to support the users’ activities. This can be achieved by an efficient
representation of knowledge in reusable modules by means of semantic mark-up and by devising algorithms
that can efficiently match the requirements of prospective trainees to a sound combination of e-modules.
Although the idea of composing scenarios based on a repository of “Learning Objects” is not new, the
system under development will provide innovation (based also on the combined outcomes of WP2, WP3 and
WP4 with WP5) for the following reasons:
 The “e-modules” are not just content but they can also be precisely specified teaching sessions or
collaborative learning sessions.
 The solution will be transparent to different learning styles or pedagogic methodologies within the
context of targeted industry sectors; it will provide a framework for custom e-tools and solutions in
these areas (e.g. e-Learning platforms, e-commerce applications, etc.).
 Additionally, the selection of tools for delivering the composed e-Learning solutions addresses users
with different accessibility requirements (including physically challenged users) and in different
modes (synchronous virtual classroom, asynchronous collaboration, off-line self-training)
Furthermore, in the framework of the RURAL WINGS integration activities, a web portal will be developed in
order to provide a unique access point to all platforms and e-tools that will be available under the Rural
Wings in order all these e-tools to be integrated in an-one-system service. This web portal will be accessible
through World Wide Web, will be linked to the RURAL WINGS official web site and will introduce the full
capabilities of the offered platforms (e-learning, e-lab, e-work, telemedicine, web TV etc), a short technical
description, screenshots for each service and any other information given by the platforms' providers. In the
framework of the project the consortium will examine the following possibilities taking under consideration the
corresponding technical issues that will arise from the system’s architecture (WP2 and WP5): i) either all eplatforms and e-tools will be concentrated in one main server that will be directly linked to the RURAL
WINGS web-portal described above or ii) the user will have the capability to be redirected to the actual
server where each platform will be hosted, following one of the links that will be available in this web portal.
D) Wireless system design, validation and performance evaluation (Task 5.3 – M0 to M24)
Broadband Internet access in the pilot sites will be provided through the deployment of one DVB-RCS
terminal (SIT) that will give access to the worldwide Internet backbone. On a number of pilot sites the central
learninghub at the satellite internet access point will be shared through local area networks, and in particular
wireless networks.
Task 5.3 has investigated the design issues related to the integration of the Rural Wings satellite solutions
with terrestrial networks and in particular wireless networks. Task 5.3 has taken as key inputs the satellite
system architecture specifications and assessment results of tasks 2.3 and 5.1. Coordination with Task 5.2
has also been important focalising on the adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools and the
feedback from the platform providers on the provided services (for details refer to D5.2), has been taken into
account.
The technological team has defined the wireless network architectures for the Rural Wings project,
addressing different system aspects including wireless network topology, coverage area, QoS, security and
internetworking issues and explaining how these concepts have been applied by the different partners
responsible for the wireless network design.
The baseline for the wireless component of the pilot site will consist in combining several categories of
equipment based on the 802.11x WLAN standard (reference Figure 6.3), in order to interconnect several
remote sites or buildings (outdoor links through Wi-Fi equipment). For broadband access to the Internet, one
Wi-Fi access point will represent the bridge for the network to be connected on the one hand with the DVBRCS terminal, and on the other hand with the Local broadband network of the experimental zone. The indoor
component of the SIT will be connected with the local LAN.
33
In preparation of the pilot sites specific design and deployment activities of WP 6, different generic network
topologies have been identified (point to point, point to multipoint and indoor hotspot) and the associated
typical coverage areas have been defined. A number of wireless equipments (Access points and end-user
terminals) have been selected accordingly, coming from 5 different manufacturers (Repeatit, Linksys, Cisco,
D-link and Zyxel) and are all compliant with the 802.11b/g or 802.11a standard.
In order to share on a fair basis the satellite bandwidth ressources between the different wireless users, local
loop traffic shaping and QoS management tools and procedures have been investigated. To secure the local
wireless network a number of security features can be implemented at different network layers. All wireless
basestations selected for Rural Wings include MAC address filtering, Hide SSID, Intrusion detection, WEP,
WPA and are either RADIUS client or server. The operation of the wireless networks has been prepared
through the investigation and analysis of network management and control platforms. The pilot site test runs
and the associated evaluation activities will allow to verify the effectiveness of the solutions proposed and to
make the necessary adaptations as required.
The project team has carried out a performance evaluation of the wireless and network equipments to be put
in place on the Ruralwings wireless local loops on test beds set up by Avanti, Hellas Sat and Astrium looking
in particular at web browsing quality, file transfer and streaming under different configurations of QoS
management, traffic encryption and accelerated VPN. The key parameters measured, Packet Error Rate,
Delay, throughput and jitter, show adequate performance for all selected equipments under typical usage
conditions as foreseen in the Rural Wings project. The regulatory directives concerning the 2.4GHz
frequency band in the Rural Wings pilot site countries have been analysed and no critical issues have been
identified.
E) System Improvements and adaptations phase A (M21-M26) and phase B (M33-M36)
Both of these tasks are referring to the second phase of the project. Any technical deficiencies identified by
user groups will need to be classified and addressed in order to have a successful implementation. So as
has already been clearly explained from in the description of WP4, after the completion the test runs and the
phase A of the final runs, 2 cycles of technical improvements and adaptation of the system are foreseen.
These adaptations may refer either to the general end to end satellite architecture of the system (task 5.4),
or the adaptation of the content and the user friendliness of the e-platforms (task 5.2), or the
improvements/re-design of the associated pilot site terrestrial networks giving improved capacity and access
to more users (task 5.3). In any case these tasks are meant and foreseen in order to correct any possible
deficiency that will be revealed during the system trials.
Pilots - Implementation and Trials (WP.6)
In the framework of the Rural Wings project a worldwide network of Learning Hubs will be created in the
participating countries. These centres (in the initial phase schools, regional and public offices and health
centres will serve as Learning Hubs) will be equipped with the necessary infrastructure (antennas, terminals,
PCs, web cameras, other peripherals) in order to support the project’s implementation. The experience from
the RCST project (Remote Communities Services Telecentre) has to be taken into account during the
selection and the installation of the Learning Hubs. The “multipurpose” nature of the service it is difficult to
broker. As in the initial phase the pilot sites will be installed in established organisations (schools, health
centres, regional offices), the dominant service channel (health in the case of RCST project) could become
the principal characteristic in which the project will be perceived.
The evaluation results of the RCST project show that it was commonly recommended that such services
must be located in “neutral’ locations with out ownership by a single approach. An important component of
the Rural Wings project is the selective establishment of a wireless (Wi-Fi) communications infrastructure,
given the capacity of the new technology to facilitate the emergence of flexible interpersonal communication
patterns that may play an important role in developing and strengthening “learning networks” around
important community issues. This will allow the project to go beyond the experience of “Telecenters”,
evolving in the direction of “learning networks and communities” that can more proactively integrate various
social actors in a more decentralized and participatory approach to knowledge generation and use, relevant
to community issues. The Learning Hubs should not emulate traditional training centres. The Learning Hubs
will be a place for digital creation, fostering the human spirit, civic development and collective efficiency. The
tools available should be wide ranging, from computers, broadband access, web (or digital) cameras and a
34
variety of supportive software tools (e.g. for creation of web-pages, video capturing and editing). The
National Coordinator will select the specific sites (effort will be made to include a variety of sites) in each
country (task 6.A1 Identification of the pilot groups of users M7-M8). It is expected that 128 pilot sites will
be created in the framework of the three cycles of the project’s implementation in the 12 participating
European countries, 32 of which will be deployed within the 1st implementation phase. The exact distribution
of the sites per country and per project period is clearly shown in the tables of Section 8.1.1.
It must be noted that in the framework of this task the priority of the NCs will be given to identify the first 32
sites that will be deployed for the 18-month period. Of course the optimum for the project will be to clearly
define from the beginning the entire number of the pilot sites because that would help the overall
programming of the other related tasks of WP6A and WP5 (6A.2 and 5.3). From the other hand the 1st
implementation phase that will last for 4 months (Test Runs) and the following test run assessment may
reveal problems that could also be linked with the procedure of selecting the pilot sites (geographical
location, nature of the community etc.) and may force some NC coordinators to re-plan partially the pilot sites
geographical distribution. For that reason this task will re-run in the 2nd implementation phase of the project in
order to select the remaining pilot sites, if not all of them have been selected from the fist cycle, or to re-plan
the location of others based on the gained experience from the test runs.
At this point it is very important to high light the exact role of the National Coordinators (NC). The role of
the National Coordinators is considered as one of the key factors for the successful implementation of the
project, as they will be invited to play the role of a Change Agent operating in a realistic interactive context.
That is, they will be in charge of driving change in the group/community by first diagnosing and
understanding the context and players and then trying to ‘convince’ them. The Learning Hubs will serve as
working models and demonstrators, where the project’s activities will be realised.
A series of training activities will be organised first for the training of the NC (task 6B.1:Training of the
National coordinators M2-M25: nevertheless, this task will be continuous and will be repeated if more
training of the NCs is needed). Then the NC will organise their own training activities on national/local level
(conventional and on-line seminars, info days and workshops) will follow, in order for the users to get
familiarized with the relevant technology and to decrease their resistance to change (tasks 6B.2-M6-M42) In
the framework of the workshops the users will be informed about the project’s approach, as their participation
to the project will be systematically monitored and assessed. Most of the proposed activities will take place
in-situ by the National Coordinator. More information regarding the whole training procedure (WP6.B) is
given in the relevant 6.3 sections where the reader can also refer.
So after the selection of the pilot sites, task 6A.2 (Technical definitions of the pilot sites) will be realized
from M9-M13. In the first phase this technical definition involves the site survey for the proper installation of
the DVB/RCS equipment. In the second phase it mainly involves the study of the architecture of each local
network that will be deployed in each site in order to decide what is the optimum solution for the connection
of as many users as possible. The possible solutions that will be examined are the use of WiFi Networks,
LAN networks or simple stand along DVB/RCS terminals. Once this network architecture has been defined
then the National coordinators will decide the type of equipment that is needed for the proper installation of
the learning hubs (Type of PC, Web Cameras, scanners, printers etc.). The selection of the equipment will
be done based on the type of application that will be decided for each pilot-site/community (WP3 and WP4),
the cost of the needed equipment and the ability of the NC coordinators to involve the local communities and
persuade the local authorities to invest funds in order to exploit as efficiently as possible the capabilities of
the DVB/RCS technology. As soon as the definition of the pilot sites has finished, task 6A.3 (Installation of
the pilot sites – Learning Hubs) from M14-M16 will take place. This task refers to the physical installation
of all the necessary infrastructure and the relevant testing before the commencement of the test runs.
At this point it must be noted that if not all the pilot sites have been selected through the process of
6A.1, as it is expected, tasks 6A.2 and 6A.3 will be repeated in the second implementation phase of
the project (Final Runs Phase A) from M29-M32 and M30-M32 respectively.
Then the Rural Wings scenarios will be implemented in three major cycles of user-centered work (Tasks
6A.5, 6A.7, 6A.8). The designed scenarios will be treated as case studies and will be tested in real
conditions at the pilot sites. The user trials are not only meant for evaluation purposes but will also offer to
the users the chance to provide feedback to the project and its technical (especially on the usability issues)
and pedagogical aspects. The first pilot phase (Task 6.5 Test Runs – Month 17 – Month 27) will have
total duration of four months and the users’ reactions to the system’s service will be monitored and analyzed
35
in detail. With the experience gained during the first phase of trials and the assessment of the whole test run
procedure both from the pedagogical and the technological point of view, the appropriate modifications and
improvements on both the e-tools, the pedagogical approach and scenarios and possibly the
satellite/terrestrial network architectures will be implemented during a second and a third six-month cycles
(Task 6A.7, 6.A8 M30-M36 and M38 - M44 respectively) involving users in more and more advanced
scenarios that will be the outcome of the co-operation between the pedagogical team and the users. The
idea is that in each of these cycles of user-centered work, less and less guidance will be needed, giving the
chance to the users to actively participate to the co-design of the final version of the Rural Wings service and
the implemented scenarios. During the implementation of the user-centered activities the users will be
provided with the necessary Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring
(task 6A.6). This task will start approximately three months before the commencement of the test runs
(month 14) with the set up of the learning hubs and will finish with the finalization of the final runs phase B
(month 44 de-installation DVB/RCS equipment).
A very demanding issue within the framework of this WP and partially of this task is expected to be the
monitoring of the users’ activities. Part of this job will be carried out within the network monitoring that is
foreseen in task 6A.6. The Satellite providers (HELLASSAT and EUTELSAT) will do the satellite network
monitoring and its main purpose will be to monitor the satellite capacity usage by the users, the traffic profile
of each site, the % of each platform usage etc. All these data will be valuable for the remote monitoring of
the users activities and will help for the draft creation of a “user profile activity” per pilot site that will drive the
development of the main evaluation tools that will be created in WP7. So more information regarding the
monitoring of the users activities will be given in the next section, but in general task 6A.6 can be regarded
as one of the basic input tasks of the evaluation WP. Finally another supportive task to the implementation
procedure is task 6A.4 (Development of support material (short manuals, on-line support, M13-M15)
which foresees the development of proper user support mechanisms, including manuals and customer
support help line. HELLASSAT and EUTELSAT (with its local providers) will provide this support, while
initial technical support for the terrestrial networks and the technical definition of the pilot sites will be
provide to the NC by ASTRIUM.
Evaluation (WP.7)
In several of our previous projects in the field of application of advanced learning systems, evaluation of the
learning environments has been carried out and formative, concrete, qualitative and quantitative approaches
have been developed and improved. There is though an ongoing demand to improve this methodology in a
reverse participation: We are used to ask for a participatory system design in the direction that users or other
selected stakeholders participate in the design process, but we are not very much used to the perspective
that the evaluation process itself is subject to an intensive participation process influenced by designers and
users. This will be the case in the Rural Wings project. Furthermore, the consortium expects enrichment by a
systematic post-evaluation phase where we contrast the traditional evaluation methods with an open search
for new approaches, through the contribution of partners within the project and of external guest-experts.
For this reason the specific work package will be strongly supported by four research groups with high
expertise in evaluating innovative applications in school environments (EA and SUIIE) and in evaluating
informal learning scenarios (e.g. learning at work or at home) (INSEAD and BGU). The whole work will be
coordinated by the TUD, which is the WP co-leader. This hopefully will not only give new insights into
learning processes but also into evaluation methods. The project will evolve through a systematic, multi-step
assessment process involving the collection and interpretation of data. The project’s assessment places
greater emphasis on the results of assessment procedures that sample an assortment of variables using
diverse data-collection methods. Thus all aspects of the proposed approach will be measured using multiple
methods such as performances and portfolios, as well as interviews and questionnaires. The partnership
aims to make use of all the capabilities that the Internet offers in order to perform the very demanding task of
data collection. For this reason, means such as electronic forms, discussion forums and bulletin boards will
be used to increase the samples. In order for the data to be valuable and the quality of the reports to be
safeguarded, external experts will review the outcomes of the project.
The main aim of the work at this stage is to build on the initial results of the monitoring of the users’ activities
in the sense this is described in task (task 6A.6). The project team will try to transform the initial results to
concrete recommendations to stakeholders in the field of satellite tele-education applications. More
specifically, the aim of the survey is to determine whether the claimed results are valid and to obtain
qualitative and quantitative evidence of the positive impact of the present innovation. In the framework of this
WP, which will start at M7, for the 1st period only one task will be fully realized (task 7.1 Design of an initial
usability evaluation plan and a usability test). The goal of the usability evaluation in the framework of the
36
project is the specification of all tasks that are relevant to the Rural Wings system and the evaluation of the
user’s task on job demands in terms of characteristics and environment. Typically, usability is aimed at
finding usability problems in the design, though some methods also address issues like the severity of the
usability problems and the overall usability of an entire system. Task 7.1 has the following key objectives:

Develop a usability evaluation framework for the Rural Wings system, comprised by a number of
cognitive and heuristic measures for usability of the system. The framework will combine established
software usability evaluation techniques, and adapt them to the characteristics of the specific context
applications by involving all user categories.

Design a series of usability tests to be performed in the different application settings of the scenario
contexts, both for the providers of the knowledge content and for the final users having access to it. The
specific instances of the usability framework will be identified.

Provide the user communities and organisations with the necessary methodological support to perform
the usability testing (task 7.2 also involved), by preparing the evaluation methods, material and
guidelines. This objective is closely linked with the preparation of the user trials in WP.6.
The primary goal of the usability evaluation framework that is going to be designed within the framework of
task 7.1, is to purpose a series of usability tests that will be developed to be performed in the different
application settings and environments (learning at work, at school and at home) of the scenario contexts.
Both the providers of the knowledge content and the final users will have access to it in order to uncover any
problems that users may encounter so that those problems can be fixed. In the case of the Rural Wings
system the usability evaluation tests will concentrate mainly on the efficiency and effectiveness of the system
and on the ergonomics of the educational platform (e.g. easy to use, effectiveness, openness). Task 7.1 will
be completed by M16 when the relevant D7.1 deliverable (D7.1 Design of the initial usability evaluation
plan and the usability tests) will be presented. This deliverable will be used as a reference guide for the
usability tests that will be carried out in the framework of task 7.3 Testing (test run phase) in the 32
selected pilot sites. Obviously, the Rural Wings consortium will take into serious account the importance of
the usability of the system. The results concerning the users reaction on the usability of the infrastructure and
services are among the most important elements of the market investigation (WP.8) and will also give a
valuable input for the formulation of the entire Rural Wings evaluation framework. In parallel, the pedagogical
evaluation issues addressing similar conepts on the learning point of view will be addressed in similar and
parallel framework and instruments as well as Deliverables. This lies in the framework of Task 7.2 Design of
the initial pedagogical evaluation plan, instruments and tests. The corresponding tests will be carried
out in parallel to the usability ones in the framework of Task 7.3.
After the Test Runs period and approximately in the commencement of the Final Runs Phase A all above
evaluation components will be coverged and merged with technological components, network traffic and
reliability ones addressing in parallel socio economic issues in order a general holistic evaluation framework
to be performed. This general framework will be intitiated within M29 in Task 7.4 Development of a holistic
evaluation framework for the Rural Wings project (including all the evaluation instruments) and
indicating the social impact of the project.
For the design of the evaluation methodology the project team will adopt a multidisciplinary approach in
order to analyse the initial results and the innovation value of the proposed processes and scenarios, eLearning solutions and services. This multidisciplinary approach has several components as indicated
above: social and economic, usability, learning, technical including network traffic and reliability. Indicators
and criteria, tools and guidelines will constitute the framework. In order to meet different “evaluation”
requests the proposed framework will be based on a flexible and modular approach. The main innovation
aspects will be identified from the point of view of all the above-mentioned dimensions while the data to be
collected, the evaluation criteria and the possible sources of evaluation both human and material will be
suggested in broader categories. The most relevant sources of evaluation (among the possible ones) will be
selected and the tools and the timing of delivery to the users will be defined. This constitutes the practical
part of the work that could form the core of the guidelines to be distributed to the people who will be involved
in the trials of the Rural Wings integrated service.
This evaluation framework will include multiple evaluation instruments (tests, interviewes, focus groups,
technical assessment of the DVB/RCS system by the technical partners, questionnaires etc) that will be used
as an integrated evaluation tool during the phase A and B of the project implementation. Part of this
evaluation will be to compare the efficiency and the impact of the offered Rural Wings services through the
DVB/RCS technology with the e-learning platforms. This task will start relatively late because WP2 and WP3
need to be finished before its initiation and from the other hand the technical solution for the Rural Wings
37
project need to be clearly defined. It will be elaborated for all the duration of the 2nd implementation phase
(Final Runs Phase A and Phase B) until the end of the project through task 7.5 Testing within the Final
Runs.
Once a solid evaluation framework has been developed, the last evaluation Task 7.6 will begin. Immediately
after the end of the project’s implementation (M44), the Production of Rural Wings final evaluation
Report M44-M46) giving input to development of the project’s Business plan. It should be noted that since a
great deal of the work within the framework of this WP is foreseen for the project’s 2nd period, the tasks that
are mainly allocated to this period (7.3, 7.4 and 7.5) are subject to partial revision after the project’s overall
assessment in the end of the first 18 month period. All the above are visualised in the following Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.5: A close-up to the core mechanism of the project’s evolution. The continuous interaction between
the user communities and the project’s team is realized through repeated cycles of trials, monitoring and
assessment that are introduced in the project’s implementation activities (first level of evaluation) and a
complementary evaluation approach that will synthesize the results from an innovation perspective (second
level of evaluation). An additional level of evaluation, the usability evaluation of the service will provide the
project team with data in order to uncover any problems that the users may encounter during the
implementation of the proposed service so that those problems can be fixed.
Market Investigation (WP.8)
Trying to implement a large scale evaluation and take-up of the DVB-RCS technology it is essential to
evaluate whether this standard is financially viable in terms of return on investment for the main players of
the market (satellite communications’ providers/operators, platforms providers, content providers, industrial
companies in satellite communications).
These main players are identified as:






Space industry, which have the capability to build the necessary space segment
Telecommunication operators, especially those that they have satellite facilities
Software providers
Government representatives (e.g. EU and Worldwide Institution and Regulatory Organisations)
Content providers
Regional representatives and local authorities that know the requirements of their areas in order to
help exploit and deploy these applications through the specific technology.
38
Also it is essential to identify the methods that will be followed in order to commercialise this technology and
explore the benefits for the users. In this framework the consortium will develop an Market Investigation in
order to satisfy the presented needs (WP.3). The objective would be to identify the drivers and barriers to elearning participation - both in the supply and demand side – including user requirements, potential uses and
their characteristics, as well as the potential market. Satellite technologies constitute an infrastructure for the
delivery of electronic communication services and a wide area of applications. This market is a commercial
one characterized by an intense competition between operators and technologies. The growth rate of the
market that the project is referring to (remote/rural areas) will be one of the aims of the Market
Investigation.
The consortium intends to include in this investigation the analysis of the strategic context of the integrated
service and to eventually demonstrate that this initiative could lead to an operational exploitation within the
context of integrated applications using satellite communication systems in order to bridge the digital divide
in Europe and beyond. The work of this work package will be based on the outcomes of WP.2 and WP.3 and
mainly on the Synthesis Feasibility report (D2.3) and on the Users segmentation and Users profile definition
(task 3.2). Consequently the Market Investigation will include the next phases:




Market Definition and Forecast for the business case (Month 12 – Month 18)
Market research and analysis (Month 18 – Month 24)
Market monitoring and updating (Month 24 – Month 42)
Business Plan and sensitivity analysis (Month 42 – Month 48)
More specific the above phases that will be developed will comprise the following tasks (the first task will be
also presented in Section B.8 as this is covering the period of the first 18 moths of the life cycle of the
project):
Start-up of an initial European and Global market definition and identification of market opportunities
(task 8.1). This survey will include an executive summary of the Marketing Plan with analysis of the present
situation and the undergoing changes in the technology industry of satcoms, overview of the competition, the
short- and long- term goals and the perspective position of the Rural Wings integrated service in the market
in a few years. The main interest of the partnership is to investigate the exploitation of the using technology
(DVB-RCS) and the introduction of the project applications to main players across Europe and beyond i.e.
South Africa through the collaboration with the Swedish partner CR9 SU/IIE (Satellite infrastructure systems
developers, equipment vendors, service providers, platforms developers, and content providers).
The project team will estimate the number of “Satcom Addressable” users using a 3-step approach proposed
below:
1. Determination of the population (in statistical terms, e.g. number of households, number of schools,
number of business premises, number of administrative sites) with in the service coverage area.
2. Determination of the portion of the population actually that is covered or is going to be covered by
terrestrial technology. This particular element of the forecast study is extremely important. An
accurate analysis of the terrestrial service offering is required within the whole service coverage
area. Best estimation of terrestrial deployment plans and pricing trends is also required.
3. Determine the “addressable” market as the portion of population not covered by satellite technology
that may have a need of the satcom services under investigation and have the necessary financial
resources to pay for the service. This estimation will be based on a systematic qualitative review of
socio-economical considerations.
The Business Case report (task 8.1) will be one of the main outcomes of the Market Investigation phase. It
will act as a business model for Rural Wings that will be reviewed and modified on a regular basis, taking into
account market developments and results from the implementation of the project and the extended feasibility
study. Each version of the report will specify the targets to be reached, and will generate a Business
(Commercial) Plan, for Rural Wings system, which will define the actions required to achieve the targets, the
opportunities and threats that exist, the basic financial resources required, specify which partner(s) are to
take the actions and present basic actions that have to be taken in a timed plan extending at least three
years after completion of the project. For each exploitable component of results, an initial cost-benefit
assessment for possible customers for the output will be developed and maintained. Market survey will be
taking into account when revising exploitation plans and customer cost-benefit assessments. Suitable
business models shall be prepared for the business plan evaluation and the financial assessment. The
39
refinement of the scenarios shall be obtained through an iterative analysis. This work will form the roadmap
to sustain the development/deployment of satellite services and will recommend appropriate actions.
The foreseen deliverable for this WP package for the first 18 month period (D 8.1: Market definition and 1st
version of the business case report) will consist of two main parts: The first will be the identification of the
targeted market and the second part will be the 1st limited version of the Rural Wings business model. It
should be made clear that the business model that will be presented in the D8.1 deliverable will be in a
preliminary form since the major part of the work within this WP will be done after the 18th month of the
project.
The market research and analysis (task 8.2) will be based on the following key activities:










Identification of Europe's market opportunities.
Definition of the target user groups and segments.
Assessment of the market size.
Research of the needs and demands of the potential users and identification of possible competitors
(input from WP3).
Product's positioning and risk analysis.
Identification of Strength – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats through a SWOT analysis.
Promotion and advertising possibilities.
Definitions of sales and distribution channels.
Price definition along with profit and costs projections.
In conclusion, the initial market analysis will provide the partnership with a roadmap of how the new
products and services will be fitted in the future markets.
Market monitoring and updating (task 8.3) will be implemented for a period of almost two years during the
implementation phase of the project and will provide feedback in order to update the initial market analysis.
Furthermore, it will provide feedback about possible channels of approaching the main customer groups that
will be identified. In this way the final products and services will be market-oriented and ready to be
commercialised.
The Business Plan development and sensitivity analysis (task 8.4) will present all the current
information about the Rural Wings service in a coherent plan that will include two separate parts. The first
part will give the first consistent plan for the Rural Wings service, and similar intergraded services (using the
same technological infrastructure), for internal use within the consortium in order to define the first actions
that partners have to follow and implement in order to exploit the project’s results. The second phase of the
business / commercial plan will include all the necessary information in order for this document to have the
role of a roadmap for the main actors of the markets that the intergraded service referring to. The business
plan evaluation will determine the revenues, capital expenditures and operating expenses at least for the
main actors in the value chain (satellite operator, service provider, broadcaster). The partnership will take
into account both the service investment costs (including the ground access & control segment as well as
user terminal costs) and the operational costs (i.e. monthly service costs related to the space
segment/bandwidth, utilisation costs/ content procurement etc).
The outcomes of the WP.2, WP.3, WP.5, WP.6, WP.7, as well as of the Tasks 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 within the WP.8
will be considered in order to finalize the business plan.
To complete the business plan the partnership will also perform the following activities:






Analysis of the business case results through suitable Financial Statements,
Computing various financial parameters such as Internal Rate-of-Return, Return on Equity, Payback on
Free Cash flow, Net Present Value.
Deploy and description of hypothesis taken in the Financial Model.
Detailed sensitivity analysis on the financial results considering factors as the price of the user terminals,
subsidisation effect, and satellite infrastructure cost and subsidy level.
Analysis of Critical Success Factors (Service coverage, Time to market, Rapidity of the transition to selfsustained business) and the associated risks affecting every actor of the value chain.
Description/Redefinition of the satcom scenarios corresponding to the most promising business cases
including the overall cost system objectives for the most promising one.
40
Dissemination (WP.9)
The Dissemination and Exploitation activities are described in detail in Section B6.5 and 6.7. There is also a
detailed presentation of the dissemination activities of the project for the first project’s phase in WP9. Project
dissemination has three main tasks. The first (task 9.1: Development of Rural Wing’s Dissemination
Strategy and Dissemination plan M1-M3) will be completed relatively soon, because the dissemination of
the project must start as quickly as possible, and for that reason the D9.1 deliverable (Dissemination plan)
must be available at a very early stage. The rest of the remaining two tasks (9.2: Clustering and
Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities) and (9.3:
Preparation of Dissemination Material) will practically run for the whole duration of the project. One thing
that must be noted, is that it is not logical to develop a dissemination plan for a 4 year project period, since in
the mean time many of the foreseen activities especially the distant ones may change. Consequently task
9.1 will be revised after the project’s first period. So from (M19-M30) a new revised dissemination plan will be
produced summarizing the main dissemination activities of the project for the 2nd period (M18-M48). Finally
the consortium will attempt to combine the closing of the project (Milestone 9) with a big workshop or a small
conference that will be organised with the support of EDEN. This workshop will be designed as a major
dissemination event aiming to attract the biggest possible audience from the Satellite industry/providers and
potential users in order to present the outcomes of the project and exploit its results. Since as it has already
been mentioned the dissemination activities are also presented in other sections of this document (6.5 and
6.7), the reader can refer to all these sections for more information.
41
6.2 Demonstration activities
There are no demonstration activities foreseen for the Rural Wings project
6.3 Training activities
The project’s training activities are presented with detail in WP6.B, which is the relevant WP, allocated to
training. The training activities of the project can be divided into 2 main categories.
1. The training of the national coordinators (6B.1:Training of the National coordinators M2-M12)
2. The training of the local users (6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development
of support training material)
First Category
The first category refers to the 1st period of the project and the relative 6B.1 task will be completed by M15.
This task will not take place in the 2 nd period of the project because it is expected that within the project’s first
year the National Coordinators will be equipped with all the necessary information in order to support the
project with all the necessary means in a national level. Of course there may be independent short period
training activities from M18-M26 (that is before the implementation of phase A) in case there are specific
problems from a NC, but these activities cannot be regarded as significant. The key point is that by the end
of M15 (when the first learning HUBs will be installed all the needed training for the support of the
implementation must already be given to the NCs. So the first year of the project will be full of training for the
NC and will mainly involve 2 major cycles of training:
1st internal training workshop: Within the first 2 months of the project (in combination with the kick off
meeting) the 1st internal training workshop will be organised. EUTELSAT/HELLASSAT and ASTRIUM will
provide all the initial information needed for the setting up of the pilot sites (DVB/RCS technology, site
survey and selection, technical definition of sites etc.). The platform providers will also participate to these
workshops and to the rest of the procedures in order to introduce the full capabilities of the offered platforms
to the NC. In parallel the core pedagogical group (EA, BGU, INSEAD, SUIIE) will also provide to the NC all
the necessary information that is initially needed from them in order to facilitate them to understand and
design the necessary scenarios for the implementation in their countries.
2nd internal training workshop: In the second year of the project and again in parallel with the 2nd
collaboration meeting of the project (2 nd milestone) another training workshop will be also organised.
ASTRIUM/AVANTI/ICCS will train the NC for the learning hub installation and maintenance. The platform
providers will present the final adjusted versions of their platforms that will be offered through the DVB/RCS
service. Finally the satellite providers HELLASSAT/ EUTELSAT will also provide with all the necessary
information needed for the installation of the DVB/RCS equipment to the pilot sites (liaisons with local
retailers, technical support etc.)
In conclusion there will be two training cycles for the NC coordinators that will start from month 2 and will
finish in the beginning of month 13 of the project. Of course for all this period and beyond that (until M15),
the training procedures will continue with others means that may be necessary (provision of DVB/RCS
manuals, continuous e-mail communication for the confrontation of specific problems, training through video
conferencing with the use of the Rural Wings system itself which will be strongly encouraged by the
management to be used where applicable (in order to avoid unnecessary travel expenses), training to the
NC through the local providers of EUTELSAT etc., special training session if needed to specific NC, on site
visit by the key staff of the technical partners to problematic sites etc.). All the material that will be presented
by the trainers to these workshops will be gathered by the Coordinator and will be distributed to the NC to be
used as reference training material for their local training activities in 6B.2 and for the production of their
training material. In parallel the major trainer partners (ASTRIUM, EUTELSAT, AVANTI, ICCS) will provide
any additional material that they thing is appropriate for the facilitation of the NC.
42
Second Category
The second category of training refers to all the training activities from the NC towards the local
users/communities (task 6B.2). Thus, this can be regarded as a second level of training because at this
stage the NC will have the difficult task to pass their accumulated experience to people with very limited
scientific background. So when each training cycle of the NC is finished, a series of local training activities
(conventional and on-line seminars, info days and workshops) will be organised, in order for the users to get
familiarized with the relevant technology and to decrease their resistance to change. In the framework of the
workshops the users will be informed about the project’s approach, as their participation to the project will be
systematically monitored and assessed. Small local workshop may be carried out, not only initially but also
periodically (if needed) to deepen the appropriation process of the new learning environment. It is important
to try to implement the training of the users at the pilot site. Site visits expose problems and concerns within
the community. An on-site visit and orientation process is a key to continued application building. Without
face-to-face contacts, concerns will not be voiced, and contact is not always made with those who should
have been included. Individuals within a community seemed more comfortable following up on issues,
concerns, potential applications, etc. if they had met face to face initially. The deep commitment of the
various stakeholders (national coordinators, local coordinators, users) to the project is of paramount
importance in order to assure creative community involvement.
Remark on the Second category
The kind and the nature of the training activities that will take place in every country and will be organised by
each National coordinator will be decided by the National coordinators based on the special needs and
circumstances of each country. The training material may consist of a brief implementation guide,
instructions to the use of the DVB/RCS equipment, instructions to the use of the platforms etc., manuals,
short training presentations and whatever other support material is needed by the local communities or the
NC deem appropriate for the proper implementation. This task will commence after the 6 th month of the
project, once enough experience has been accumulated to the NC coordinators and will be finalised when all
the pilot sites have been set up and are working properly. That means that task 6B.2 will continue also in the
second phase of the project approximately until M30, when it is expected that all local communities will have
developed the skills to anticipate any possible problem related with the project’s implementation.
6.4 Management of the Consortium activities
It should be emphasized that the consortium includes 25 partners from 15 countries (plus the in indirect
participation of S. Africa with 2 sites), in order for the project to meet its ambitious objectives. For this reason
an effective project management system is needed. Such a system requires effective decision-making,
operational internal communication, and development of solid work breakdown structures, schedules, costs
and resource plans, and effective administrative and technical control of the project. All the above-mentioned
factors are given appropriate weight throughout the Rural Wings project. The Project’s Management (WP.1)
structure of the project is described in detail in Section 7.
43
6.B Plans
6.5 Plan for using and disseminating knowledge
The Rural Wings project will be implemented in Europe (Greece, Cyprus, Spain, United Kingdom, France,
Switzerland, Sweden, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Georgia, Armenia and Israel) and South Africa. Through
these implementations there will be established a large pilot network of institutions to act as National
Coordinators in 12 different countries. These organisations will come from deferent market and scientific
backgrounds and range in size from small local centres to large national or international institutions (e.g.
EDEN).
Furthermore the consortium has already assured the support of large Organisations in Europe and beyond,
such as CEN/ISSS supporting the learning standards and ETSI for the standardization in telecoms. All these
organisations provide several complementary channels for the dissemination of the project’s objectives,
activities and outcomes. The range of their communication capabilities extends from the users communities
that will be participating in the pilot projects to official national and European educational organisations,
satellite operators, industrial telecom organizations, educational policy makers, content developers,
regulatory bodies and decision makers.
The following concrete measures for an effective dissemination have been planned (referred also in WP9)

The project’s web site: The project’s web site will be linked to numerous other relevant sites and
registered to the main search engines on the Internet. After termination of the pilots the web site will also
include all the relevant information about the results (task 9.1 and D9.2)

Development of working groups on rural education: The partnership will support and contribute to
the creation of working groups on educational (distance and life long education methods and
applications) and technology (method of installing or utilizing the existing and emerging technologies)
issues. Representatives of running or former projects, under relevant action lines of EC or ESA
programmes (integrated projects, Networks of excellence, STREPs and actions of the ARTES), will
participate in such working groups, the aim being to reinforce the dissemination of the results. The
working groups will furthermore support the effective interaction between the running projects and will
build upon the results of former projects, in order to demonstrate a model of active synergy among a
network of people working with similar targets. Several of the key partners of the consortium also
participate in other related initiatives and thus will provide cooperation of the Rural Wings project with
these programmes (RCST, TWISTER as described in Section 3 and WP2, ZEUS, MUSE, SchoolSAT,
AMERHIS, BARRD, RIA, NMB, VERDI).

A very important activity of the project will be the cooperation with the SATMAC project, which is an
SSA project, funded under the same action line with RURAL Wings. SATMAC will act as a horizontal
activity within the Aeronautics and Space strategic objective integrating and disseminating results from
all the relevant projects that are funded in the FP6 under the same initiative. The Rural Wings project
has foreseen a close cooperation with SATMAC and has included this cooperation within its major
dissemination activities (task 9.2) that will be directly monitored and realized by the Project Coordinator.
Plans for sharing PU deliverables and also receiving input from other similar projects deliverables are
also foreseen.

Newsletters: Newsletters on the applications and technological approach, as well as on the project’s
achievements, will be produced and circulated to the scientific and professional communities in order to
spread the project’s results to relevant user groups.

Project’s conferences: Participation to international conferences will be pursued by the consortium
throughout the different stages of the project’s advancement and realisation, under the guidance and
support of EDEN (Workshops will be organised in the framework of the Annual EDEN conference). The
possibility of organizing a large workshop or a small closing conference with the support of EDEN will be
also examined in the framework of project’s M9 (Closing 5th collaboration meeting and closing
Workshop).
Production and Distribution of the project’s dissemination material, which includes Posters and
leaflets and other multimedia material.

44

Publication of the project’s achievements within the scientific community (papers in international
scientific journals and in professional or industrial magazines) and participation in conferences.

Contacts, promotion and publications in different public media such as specialised magazines, radio
and TV programs and even forums, discussion groups and web sites.

Participation in related exhibitions, symposia and workshops in order to promote and present the
achievements of the project

Open day events in the participating countries and in the pilot sites.

Realisation of thematic training workshops (internal) and training seminars for both the National
Coordinators and the users in-situ (more details are referred to WP6.B and section 6.3).
The consortium intends to perform further dissemination activities in order to start up the exploitation plan,
which will be developed through the tasks that constitute the WP 8. These activities could be identified as
follows:

Approaching national and international authorities and policy makers. The partnership intends to
present the applications developed through the project and delivered by means of satellite
communication systems, to the national authorities of the participating countries (ministries of education,
pedagogical institutes, relevant telecommunication authorities and institutions), policy makers and
content developers. The aim is to demonstrate the proven value of the developed applications and to
propose specific actions for embedding the project’s approach to national and international level. It
should be emphasized that the Rural Wings partnership has the capability to both get in touch with the
relevant authorities and proceed with the standardization of the approach, as is clear that the project
provides a very promising tele-education application based on modern satellite communication systems,
providing a clear solution for bridging the digital divide between rural and urban areas in Europe and
beyond.

Setting up a cooperative network on rural areas. The partners intend to establish a cooperative
network on rural areas that will be used to guide future deployment and exploitation of relevant
applications using satellite communication systems. The network members will communicate among
them in regular basis, will attend the progress of the project and will stimulate an extensive dialogue on
the different aspects of the implemented applications. The intention is to maintain the existence of the
network not only throughout the project’s implementation but also after its completion. The partnership
believes that this network will play a very important role in disseminating the project’s ideas and
exploiting the project’s outcomes. The network will form an open structure welcoming any institution or
individual who is interested in these applications. It is believed that the network will significantly
contribute through its expansion, in finding additional sources of financing and ways for continuing the
project’s activities.
Additional to the above dissemination activities, there is a great interest in exploring the possible market
opportunities for the project's results. The participation of large commercial companies, like ASTRIUM,
EUTELSAT, AVANTI communications, in the consortium and their role in the project’s
Dissemination/Commercial Committee, will set the course of action for exploitation that will build upon the
creation services providing all the applications that will be tested within the project. The inclusion in the
partnership of leading commercial companies and research institutions in Europe will help the project team to
develop an exploitation strategy, to perform the market definition and forecast for the business case, the
market research and analysis, and to ultimately compile a “Business Case” that will include all the relevant
reports about the activities to be undertaken (at least three years after the end of the Project) in order to
develop the Sensitivity Analysis and Business Plan. Hence, the consortium believes that there are significant
opportunities for the exploitation of the approach developed within the Rural Wings project and of its
innovative applications.
AVANTI Communications will be the WP leader to perform the Market Investigation (WP8). For this
investigation, the company may use data from previous surveys and from AVANTI’s experience with surveys
that are currently in their final phase (RIA - Rural Internet Access, BARRD - Broadband Access for Rural
Regeneration using DVB-RCS, Multimedia Services Evolution and the Role of Satellites, Market Survey
for Small Communications Satellites). In this Investigation it is intended to also include the analysis of the
strategic context of the integrated service and to eventually demonstrate that this initiative is conceived in
45
order to lead to an operational exploitation, within the context of integrated applications using satellite
communications systems that address the digital divide problem in Europe and beyond.
In conclusion, the market analysis will provide the partnership with a complete idea of how the tele-education
applications and the satellite communication technologies will be fitted in the future markets, and will provide
feedback about possible channels of approaching each of the identified (through the market investigation)
user segments. The final applications will be market-oriented and ready to be commercialised. Furthermore,
the Business Plan will address all issues relevant to the overall viability of the use of the technologies and
applications introduced by the Rural Wings project, including manageability issues, acceptability of solutions
to all relevant organizations and institutional bodies, and acceptability and attractiveness of the solutions to
all categories of users.
46
6.6 Gender Action Plan
The research proposed by the Rural Wings project contributes to promoting gender equality as




address women’s needs, as much men’s needs: The Rural Wings project is promoting a usercentred methodological approach which constitutes a major breakthrough towards the creation of a
new learning culture in rural societies. The proposed process of implementing advanced services in
rural areas includes three critical steps:
build trust with the user
identify user needs
build new competences (or improving existing ones) of the user adapting advanced learning
services in the user’s every day life
This approach is applicable to all users. Especially as the project’s application is not restricted only to groups
of users (e.g. Learning at school) but also to users at home it will give the chance to women in rural areas
(especially women are mainly involved in tasks at home in rural areas) to get involved in the whole process.
The needs of the women will be addressed also during the Needs Analysis Survey in order the scenarios
that will be developed and proposed to the Rural Wings system users to be able include activities and tasks
mainly performed by women. Men’s characteristics, situations and needs are often taken as the norm, and –
to have the same opportunities - women are expected to behave like them. Ensuring gender equality means
giving equal consideration to the life patterns, needs and interests of both women and men. Gender
mainstreaming thus includes also changing both the learning and the culture and will be implemented
through the following:

it will be carried out to contribute to an enhanced understanding of gender issues. As each
person has different ways of learning and understanding, the proposed competence-based scheme
that will be introduced by the Rural Wings project should provide a wide variety of instructional
approaches. The construction of social capital in the community through the increased capacity of
people to solve their problems and improve their well-being on the basis of their capacity to
generate and use knowledge (both traditional as well as scientific knowledge), and through the
networking among stakeholders, is of paramount importance in the framework of the extended
application and evaluation process of the project. More specifically, the mobilization of the
stakeholders in order to involve women in the proposed activities will take place through:
o
o
o
Continuous dialogue with stakeholders in the formulation of the project in order to assure
that all the necessary measures are taken in order the participation of women to be
enhanced.
Introductory workshops will be organized with community leaders aimed at developing a
better understanding on how the new technologies relate to every-day life of all citizens of
the rural communities and how they can increase their capacity to solve their problems and
improve their well-being.
Additional workshops and open days might be organized (if the NC deems then
necessary) during the project’s implementation in the pilot sites in order the motivation and
the interest of the local community and especially of women to be kept high.
Finally it has to be noted that about 25% of the key personnel that will be mainly involved in the project are
women (see Section 9.5 Table 9.3).
47
6.7 Raising public participation and awareness
The content and the actions described in this paragraph are very much related to the dissemination strategy
that has been analytically presented in the previous section 6.5. So for more information the reader can also
refer to this section and WP9, which presents analytically all the activities that are foreseen towards the
achievement of this goal. In this paragraph we are going to provide some extra information that prove that
beyond any doubt that the project has reassured the maximum pubic participation and awareness. First of all
the raising of the public participation and awareness is reassured by the nature and the quality of the
consortium and the extended implementation scheme foreseen in the project.
Starting from the quality and the structure of the consortium it should be noticed that there are 19
participants from 8 EU member countries. 3 of these countries (Poland, Estonia and Cyprus) are new
members something that is extremely important for the project. Additionally there is 1 participant from a
candidate EU country (Romania) and 5 participants from 4 associated countries (Georgia, Armenia,
Israel and Switzerland) that have a long tradition in participating in EU projects. So the number and the
geographical dispersion of the EU member participants reassure the maximum representation of every
region of the European Union staring from the far north (communities in Sweden) and ending in the far south
(Cyprus and Greece) from the one hand, and from other hand starting from the western part of Europe
(communities in Canaria islands of Spain) and ending in eastern communities of Georgia and Armenia. So
the structure of the consortium is a very strong point of the project towards public participation because it
secures that a variety of communities throughout the whole Europe may have access to the project’s new
tools.
Apart from the consortium’s structure the implementation scheme is even more important. First of all there
are 128 pilot sites foreseen throughout Europe except for the Canadian pilot sites. These pilot sites
represent a variety of communities and social groups including schools, health centers, public authorities,
local community authorities, private organizations etc. mostly situated in rural areas on Europe. The
implementation will take place for 16 months reaching a total of 2.5 years including preparation phases,
training of users etc. (approximately from M12-M42). It will involve the local authorities and expert groups
from each country specializing in developing initiatives in rural areas. Each country will have a local
coordinator, which will be responsible for the promotion of the project in this country, for its proper
implementation and the selection of the targeted groups. In addition it is foreseen that the users will be
actively involved in the project from the beginning since the RURAL WINGS project has dedicated a
significant amount of manpower in defining the user needs and profiles. These tasks will be realized in the
first year of the project and will be performed in close cooperation with the local communities that will be later
involved in the pilot runs. All the above clearly show that in each participating country there will be a great
effort towards the activation of the local communities and the general awareness of the public. The reader
can also refer to the relevant section 8 of this technical annex were detailed information about the
implementation scheme is given including a short description of the nature and the location of each pilot site.
In addition to the above actions, there are also several other disseminating activities that can also contribute
towards the achievement of this goal. These activities are the development of the project’s web site, which
will be linked to numerous other relevant sites and registered to the main search engines on the Internet. The
participation in workshops and conferences and other major disseminating events will be also given high
priority by the project Coordinator. For the selection of these events the project’s core group will take into
account not only their relevance in terms of the project’s objectives, but also their publicity and the openness
to general non-specialized audiences. Finally there will be also an attempt to attract the interest of mass
media (TV channels, newspapers, web newsletters) towards the objectives and the outcomes of the project.
In conclusion while in many project’s raising public participation and awareness is not an easy task, this is
not the case with the Rural Wings project. On the contrary the Rural Wings project has inherently the
advantage of being in a position to achieve the maximum possible publicity and public awareness. This is
due to the large dispersion of its consortium and to the extended implementation scheme that will be
adopted involving thousands of European Union citizens from different counties, regions economical and
cultural backgrounds.
48
6.C Milestones
6.8 Major Milestones over full project duration
M1
Month
1
M2
12
M3
21
M4
25
M5
30
M6
38
M7
44
M8
47-48
Related activities
Kick-off meeting: Formulation of the various working groups for the
formulation of the user needs analysis, the feasibility study the
pedagogical scenarios and the study for the pilot sites end to end
architecture surveys. - Initiation of the work on the dissemination
strategy. Forming of the various committees. Planning of the step-bystep work for the project’s first year. 1st internal training workshop for
the NCs by HELLASSAT EUTELSAT ASTRIUM the platform providers
and EA
2nd Collaboration meeting: Delivery of the Users profile report. Delivery
of the high level definition of the end-to-end system architecture.
Delivery of the technical definition of the pilot sites. Delivery of the Rural
Wings learning environments. Delivery of the Synthesis Feasibility
Report. Step by step planning of the set up of the pilot sites and the fore
coming test runs. 2nd internal training WP for the NCs with emphasis
to the pilot sites installation. Assessment of the work carried out within
WP2 and WP3
Start of the test runs: Delivery of the Rural Wings scenarios to be
applied during the Test Run in the pilot sites. Delivery of the Integrated
system - The system ready to be used: The first test control pilot sites
ready to be used - Start of the pilot phase (Test Run) - Delivery of the
Usability Test and usability evaluation Plan - Delivery of the WP8 Market
definition and the 1st version of the Business Case report.
3rd Collaboration meeting: Assessment of the test runs - Start of the
system improvements and adaptation (phase A). Start of the scenarios
adaptation/integration (1st cycle). Selection of the remaining pilot sites for
the final implementation. Start of E-Platforms adaptations
Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation (phase A) Delivery of the evaluation framework. Start of the final run (Phase A).
Start of the evaluation procedures in the pilot sites.
Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A) - Delivery of the system
improvements and adaptations towards all system components - Start of
the final run (Phase B)
End of the implementation phases – End of the evaluation phase in
pilot sites – Finalisation of the scenarios of use (adapted/integrated
scenarios) - Start of the Business Plan Development-Start of the final
evaluation report development.
Closing 5th collaboration meeting and closing international
Workshop – Delivery of the Business Plan and the final evaluation
report
NOTE 1: Milestones M3-M8 are subject to re-planning after the end of each project’s reporting period and
according to the overall assessment of the project.
NOTE 2: For M8 there will be an attempt to organize a large dissemination event (possibly a special session
in terms of EDEN conferences) or an independent international Workshop in order to attract the maximum
publicity to the project (invited key speakers from major stakeholders in the satellite industry, satellite
operators, e-learning experts, international legalization authorities etc.). The nature and the extent of this
event will be defined after the project’s re-planning.
49
7. Project management
Organization and Management Structure
As the project brings together numerous partners composing a multidisciplinary team in order to accomplish
a very demanding work under a specific time schedule, the aspect of management is very crucial. An
effective project management system requires effective decision-making, internal operational
communication, and development of solid work breakdown structures, schedules, costs and resource plans
and effective administrative and technical control of the project.
The consortium consists of 25 partners that are divided in two categories, the core group of technological
and pedagogical partners (10 partners, 2 involved in the scientific coordination and management, 4 in the
technological applications and 4 in the design and development of educational scenarios) of and the group
of additional partners (15 partners that are involved in the design and development of the technological
and pedagogical applications that will be tested in the different pilot sites). Both groups include in total 12
National Coordinators1 for Europe institutions that will coordinate the project’s activities at national level in
each of the participating countries. This division was needed in order for the organizational structure of the
consortium to be more flexible in handling major issues. Schematically this division between the partners is
presented in Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1: The Rural Wings consortium internal structure.
The role of the Core Partners is mainly the development and deployment of the satellite communications
infrastructure in order to provide end-to-end applications for distance learning. This will form the basis for the
systems’ assessment and validation. The core group of partners consists of 10 partners that have to deploy
the Work Packages of the project. It has to be noted that the scientific coordination and the project
administrative management will be undertaken jointly by three institutions, as it will be distinguished later.
The role of Additional Partners is two-fold:
1
The project will be implemented in 12 countries (excluding S. Africa). The work in S. Africa will be coordinated by the SU/IIE (Sweden).
50
a) They will have the full responsibility of implementing the project’s applications to the selected rural
communities in each participating country (acting as National Coordinators). In most of the cases they will act
as facilitators between the activities of the core partners and the final users.
b) They develop and deploy e-Learning tools (e-Learning platforms, e-Labs, web-portals) as well as other
applications that will be used for educational purposes (Web-TV applications, e-shops) in the framework of
the proposed scenarios.
The management structure of the Rural Wings project in the form of entities is presented schematically in
Figure 7.2.
Project coordinator
Quality
Manager
Steering Committee
Project Plenary Board
Technology
Manager
Application
Manager
Technology
Committee
Leaders
of WP2,
WP5
Task
Leaders
Application
Committee
Leaders
WP7
Task
Leaders
Implementation
Manager
Implementation
Committee
Leaders of
WP3, WP4,
WP5
Task
Leaders
Project’s
Office
Commercial
Manager
Commercial and
Dissemination
Committee
Leader of
WP6A and
WP6B
Leaders of
WP8, WP9
Task
Leaders
Task
Leaders
Leader
of WP1
Task
Leaders
Fig. 7.2:The management structure of the Rural Wings project.- A three level of organization
structure
As it can be clearly seen from figure 8 there are three levels of management that are foreseen within the
project administration:
a) Upper level Management (yellow filled boxes) which represents the Strategic Level – Decision Making
administration
51
b) Middle Level management (light blue filled boxes) which represents the Information, Implementation and
Distribution of the decisions channels
c) Lower Level management (light green filled boxes) which represents the Work Implementation Level and
the Delegation of workload.
Reference to the above figure 7.2 the following entities can be described:
Project Coordinator (PC as entity): The main responsibilities of the Project Coordinator (ICCS) are listed
below:









Organize and chair plenary meetings. Support the meetings of the project’s committees and teams
as well as the major partnership meetings.
Organize the project's resources and control the project's budget. Handle the financial aspects of
the project (contracts, payments).
Control the schedule of activities (time-plan of the tasks, critical tasks) and the allocation of
manpower.
Ensure the effectiveness of the project’s internal information services.
Control the quality of information flows (reviews).
Solve conflicts between partners, according to the set up rules, and extending them if necessary.
Ensure that all contracts will be available on time to the Commission and/or project partners.
Liaise with and report to the Commission on all matters concerning the project.
Liaise with related European projects.
The Project Manager will physically represent the PC. The Project Manager will be the project leader and
will chair the Steering Committee. The Project Manager will resume overall responsibility of the day-to-day
project co-ordination. The Project Manager will be responsible for




The internal communication of the teams
The representation of the Rural Wings project
The allocation of resources
The control of the time schedule
Steering Committee (SC as entity): The SC is consisted from suitably authorized persons from all the
partners. Manages the higher level of decision making (e.g. project’s organization, planning and
development, changes of the project’s plans, reorganizing of the existing teams, internal/external cooperation aspects, partnership’s decisions). The SC will convene at least 2-3 times per year to address
topics of policy nature and to allow all partners to be informed about the project's technical, organizational
and financial status and progress. These meetings have been proven crucial for maintaining the project's
dynamics. The roles, the functionality and the consistency of this committee will be analytically presented in
the Consortium Agreement. The reader should reffer to the CA in order to have more details regarding the
this committee.
Plenarry Board Committee (PBC as entity): The whole consortium will be represented in the Plenary
Board Committee (PBC) where one representative from each partner will participate to this commitee. The
roles and the functionality of this committee will be analytically presented in the Consortium Agreement
where the reader can refer.
Project’s Office: It will be responsible for the efficient administration of the project. It’s main tasks will be to:
 Establish the necessary infrastructure (monitoring mechanisms, circulation of guidelines, analytical
accounting system) for the project’s administration. Develop the Project Management Guidelines
(D1.1)
 Support the evolution of the work-plan (time-plan of the tasks, critical tasks). Advise the SC & PC for
monitoring the activities and the allocation of manpower.
 Support the meetings of the project’s committees and teams as well as the major partnership
meetings (preparation, agenda, support during the events, circulation of minutes, presentations and
proceedings).
 Handle the financial aspects of the project (checking efforts, resources in regular time segments) and
refers them to PC
52
 Advise the SC & PC for the management of project's resources and control the project's budget.
 Organize and support plenary meetings (preparation, agenda, support during the events, circulation
of minutes, presentations and proceedings).
 Support the PC to conduct the annual reports.
 Support the PC to the annual review of the EC.
 Ensure the effectiveness of the project’s internal information services.
 Control the quality of information flows (reviews).
The Project’s Office will be organized by Q-Plan S.A. Q-Plan S.A. has great experience in the field of Project
Management (as far as the administrative and financial management is concerned) and guarantees that the
Rural Wings Project will be appropriately managed and it will cover all the special needs that will arise during
the period of four years. Currently, the company is running the Project Management Office for the Hellenic
Telecommunication Organization (OTE-COSMOTE-OTENET) for the provision of the telecommunication
services in 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, and is responsible (in cooperation with two other organizations)
for monitoring over 4000 technical and commercial tasks. Also is running the Project Office of three (3) FP6
project (1st call), and fully coordinates another two.
NOTE: Since the scientific coordination and the project administrative management will be
undertaken jointly by three institutions (ICCS, ASTRIUM and Q-PLAN) their detailed responsibilities
in terms of the project management are shown in table 8.18. The reader should always refer to this
table where each partner’s role is described with detail. This table has more information that the
information that is listed here (only main activities are described here) regarding the PO and the PC
and should be used as reference.
In this section it should be stated that in order to facilitate the project’s evolution more frequent
meetings of the 3-group management team will take place apart from the consortium meetings
foreseen in the Section 9.5.2 (Travel budget). The management team consisting of ICCS, ASTRIUM
and QPLAN may seem complicated but it will in fact facilitate the proper management of such large
consortium and the corresponding activities to the specific large number of the pilot sites by
introducing delegation of the responsibilities. The frequent meetings (every 2 months) of this
specific management team are considered essential for assessing the achievements and identifying
the problems while each of these 3 participants will be cluster responsible for certain number of
activities and partners. The meetings among these 3 management team members will be made
feasible by largely exploiting electronic means such as video and phone conferences, email
meetings etc while in person meeting will be done in the framework of other consortium meetings as
the latter are described in Section 9.5.2.
Quality Assurance (QAD) Deliverables Committee: This Committee is responsible for the Quality of the
Deliverables submitted to the EC and the reviewers. In this sense, all deliverables should be submitted to the
Coordinator at least 1 month prior the official deadline (deliverable due date according to the contract). In
order to ensure the proper quality of the Deliverables and its compliance to the Technical Annex of the Rural
Wings project the creation of a Quality Assurance (QAD) Deliverables Committee was decided to be set
up, which will consist of three (3) members: a. The project Coordinator, b. the second member will be
appointed by ASTRIUM (a person from ASTRIUM’s personnel, not related to project and with the appropriate
expertise, to act as an independent reviewer and c. the third member will be appointed each time by the
Project Coordinator in order to assess the pedagogical pathway of the project depending on the relevant
deliverables. This Committee will review the Deliverables prior their submission to EC and will suggest the
corresponding related comments and modifications to the Deliverables Responsibles and Authors.
Quality Manager: The Quality Manager will be in charge of the quality assurance of the work and will have
as main object the implementation of the quality control process. She/he will be responsible for drawing up a
detailed Quality Plan of work that will describe the complete analysis of work, the allocation of resources and
the relative processes and will be included in the Project Management Guidelines document (D1.1). The
Quality Manager will be in charge of the continuous follow-up of work and in cases of nonconformities,
proposes the suitable corrective actions to the concerning Manager. She/he will also have the responsibility
of reviewing the effectiveness of corrective actions. The Quality Manager will interact with the WP Leaders,
the Project Manager, and the Consortium Steering Committee and with external peers. She/he will offer
support and will monitor the quality of the project’s results at every stage of the project’s development based
on the guidelines mentioned in the Project Management Guide lines as well as in the ISO 9001:2000 quality
standard.
Technology Manager: The Technical Manager will monitor the technical work on project level (e.g.
53
detecting potential incompatibilities and technical problems that can delay the progress of the overall project,
and will provide suggestions as to how problems can be solved among the work packages). She/he will also
keep track of the technical integration work. Also she/he will be responsible for every update of the systems
in use. Furthermore she/he will organize technical workshops and meetings, proposes the Agenda in the
technical workshops and meetings, and agrees on the Deliverables produced by the WPs and Submits
Deliverables to PC.
Application Manager: She/he will have the responsibility of the content and learning platform management.
As far as the content is concerned, she/he will be responsible for the content development and integration.
She/he will be responsible for the development of the scenarios that will be implemented during the pilots of
the system. As far as the learning platform is concerned, she/he will have the overall responsibility of the
adaptation procedure and of the decision for the needed modifications to be implemented. She/he will be a
member of the steering committee. Furthermore she/he will have the following responsibilities:



Reviewing the application usability
Monitoring the scenarios’ development and implementation
Evaluating the applications
Implementation Manager: She/he will be responsible for the implementation in Europe. The Implementation
Manager will have the responsibility of organizing and monitor the overall implementation phase of the
project (WP6.A) and the whole training procedure (WP6.B). The work performed during this stage is the key
factor of the project’s success. The work evolves in parallel in 12 European countries and includes three
different sets of activities (learning at school, learning at work and learning at home) for different groups of
users. He will be in close cooperation with the responsible national participating organization, in order to
realize all the pilot tests in the rural area sites in each country. Furthermore the Implementation Manager will
participate in the Steering Committee’s meetings and will act as facilitator between the core group and the
additional group of partners.
Commercial Manager: The Commercial Manager will monitor the exploitation work on project level (e.g.
detecting potential incompatibilities and problems that can delay the progress of the overall project and
providing suggestions as to how problems can be solved among the various work packages). She/he will be
responsible for the development and the implementation of the Market Survey and Business Plan and for the
project’s continuous monitoring and updating. He will also be in close contact with the Dissemination WP
leader since WP8 and WP9 are strongly interconnected. She/he will be a member of the steering committee.
Technology Committee/Application Committee/Implementation Committee/ Dissemination –
Commercial Committee (entities): These four committees will be formed in the beginning of the project
(kick-off meeting). They will consist of the PM (or a person that will be appointed by him as his
representative), the relevant managers, the relevant WP leaders, the content providers (were applicable), the
e-platform providers (were applicable) and the NC (where applicable). The relevant manager will chair these
committees and they will be the basic decision making tools in the 2 nd management level. They will monitor
the work of the WPs that are in their field of responsibility and will propose any possible work plan deviations
or task re-allocations to the relevant manager and the steering committee.
Work Package Leaders: For each work package there will be a Work Package Leader(s) coming from the
institution(s) that has the responsibility for the work package. The Work Package Leaders will be responsible
for the co-ordination and execution of their allocated work package and will report to the project Committees
on a regular basis. Finally, due to the number of the partners involved in each WP, the complexity and the
multiple interactions between the tasks in each WP and between tasks in different WPs, there are also task
leaders within each WP that refer directly to the WP leader. The distribution of the responsibilities between
the partners for the co-ordination of the work packages is presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: The Work Package Leaders. The consortium has come to the decision to split the management of
the major work packages (WP.3, WP.4, WP.7, and WP.9) to two or three (WP4) partner Institutions in order
for the partners to be able to fulfill the significant workload that is expected.
WP #
Work Package Description
WP 1
WP 2
Project Management and Coordination
Feasibility Study
Work Package Leader
54
ICCS
ICCS
WP 3
WP 4
WP 5
WP 6.A
WP 6.B
WP 7
WP 8
Users’ Needs Analysis
Scenarios’ Adaptation and Development
Adaptation of Platforms and Tools
Pilots – Implementation and Trials
Training of the users
Evaluation
Market Investigation
SU - IIE / INSEAD
EA / INSEAD / BGU
ASTRIUM
EA
EA
ICCS / TUD / AVANTI
AVANTI
WP9
Dissemination
EDEN / ICCS
Procedures for Reaching Internal Consensus and Handling Results
The Project Office will develop and the Coordinator will establish a management system with all the
appropriate procedures, so that the partners of the consortium collaborate effectively, and they will include it
in the Project Management Guidelines (D1.1). These procedures will cover all project management and
quality assurance issues and will present methods of how the main activities are taking place. All the
partners of the consortium will come with an agreement (CA), signed before the contract signature with the
EC, which shall provide rules and terms of reference for any issue of legal nature concerning the cooperation among the partners, the intellectual property rights and the main roles and responsibilities of each
partner, WP leader and the strategic level management committees.
IIMPORTANT NOTE: This Consortium Agreement will describe with detail all the above issues and
will be used as a reference document for the project‘s management. It will be more detailed and
accurate regarding the role and the responsibilities of the partners. Managers, WP leaders and
committees and for this reason each partner should always refer to it.
The Management System will include at least the following processes:








Control of Documents, in which will describe all the needed checks for the documents that have
relation with:
undertaking of work
implementation of work plan (recordings on the spot, Processes, electronic files that will be created
etc)
communication of teams
recording files of teams
monthly examination of work plan
quality control of work
conflict resolution
Management of Communication
The Project Coordinator will act on behalf of the partnership as far as the communication with the EC and
external authorities is concerned. The SC and PC communicate directly for handling strategic, technical and
contractual issues of the project whereas, respectively the WP Leaders for the day - to - day management
and coordination of activities between the project’s work packages. The rest of the other flows concern
instructions dispatching and reporting activities between the management levels. Furthermore there will be a
immediate communication between the PC and the WP Leaders for the coordination of relevant activities.
The means for communication and internal reporting within the consortium will be:

Consortium meetings (kick - off, SC meetings PBM meetings - review meeting, final meeting).
Consortium meetings will be scheduled and organized by the PC with the support of the Project
Office. These meetings will consist of the major events for exchange of information among partners,
for assessment of the project’s progress and success (financial and physical) and for taking major
decisions about the project’s execution. They will also allow partners to ensure both detailed project
planning and assessment of work progress. Following each meeting a short report (meeting review)
will be sent by the Project Office (with the approval of the PC) to all partners.
55
Reports: There will be two categories of managerial reports. The first category of will consist of two
separate reports, the Annual Report, and 6-month Management Report that are also deliverables of
the projects. The second category of reports is the Quarterly Management Report (QMR), which is an
internal report that will be given by each partner to the project coordinator and the relevant other
recipients (WP leaders, task leaders, etc.) describing the main work carried out by each partner for the
whole project for the reporting period. This report will be mandatory for each partner and its nature and
structure will be clearly defined in the D.1.1 deliverable. The basic structure of the QMR reports will be
the following:




General status: milestones, deliverables, and deviation from plan
Project meetings: when / where and main conclusions
Results of the project: major project outcomes (as were presented in the work plan)
Activities: All the activities that were implemented within this period will be briefly described in this
section.
 Project effort and other resources: overview of the usage of resources by the project. It will
include a table reporting the effort in person’s month per partner and work package.
 Dissemination and Use: participation in conferences, scientific publications, press coverage
Financial Report: The main purpose of this report is to justify the resources deployed by each partner.
This has to be linked to the work described in the Quarterly Report and the achievements of the
project. For the preparation of this report each partner will have to complete the following:
 a table reporting the effort (persons month) by each work package (specifying the names of the
individual persons involved)
 a table comparing the estimated effort and the actual effort spent in each work package
 a summary of the other resources justifying the costs.
The financial report will be included as a separate chapter in the QMR report.
The Project Office is responsible to communicate to all the partners about the remarks and comments from
the EC about the reports. Also will facilitate the partners in order to complete the reports and advise them for
the right completion. Certainly, communication will also be performed in a non - periodic basis for exchange
of unstructured information as well as quick clarification of details, etc. This way the consortium will track
effectively the progress of project’s activities.
Conflict resolution procedures
All the relevant procedures are described in detail in the Rural Wings Consortium Agreement.
Frequency and Type of Management Meetings
There will be three types of meetings:
Collaboration Meetings (all the partners) that will take place five times during the project’s life cycle.
One or two more collaboration meetings may be arranged to take place at the milestones of the project
(delivery of scenarios, delivery of the system, assessments after the trials, redeployment of both
applications and tools) if the SC deems them necessary.

Steering Committee meetings, that will take place 2-3 times per year

Special meetings that will be organized between groups of partners within the framework of specific
tasks of WPs. These meetings may also be conducted with other means (phone conference, video
conference etc. e-mail) and in any case there will be an effort by the Consortium to limit travel expenses
in person to the absolutely necessary.

Quality Control
Quality Control will be part of the Quality Assurance System within the Project Management Guidelines that
will be developed for the implementation of the Project. Processes and procedures within the Quality
56
Assurance System will have to prove the compliance in the general principals of standards, low and
certifications. The compliance to the general quality assurance topics becomes almost an obligatory
procedure even for participants who have not been certified yet and is also the major issue in the project’s
management.
The long experience and the know-how of ICCS guarantees that as the coordinator it will set rules, criteria
and standards that will address both the process and the project deliverables according to the Project
Management Guidelines. Furthermore, the long experience of Q-Plan in the development of Quality and
Management Systems for large companies, guarantees as a partner that will develop a Management System
within the first two months of the Project and will continually assess and review it.
Active planning and control of the project makes it possible to measure interim results, to forecast the final
result and to take advantage of experiences that may be useful to the future Market Deployment.
The process for Quality Control of the Project it will base on the following model (Figure 7.3):
FEEDBACK
Identification
of
Needs
Collection
and Analysis
of Data
QC
QC
Processing
Forecasting
and Identification
of Resources
QC
Results
QC
QC: The Quality Control Procedure before take the next step in every Phase of the Project
Figure 7.3: Model for the Quality Control Process.
This model will apply in each one of the Phases of the Project and requires:




Control of data that are collected and analyze concerning each Phase requirements
Control to the required resources (materials, tools, software, human resources)
Control at important steps of each phase in order to continually review and implement corrective actions
Control the results in order to know if the needs were met (feedback)
More specifically the Quality system will be part of the Project Management Guidelines Document which
will be the first deliverable of the project (D1.1). This document will be used internally by the Consortium to
describe the guidelines adopted by the project on documentation of project activities, reporting (QMR),
preparation of financial statements, approval and submission of deliverables, risk management. Responsible
for the development and the implementation of the Guidelines is the Project Office.
Active planning and control of the project makes it possible to measure interim results, to forecast the final
result and to take advantage of experiences that may be useful to the future Market Deployment of the Rural
Wings applications.
The development of the Quality System, in order to facilitate the implementation of the Quality Management,
will include the next phases:
 identification of the procedures needed
 plan, design and development of the procedures and the forms to be implemented
 development of a implementation guide for all the partners
The Quality Management System will cover the procedures ensuring that all the needed activities will be
implemented by the partners, including notably the following aspects:
57











document control - management of printed and electronically documents (e.g. codes for the
documents, ways of storage the documents)
reporting: harmonization with the reporting procedures of the E.C., gathering information from all the
partners for reporting (both technical and financial)
deliverables: instructions about the form and the way of writing the deliverables, acceptance of
deliverables through meetings in which the responsible partners will review them, acceptance of
deliverables from PC
risk management (for the project phases)
conflict resolution
reports to the PC for actions to be taken
organization of all meetings
control of the time table (identification of time and the specific actions to be taken from the Project
Office before the dead lines)
communication and exchange information between the partners
management of the interrelations between the project phases and the partners
description of responsibilities of all the partners according to the Management Structure of the
project
Furthermore the Quality Manager will have the responsibility to ensure that all the activities of the Quality
System are implemented from all the partners.
Management of Knowledge and Intellectual Property
All the relevant procedures are described in detail in the Rural Wings Consortium Agreement.
Risks and Contingency plans
It is essential for a project like Rural Wings to identify the possible risks as well as the methods to overcome
them (contingency plans) or even better, to prevent them throughout the duration of the project. For this the
consortium will develop and deploy a system to identify, manage and overcome risks that may occur within
the activities of all the work packages. This system will be developed within the first three (3) months of the
project given the complexity of the project and the number of participants. It will be part of the “Project
Management Guidelines” (D1.1) as a separate sector that will refer to the “Risk Management and
Contingency Plans”. It will be a “life” document that will be updated throughout the project’s duration and
when a risk is identifies and a certain method is required to overcome it. So it will be circulated though the
Project Office to all the partners in order to communicate the risks and to give guidelines to overcome them.
The consortium in this stage has identified four main risk categories, Management, Technological,
Application and Regulatory Risks. The identified risks in each category and indicative mitigation methods are
presented in the following Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Risks and Anticipation
Risks
Management
Risks
Explanation / Mitigation method
An effective project management system requires effective decision-making, operational
internal communication, development of solid work breakdown structures, schedules,
costs and resource plans, effective administrative and technical control of the project. In
all these activities there are many risks that may occur during the project elaboration.
Management of
the consortium
Possible risks are:
Not effective communication due to the multi national participants, late delivery of
important data from the partners etc. The large amount of activities that have to be
undertaken will be overcome with the composition of the consortium.
Possible ways for anticipation:
The effective management of the consortium will be assured with the appropriate
Project Management that is described in B6. The roles and responsibilities of each
58
partner are already identified and will be continuously reviewed in order to mitigate the
risk of overlapping and implementation of the same activities from two or much
more partners. The Project Management Guidelines will include the “Risk Management
and Contingency Plans” part that all the methods for mitigating the risks will be
presented.
Possible Risk:
Inadequate human resources.
Human
resources
Possible ways for anticipation:
It is estimated that the project will occupy almost 100 persons in the duration of four
years. All the participating organizations have assured that choose their best personnel
to implement the relevant activities (they are presented in B.7). All the participating
organizations have the ability to change a member of their team with another person, in
case of inability to continue, that will have the same abilities and skills.
Possible Risk:
Excess of the estimated budget.
Financial
Possible ways for anticipation:
The consortium and mainly the coordinator must review the budget issues through the
project duration very carefully. It is essential for the success of the project to allocate the
budget with the appropriate way. The consortium will develop a monitoring system with
Quarterly Financial Reports in terms of the QMRs. The participants and especially
those that come from the satcom industry are some of the leaders in this market so
they assure that the estimations are close to the reality so not to exceed the estimated
budget.
Possible Risk:
When considering the total cost of a technology application, all too often only the initial
investment cost is taken into account. However, when setting up an ongoing service
solution, operational costs including support, network communications costs,
replacement scalability and upgrade costs are all important risks.
Sustainability
Possible ways for anticipation:
All these risks and critical success factors will be subject of the WP2 where will be
analysed and evaluated in terms of the D2.3 Deliverable “Feasibility Report” which will be
delivered end of the first year. By this way the above risks will be prevented and also the
re-planning will be enabled.
Technological
Risks
Availability
Possible Risk:
The end-to-end system application must be properly designed at all sides (in order to
permit as much availability as possible. An important risk that has to be under
consideration is the balance between required availability (expressed in % per year) and
installation margins. The worst case is the end-user stations in most remote and scarces
areas, which may suffer from adverse meteorological conditions (storms), accidents, lack
of maintenance or interference.
Possible ways for anticipation:
The Satcom Industry participants have the ability to assure the availability
required.
Hardware
installation and
maintenance
Possible Risk:
The use of advanced technologies has a certain element of risk in it because of the
lack of experienced support persons in the field. In many cases where satellite
communications are used for the first time, more initial support is required. Networks
based on terrestrial communications on the other hand, are built more incrementally and
allow both service-provider and end-user support services to become fully acquainted
with all service and support issues.
59
Possible ways for anticipation:
The Satcom Industrial Participants (Astrium, Eutelsat, HellasSat, Avanti) can
assure the required experience supporting all the technological issues and overcoming
all the possible risks that are likely to occur.
Possible Risk:
An efficient service relies on quality support mechanisms. End-users need to be able
to call for help with different aspects of the service. So the risks of inadequate support
mechanism can always occur.
Support
Possible ways for anticipation:
All the participants the Satcom Industry as well as the National Coordinators all are
experienced organisations in their field (technology, pedagogy and supporting
applications) and can satisfy the needs the of end users (target groups) for the proposed
applications and support them.
Human Factor
and Application
Risks
User
acceptance
Usability
Initially the consortium will deploy a series of scenarios that will be addressed to a range
of users (students, teachers, doctors and health personnel, farmers, local administrators
and public authorities), in different learning contexts (school, work and home) and that
will touch upon a range of subjects from different perspectives. This is vital for building
user awareness and clarifying user requirements. Initial “hand-holding” with the users’
groups encourages them and helps to build trust and confidence vis-à-vis to the use of
technologies. User groups have to develop a frame of reference that allows them to take
the new technological applications into account when defining their application
requirements. The implementation of pilot scenarios-demonstrations is critical for
developing applications that meet core user and community requirements.
The work in the framework of the Rural Wings project includes an extended usability
study (WP.8). The goal of the usability evaluation in the framework of the project is the
specification of all tasks that are relevant to the Rural Wings system and the evaluation
of the user’s task on job demands in terms of characteristics and environment. The goal
of the usability testing is to uncover any problems that users may encounter so that those
problems can be fixed. In the case of the Rural Wings system the usability evaluation will
concentrate mainly on the efficiency and effectiveness of the system and on the
ergonomics of the learning environment (e.g. easy to use, effectiveness, openness).
Regulatory
Risks
Regulatory
issues
(Licensing)
Possible Risk:
While satellite communications offer immediate cost-effective solutions, some countries’
policies, rather than facilitating satellite communications hinder or prevent their
deployment. In many countries regulation procedures are outdated, expensive or
cumbersome. In some countries, the national public telephone operator is the only entity
that may install and service, or even own, operate and maintain communications
network, mostly East European countries. In other countries a local commercial
presence is required by administrations as a precondition for licensing. Licensing
fees also remain too high in many countries. Furthermore, many countries still apply
unnecessary burdensome license application processes resulting in unnecessary delays
issuing regulatory licenses.
Possible ways for anticipation:
On the regional level, service providers are required to seek out a multiplicity of
application forms – as well as contact details for the officials responsible for processing
them – among the jurisdictions where they provide services. In general, it has become
apparent that the more regulations, fees and other requirements that are imposed on
providers of telecommunication applications and services, the fewer communications
options will be provided in the individual country.
60
8. Detailed implementation plan – third 18 months period M25-M42
8.1 Introduction - general description and milestones
8.2 Planning and timetable
8.3 Graphical presentation of work packages
“Within the framework of the mid-term review of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan
in early 2004, the European Commission will propose to set up a Forum
on the Digital Divide. This Forum will bring together all stakeholders
in the area of the Information Society and electronic communications,
including the satellite constituency and ESA, and will analyse
how to bridge the digital divide. This action will imply among others:
a)
defining the public and users’ needs to be addressed
under a digital divide initiative covering the enlarged Union;
b)
carrying out a cost/benefit analysis of the various technological
options including the space-based ones;
c)
assesing how the various options fit within the national
strategies to be provided by the EU Member States;
d)
drawing lessons and identifying best practices from running
initiatives.”
8.1 Introduction - general description and milestones
Overview of the general workplan for the third 18 months (M25-M42)
By the beginning of the third 18 months period (M25), the project will continue with the conductance of the
Test Runs (1st Implementation Project Phase) and the simultaneous conductance of the 1st cycle of
Systems Improvements (Phase A).
The WP2 being a technical/economical oriented WP was completed taking into account reviewers
recommendations during the 2nd reporting period (M1-M12) and provided the necessary input to the WP5
(Adaptation of Platforms and Tools) and partially to WP8 (Market Investigation). WP3 finished as well
on M20, providing an additional examination of the potential users profiles in Georgia, Armenia, adding to the
outcomes derived in the 1st reporting period within WP4 for the development and the particularization of the
scenarios. In the framework of WP 6A. (Pilots – Implementation and Trials) 30 sites have been operated
by the end of the 2nd reporting period. From the other hand WP4 being purely a pedagogical WP, completed
the whole learning framework of the project with the content and the scenarios development providing input
for the whole WP6A, which deals with the project’s implementation (test runs and final runs) and the project’s
evaluation framework (WP7). So the Rural Wings project having all the backbone technical/ learning and
training tasks (5.1 5.2. 4.3, 4.4, 6B.2) converged towards the realization of the “Learning Hubs” in every pilot
site entered its actual implementation phase with task 6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (M21-M27) which still
continues within the 3rd 18 months period. A specific template will be designed and developed in order
a full record of all the implementation activities to be carried out while an overview of the results will
be given in the end of both Final Runs Phase A and B.
More particularly the project will start from M25 with the continuation of the implementation of the project
within the framework of WP6, which is divided in WP6.A (RTD- Pilots – Implementation and Trials) and
WP6.B (Training of the users). It must be noted that despite the fact that this WP is split in two it is actually
referring to the same process (implementation) and for that reason both WP6.A and WP6.B are strongly
interconnected. Task 6B.1 (Training of the National Coordinators) was carried out successfully during the
2nd reporting period and will continue until M42 in order to incorporate as much as possible conductance of
the NCs training. For the months 25-30 of the project, the remaining 96 pilot sites will be selected and
deployed in all participating countries in order to be adequately prepared for the commencement of the 2nd
Implementation Phase (Final Runs – Phase I) that will take place in M30-M36. This will start in the
framework of the task Task 6A.1 (Identification of the pilot groups of users) since there is enough
experience and knowledge accumulated by the national coordinators during the 2 nd reporting period. Once
the pilot sites have been selected the technical definition of each pilot site will take place. This lies in the
framework of Task 6A.2: Technical definitions of the pilot sites and will be completed at the latest in M29
for the satellite only pilot sites and at the latest M33 for the hybrid satellite-wireless sites. This task receives
input from task 5.1(high level definition of the end-to-end satellite system architecture) which ended
within the 2nd reporting period and emphasized in the end-to-end satellite system architecture in a deeper
61
way, providing an updated analysis for the particularization of the technical definition of each pilot site
separately.
Through the experience gained within the Test Runs, the NCs are ready from every perspective and fully
trained to proceed with the realization of task 6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (M25M30). Task 6A.3 will run practically in parallel with task 6A.4 (Development of support material) and will
be facilitated by the realization of task 6B.2 (Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development
of support training material) from the NCs to the end users of the rest 96 pilot sites. Continuing from the 1st
reporting period, Task 6B.2 (M25-M42) refers to the training and to mobilization of the local
users/communities. Thus, by the time that the installation of the pilot sites will have been realized and the
Final Runs – Phase A will have been initiated, and through the whole duration of the Final Runs, the local
users and the communities will have the knowledge and the maturity to assist the whole procedure. Task
6B.2 will run simultaneously with Task 6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs just before the
commencement of the 2nd Implementation Phase (Final Runs – Phase I) that will take place in M30-M36.
All this time between M25 until M27 and towards M30 (the commencement of the Final Runs), WP5 will
evolve almost in parallel with the above activities.
Task 5.1 High level definition of the end-to-end satellite system architecture has been finalized
providing the backbone technical tasks of the third 18 months period since it emphasized in a more
elaborated end-to-end satellite system architecture to satisfy the identified satellite solutions and
requirements of the users. The 1st cycle of “Systems Improvements” has started month M23 and will
continue up to almost M30 in the framework of Task 5.2, Adaptation and integration of e-platforms
and e-tools, tasks 5.3 (Wireless systems adaptation, optimization and integration) and 5.4 (satellite
system adaptation, optimization and integration). The above tasks refer to the continuation of the
relevant ones of the 2nd reporting period. And all converge their activities to solve all occurred problems and
to identify the optimum combination of the system components (satellite service, wireless networks, eapplications – eplatforms and etools) so that the whole architecture ensure proper quality of operation and
performance with adequate satellite capacity to address a dramatically increased number of end users
(reference to the insertion of 96 pilot sites in European level). To this end the outcome of Tasks 5.2, 5.3
and 5.4 will be finally the Deliverables D5.4 issue 2: End to end system design, validation and
performance evaluation and D5.5 System Improvements report which has been renamed in respect to
the 2nd 18 months period in order to incorporate the new overall system improvements. Specifically, Task
5.2, deals with any kind of minor, or not, adaptations connected to the user-friendliness of the applications
or to additions of more features or environments for a more professional level of users or to perform
evaluation of the technical and educational aspects of their tools; furthermore, in the framework of this Task,
the pool of e-applications will be expanded beyond those offered by the project e-application providers.
These new applications will be tested prior to be given to the users, and if the proper quality of performance
is reassured they will be integrated into CAP tool; this CAP tool turns to be a clever portal by guiding the
user to a variety of learning applications so that, in the end of the project, to provide a unique access point
for any user to the overall (broadband and learning) service provided by Rural Wings. Tasks 5.3 and 5.4
deals with the adequacy of the wireless network architecture and the satellite capacity offered eventually to
a dramatically increased number of users. The 1st cycle of implementation will end approximately by the end
of M27 along with the Test Runs. According to Task 6A.5, the Final Runs Phase A start on M30 until the
end of M36 and the 2nd cycle of “systems improvements – phase B” will intervene from M37 until the end of
M38 in order any minor improvements or technical issues left to be tackled. Then the Final Runs – Phase B
will continue until M44. This interval between the Final Runs Phases has been reduced to 2 months in order
the end users not to face any severe gap within the implementations.
As mentioned earlier, 2 cycles of improvements will be carried out. The Deliverable D5.5 “System
Improvements report” due to M38 D5.5 incorporates the actions within Task 5.2 (CAP and e-applications)
but also any other kind of actions that confronted any kind of deficiencies during all the Runs periods. The
issues related to Task 5.3 and Task 5.4 will be addressed within the Deliverable D5.4 Issue 2.
In parallel, WP4 will exploit the experience gained through the Test Runs and will transform it into all possible
necessary modifications and improvements in the Scenarios of Use and their localisation by the National
Coordinators (NCs). This will be a dynamic process, in which the partners responsible for the development of
the Scenarios (EA, INSEAD, BGU) will interact with the NCs and the e-Application Providers so as to
produce the next, updated version of the Scenarios of Use. This dynamic process will be continuous, its
outcomes (i.e. revised versions of the Scenarios) depending on the input from the pilot activities and the
relevant evaluation. In this process the generic scenarios may be further elaborated, to cover more examples
of user-centred activities in the pilot sites; most importantly, however, the content of the scenarios will be
further elaborated and enriched by the NCs in accordance with the development of implementation activities
in the pilot sites. Each NC, having selected the pilot sites and knowing exactly the special user needs of
62
these communities, will provide the appropriate content so that the Scenarios are best matched with the local
circumstances. The Application Providers will make sure that all inserted improvements and modifications
will be reflected in the e-applications, which will be updated respectively, when necessary. Furthermore,
additional e-applications, (outside the Rural Wings, commercial or best practice examples etc) that will be
selected and tested first in the framework of WP5, will be used to develop or adapt new or updated
Scenarios of Use. To this respect, the relevance of the scenarios with the target audience and with the
learning context along with their connection with WP3 results (user needs and task analysis), as addressed
within D4.1 (first version), will continue to be performed in order to further ensure the user driven approach.
In general, the redesign of the Scenarios of Use will incorporate and reflect the fundamental conception of
the Rural Wings project, that users will be involved in more and more advanced and independent activities.
The idea is that in each cycle of user-centred work, less and less guidance will be needed, giving the chance
to the users to actively participate in the co-design of the final version of the Rural Wings service, and the
corresponding Scenarios of Use.
So the Rural Wings project having all the backbone technical/ pedagogical and training tasks (5.2. 5.3, 5.4,
4.5, 6B.2) providing all the necessary improvements and adaptations towards all system components
will enter its actual implementation phase with task 6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (M30-M36). This task will be
supported by task 6A.6 (Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring),
which including all the technical support needed, lasts until the end of the implementation (approximately
M42).
The scenarios developed in WP4 will be implemented towards user-centered work, being treated as case
studies tested in real life conditions at the pilot sites. For each pilot activity, the developed Scenarios of Use
(WP4) are presented by the National Coordinators, with assistance by the Application (platform) Providers
(WP5), to the end users, so that the best possible match is made between the pilot activities and the local
needs and circumstances. Users’ reactions to the service will be monitored and analyzed, as foreseen by
WP7. These user trials serve evaluation purposes, but importantly also give users the chance to provide
feedback to the project and its technical (especially usability) and pedagogical aspects. The first of the
foreseen cycles of user-centred implementation (Test Run) was initiated in M22 and is continuing beyond its
foreseen end, evolving dynamically in each country and pilot site, merging into the phase of initial evaluation
in the beginning of the third project year (M25-M27). In this first phase, the installed Learning Hubs gradually
started their operation with some initial user involvement, whereby end users become familiar with the Rural
Wings technological and learning environment, and this environment is for the first time tested in real usage
settings. The main objective of the Test Runs period is to facilitate the consortium to identify possible
technical and application problems that affect proper implementation of the project. Thus the Test Run will
provide feedback for the improvement of the provided services and the intensive involvement of more end
users in the use of more applications in the subsequent Final Run. The experience gained during this first
phase of trials and the assessment of pedagogical and technological aspects, will have been transformed
into all possible necessary modifications and improvements in the satellite/terrestrial network arrangements,
the e-applications, the pedagogical design (scenarios) and the evaluation approach. Thus the project will be
ready to start the long phase of Final Run activities. The Final Run period will spread from M30 to M44. In
these fifteen months, end user activities in each pilot site will cluster in two phases, Final Run Phase I and
Final Run Phase II, each of which will be of an approximate length of six months. This leaves an extra three
months per pilot site within the overall Final Run period, for readjustments, improvements, interim
assessments, etc. The activities in each pilot site will start as soon as possible in or after M30, immediately
when the project and local circumstances allow (e.g. taking into account periods of school holidays, etc).
However, M37 and M38 are set as the conventional overall milestone period between the two cycles, Phase
I and Phase II. This period will be used for reporting progress in each pilot site, as well as for
summing up formative evaluation findings and inserting the relevant improvements in the
corresponding aspects of the project. Overall, NCs will be responsible for organising the activities in their
countries, planning ahead, keeping track of progress, and resolving problems and deviations, in close
collaboration with all involved partners (pedagogical and evaluation teams, application providers). It should
be stressed that in the Final Run, users will be involved in more and more advanced scenarios of use, as an
outcome of intensive and continuous co-operation between the pedagogical team, the NCs and the users.
The underlying concept foresees that in each of the cycles of user-centred work (Final Run Phase I and
Final Run Phase II), less and less guidance will be needed, giving the chance to the users to actively
participate in the co-design of the final version of the Rural Wings service, forming, as individual empowered
learners and as learning communities, their own solutions to match their own personal and local needs.
Thus, the final version of the Rural Wings Scenarios will be deliverd on M46 towards the end of the
project, incorporating all improvements and adjustments on the proposed scenarios made during
both Phases of the Final Runs (phase A and Phase B) within the D4.1 Rural Wings Scenarios of Use
Final Version.
63
Directly parallel to the implementation phase (Final Runs) the evaluation phase WP7will evolve. From M25M44, WP7 and specifically Task 7.4; design of the overall holistic evaluation framework and task 7.5
Testing within Final Runs Phases will provide the evaluation results of the overall holistic evaluation
through specific tests and instruments conducted within the Test Runs. Specific four subtasks are directly
connected to the Task 7.4 since this will involve all previous other components (usability, learning, technical,
applications, network traffic and reliability). The Tasks 7.1.1 (Design of an initial usability evaluation plan
and a usability test) and 7.1.2 Adjustment of the initial usability plan and design of usability tests
have already been finished from year 2 while the relevant pedagogical evaluation Tasks were delayed. The
improvements and adjustments following the assessment of the Test Runs towards usability evaluation
results will be inserted within the overall holistic evaluation framework. The same stands for the other
technical components while the pedagogical component is dealt within the expanded learning impact of the
overall framework. Through the Task 7.5: testing (Final Run phase) feedback from the users of the 128
pilot sites will be gathered and assessed. All the above will converge to task 7.6: Final evaluation outcome
and production of Rural wings final evaluation report, to be completed around M45, aiming to provide
the overall assessment of the implementation procedure.
At this point the description and the interconnections of all the key basic tasks from all WPs of the 3rd 18month period (M25-M42) have been accomplished. The rest of the tasks can be regarded as supportive to
the main tasks in the second period of the project.
In this sense in the framework of WP1, task 1.1 (Administrative/scientific coordination) will continued to
be implemented and will last of course for the whole 3rd period (M25-M42). From M25 of the project, the 2nd
task (1.2 Development of the organization and monitoring mechanisms) will also deal basically with the
continuous monitoring of mechanisms and organizations issues since the project due to its complexity and
variety of applications, its numerous pilot sites (128) and its large number of partners (25), must have a very
solid and effective monitoring mechanism for its adequate management and administration. To this respect,
in the framework of this Task, continuous improvements and adjustments of the RURAL WINGS ecommunication web based (PLONE) tool (and the corresponding alert tool) that was created during the 1st
reporting period will take place in order to provide the most useful reporting services to the consortium
members. Task 1.1 will be independently also supported by task 1.4 (Quality Control procedures M25M42) which will ensure that all the needed activities foreseen in task 1.2 will be implemented adequately and
successfully. Inside Task 1.4 the Quality of the submitted Deliverables is assured by the setup of the Quality
Assurance Deliverables Committee (QAD) to be formulated by the Project Coordinator. The outcomes of
this WP1 are foreseen within the framework of task 1.3 (Reporting M25-M42), which its main goal is the
production of all the relevant managerial deliverables that are foreseen from the Technical Annex. Finally,
task 1.5 (Collaboration meetings) refers to the annual meetings of the Plenary Board Committee (PBC)
and the Steering Committee meetings. The main purpose of these meetings will be the overall assessment
of the work within Rural Wings project for the corresponding period and the planning of the activities for the
next projects steps and schedules.
So while WP1 incorporates all the administrative and managerial work that has to be carried out throughout
the whole lifetime of the project in order to support its RTD and training activities, WP9 (Dissemination) is
the liaison and the gate of the project with the rest of the world through its disseminative activities. It is also a
WP that will run for the whole lifetime of the project and consequently from the beginning of the 3rd 18
months period M25 until its end (M42). It is obvious from its nature that it will receive input from all the rest of
the project’s WPs since it will have to disseminate all the main outcomes of the project. In the framework of
the conductance of the Final Runs, It is certain that a large effort will be put by the project during this period
for dissemination purposes. To this end, in the framework of task 9.1 (revision; Development of Rural
Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan), it is logical to update the dissemination strategy
described according to the new developments for the next project’s phase All the actual dissemination work
within the framework of this WP will be carried out in terms of task 9.2 (Clustering and Networking with
ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities M25-M42), while the third task WP9
9.3: Preparation of Dissemination Material) deals with the production of the supportive material (booklets
CD/DVD, leaflets etc.) for the promotion of the project.
The remaining WP8 (Market investigation) is a very significant component of the project. The deliverable (D
8.1: Market definition and 1st version of the business case report) has already been delivered being
the outcome of the task 8.1 Market Definition and Forecast for the business case and acting as an initial
approach to the targeted market by the project.
During this 3rd 18 months period a closer look on the targeted RURAL WINGS market will take place which
will consist of a more detailed analysis of identification of market opportunities, SWOT analysis for the
RURAL WINGS, positioning, promotion and distribution channels etc. These activities will provide the
64
partnership with a roadmap of how the new products and services will be fitted in the future markets and will
lead to the delivery of an updated version of D8.1, the Deliverable D8.2: (D8.1. Updated version) “1
version of the business case report including market analysis and monitoring”. This Deliverable it will
be also enriched from the qualitative results of the usability and implementation evaluation that will take
place during the Final Runs and will be delivered on M32. In the period from M24 until M30 the Task 8.3
Market Monitoring and Updating will be carried out. This task will be implemented for a period of almost
two years starting from M24 (and continuing during the next project phase) and will be more elaborated
during the implementation phases of the project. This task will provide feedback in order to update the initial
market analysis about possible channels of approaching the main customer groups and continuous
monitoring of the relevant targeted groups. In this way the final products and services will be market-oriented
and ready to be commercialized.
st
All the above mentioned activities for the second 18-months period are clearly visualized in the following
diagram of Figure 8.1
Figure 8.1: The Rural Wings
project’s evolution up to the 18th
month. The work is concentrated
mainly towards the “User Demand”
Axis while the “Technology Push”
component has just started adding
its contribution by delivering content
to remote located users via satellite.
The Feasibility Study, The Users
Needs Analysis, The Scenarios
Adaptation and Development, and
the Adaptation of Tools and
Platforms main tasks will be
finalized by then. The pilot sites will
be equipped with the necessary
infrastructure and the Test Run will
have just started. Specific scenarios are being deployed aiming at developing a better understanding for the
communities of users of how the new technologies relate to every-day life and how they can improve their
well-being
65
8.1.1
PILOT SITES IN RURAL WINGS
The Rural Wings project incorporates the deployment of a wide range of pilot sites and also includes a
variety of applications (e-platforms and e-tools) to be used by a large number of users. Many pilot sites will
be deployed in each of the 12 countries where the implementation of the satellite systems will take place. In
order to sort and classify all the necessary information for each site, to include also the information of how all
technical developments and adaptations will be performed taking into serious account the budget and the
resources of each contractor the tables that follow have been made. Inside these tables all the necessary
information regarding the number of sites, the developments in each pilot site and the satellite providers’
services are shown.
PILOT SITES DISTRIBUTION
The number of pilot sites and their distribution among the participated countries for the first project’s
implementation phase (Test Runs) period with reference to the number of the pilot sites for the full
duration is given in the following Table 8.1. In the same table the number of WiFis Terrestrial networks to be
deployed for each country’s pilot sites is also given.
TABLE 8.1
Countries
GREECE
SPAIN
SWEDEN
FRANCE
ROMANIA
CYPRUS
ESTONIA
POLAND
HUNGARY
UK
ISRAEL
ISRAEL (FOURIER)
ARMENIA
GEORGIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SWITZERLAND (DBC)
TOTAL
For the full duration
No of pilot sites
27
10
6
8
14
8
7
10
10
6
7
1
7
4
2
1
128
No of WiFi
6
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
5
3
0
0
0
0
26
for the first project phase
No of pilot sites
8
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
0
4
2
1
0
0
0
1
32
No of WiFi
5
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
12
** The number of WiFi is the desired one since this number will greatly depend on their cost.
NOTES:
1. In the above table the actual number of the DVB/RCS terminals is given since each pilot site is
equipped with a DVB/RCS terminal. There are two cases where DVB/RCS terminals will be
deployed without considering these sites as pilots in the sense given to the term “Learning Hub”. The
se cases are: ISRAEL (FOURIER) and SWITZERLAND (DBC). These two “pilot sites” will be
equipped with DVB/RCS terminal because there refer to e-platofrms and e-tools providers; the
DVB/RCS terminal is absolutely necessary for these two providers in order to test the proper
performance of their e-platforms prior and during the implementation of the learning applications.
66
SATELLITE PROVIDERS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REFERENCE TO PILOT SITES
The distribution of the pilot sites between the 3 satellite providers,reference to the satellite coverage is given
in the following Table 8.2. In this table the responsibilities of each provider are also shown. It should be
noted that According to the 1st Technical Annex (M1-M18) two satellite providers were mentioned
EUTELSAT and HELLASAT and a distribution of the pilot sites in these two satellite’s providers coverage
was provided. HELLASAT was covering the pilot sites in Greece, Cyprus and Turkey while EUTELSAT
covered all the other European countries and South Africa. Since, the Turkish partner withdrew and two
partners from Georgia and Armenia were inserted these partners could only be covered by EUTELSAT in
terms of the provision of satellite services in these countries.
On the other hand, middle of Autumn 2006, the Coordinator was informed officially from AVANTI that the
company had recently been able to offer satellite services (coverage, satellite time etc) itself through specific
Satellite that the company AVANTI SCREENMEDIA owned. This would affect neither AVANTI’s budget nor
the whole RURAL WINGS project budget since the corresponding costs would be covered by AVANTI’s own
resources. By this way, the 16 pilot sites in UK would be covered by AVANTI and not EUTELSAT.
Thus, 3 satellite providers are currently within the RURAL WINGS project as partners. In terms of the pilot
sites offered services and coverage the following consequences occur:
 HELLASAT has 4 pilot sites less to cover (since the Turkish pilot sites are not present). In
order a compensation to be made, HELLASAT will cover and install DVB/RCS terminals in 2
more pilot sites in Cyprus where HELLASAT is NC. Thus, the total pilot sites for Cyprus for
the full duration of the project will be 8 instead of 6 originally foreseen.
 EUTELSAT has +5 new sites (from Georgia and Armenia) and -16 pilot sites from the UK;
total 11 pilot sites less to cover
 AVANTI will cover the 16 UK pilot sites from its own budget.
Thus, since the budget of EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT remains the same while they have less
number of pilot sites to cover it was decided by the Management team to use the budget left to offer
more satellite time and bandwidth in the pilot sites they will cover for compensation. Thus, better
satellite services will be provided for longer periods for the RURAL WINGS pilot sites of their
coverage. To this respect, the following services are taking place:
EUTELSAT will deliver bandwidth the enable a "continuous" provision all over the project, with gradual and
smooth upgrades of the total available bandwidth. This is done at constant budget. EUTELSAT already
provides satellite bandwidth since February 2007 since this was a requirement to be able to commission and
activate the DVB/RCS terminals installed. The "continuous" provision of bandwidth is also the only way to
enable a good preparation for the sites participating to test runs, no interference with the installations and
commissioning and a better acceptation for the sites that will start usage. From the R&D point of view, this is
also the only way for EUTELSAT to better assess what are the actual usages and perform a continuous
tuning of the services characteristics and conditions, including, towards the end of the project, conclude on
the issue of sustainability and prices. For the periods of the Test Runs and the two periods of the Final Runs,
EUTELSAT will provide the satellite service as this is described in the next Table 8.2.
In a similar way, HELLASAT will deliver bandwidth and service provision to the sites in order to enable a
"continuous" provision of service to the sites. In order to do that HELLASAT has to decrease the available
Bandwidth in the periods that this was not supposed to be provided i.e. the periods between the Runs as
appeared in the initial Technical Annex, as well as to reschedule the Bandwidth allocation to the sites in the
Test and Final Runs. This will be done in constant budget and will need a continuous monitoring and tuning
of the Bandwidth allocated to the pilot sites. HELLASAT already provides satellite services to the pilot sites
where DVB/RCS have been installed. There are 10 pilot sites that are planned for the Test Runs and
HELLASAT provides the service to these sites since the beginning of 2007 i.e. since the installation of the
DVB/RCS terminals in 8 sites in Greece and in 2 in Cyprus in order to check that the terminals were
activated. The use of the bandwidth in the framework of the project from each user will enable HELLASAT
towards the end of the project to conclude on the issue of sustainability and prices. For the periods of the
Test Runs and the two periods of the Final Runs, HELLASAT will provide the satellite service as this is
described in the next Table 8.2.
AVANTI provides full services for the pilot sites in UK and Hungary.
The next Table 8.2 incorporates the above under the previously described framework of EUTELSAT,
AVANTI and HELLASAT.
67
TABLE 8.2
Satellite Providers
Countries
GREECE
SPAIN
SWEDEN
FRANCE
ROMANIA
CYPRUS
ESTONIA
POLAND
HUNGARY
UK
ISRAEL
ISRAEL (FOURIER)
ARMENIA
GEORGIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SWITZERLAND (DBC)
TOTAL
PROVISION OF
DVB/RCS HUBS
PROVISION OF
DVB/RCS TERMINALS
EUTELSAT
HELLASSAT
AVANTI
No of pilot sites / DVBRCS terminals for full
duration
No of pilot sites / DVBRCS terminals for full
duration
27
No of pilot sites /
DVB-RCS terminals
for full duration
TOTAL
10
6
8
14
8
7
10
10
6
7
1
7
4
2
1
77
Viasat Hub
35
YES
16
Newtec Hub
D-STAR Service with
LinkStar Terminals
YES
Newtec terminals
128
Responsibilities
i)
i)
ii)
EUTELSAT:

Provision of 77 DVB/RCS terminals with antennas and possible necessary accessories to the users for 2,5
years.

Provision of satellite capacity according to the following timeline:

22 pilot sites for 4 months (test run period: start M17)

77 pilot sites for 12 months (implementation periods: phase A and phase B)

South Africa is covered by the W3A satellite, African beam
HELLASSAT:

Provision of 35 DVB/RCS terminals with antennas and possible necessary accessories to the users for 2,5
years.

Provision of satellite capacity according to the following timeline:

10 pilot sites for 4 months (test run period: start M17)

35 pilot sites for 12 months (implementation periods: phase A and phase B)
AVANTI

Provision of 16 DVB/RCS terminals with antennas and possible necessary accessories to the users for 2,5
years.

Provision of satellite capacity according to the following timeline:

4 pilot sites for 4 months (test run period: start M17)

16 pilot sites for 12 months (implementation periods: phase A and phase B)
Responsibilities for EUTELSAT and HELLASAT satellite providers:



HELLASSAT: IP access with 1Mbps downlink and 512 Kbps uplink capability for each terminal (Bi-directional satellite
internet access similar to DSL type of service
EUTELSAT: IP access with at least 2Mbps downlink and 1Mbps uplink capability for each terminal (Bi-directional satellite
internet access similar to DSL type of service
Specifically, EUTELSAT will further provide:
 For the first period of the test runs: Dedicated shared bandwidth for EUTELSAT’s 22 sites at 1 Mbps downlink and
512 uplink for a duration of 4 months, with IP backbone access at 1 Mbps, and 13 Public addresses per terminal
(this means that up to 13 PCs behind the terminal could be connected without having to use an additional router).
 For the second period of the two final runs (Phase A and Phase B): Dedicated shared bandwidth for the 77 sites at 4
Mbps downlink and 2 Mbps uplink for a duration of 12 months, with IP backbone access at 4 mbps, and 13 public
addresses per terminal.
Responsibilities for AVANTI service provider for 4 sites in the Test Runs and for 16 pilot sites for
the two Final Runs:

IP access with 2Mbps downlink and 512 Kbps uplink capability for each terminal (Bi-directional satellite internet access
similar to DSL type of service, contended according to Avanti standard terms and conditions.
Common responsibilities for all three satellite providers:






DVB/RCS Terminal and antenna installation (site survey)
Networking monitoring and full maintenance of sites for all the implementation periods
Internet access to DVB/RCS Hubs
Licenses by governmental authorities for provision of DVB/RCS services to all the pilot sites
Provision for the interconnection between the DVB/RCS Hubs of both providers
Close cooperation with the National Coordinators for the installation, technical support and de-installation of the DVB/RCS
equipment
68
TECHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE PILOT SITES IN EACH COUNTRY
In the following tables all the technical details for the pilot sites per country are given. These technical details
include the following:
 Definition of satellite providers, national coordinator and equipment providers
 Which type of equipment will be provided and by which contractor for the full duration of the project
and the 1st implementation phase.
 What are the technical responsibilities of the technical coordinators for each country
 Which could be the foreseen e-learning applications for each country (the number and the type of
applications for each country’s pilot sites is indicative and will be defined in detail in the
framework of WP2 and WP3 during the first year of the project)
 Finally an indication of the desired types of pilot sites in each country is given
TABLE 8.3
GREECE
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
27
6
8
5
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
Full Duration
1st
phase
implementation
i) 3 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 11 sites
where applicable
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 3 sites
where applicable
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 10 sites
where applicable
i) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 3 sites
where applicable
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 6 sites
where applicable
i) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 2 sites
where applicable
ICCS (ID:1) for all 27 sites will provide:
 Technical definition of pilot sites, End-to-end architecture
 Study and installation for WiFi where applicable
 End-to-end system’s acceptance review
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
HELLASSAT (ID:13)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
HELLASSAT (ID:13)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
UoA (ID:20)
Note: EA (ID:7) serves as scenarios developer only (WP4)
ICCS (ID:1)
UoA (ID:20)
EA (ID:7)
possible
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
ASTRIUM (ID:2) in cooperation with ICCS for all 27 sites will:
 provide synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures
deployed in Greece (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 provide the national coordinators with initial technical support and
expertise with respect to satellite-based communication network
systems (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
FOURIER (ID:27): e-learning Science Laboratory tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
Type of sites (indicative)
Schools on Islands of East Aegean Sea, Pindos Mountain and North Borderline (i.e. Thrace)
Schools and municipalities or governmental administration centers in mountainous regions of Greece
Mainland
Health Centers in Crete and East Aegean Sea, Pindos Mountain and North Borderline
Regional offices in Crete and East Aegean Sea, Pindos Mountain and North Borderline
69
TABLE 8.4
SPAIN
for the full duration
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
10
2
1
0
EUTELSAT (ID: 6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
UoB (ID:15)
Provide content to all sites
UoB (ID:15)
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
for the 1st implementation
phase
Full Duration
i) 2 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 10 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 2 sites where applicable
ASTRIUM (ID:2) for all 10 sites will provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
Spain (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
Technical
Coordinator
ASTRIUM (ID:2) for the hybrid satellite-wireless sites will provide:
 Technical definition of pilot sites (site survey, end-to-end
architecture, design validation on test bench, etc.)
 Installation of all network equipment (Wifi, network management etc)
except satellite terminal
 End-to-end system acceptance review
 Pilot site network supervision and maintenance support for the
wireless network during the Test Runs and Final Runs in collaboration
with Eutelsat/TTSA
Type
of
applications
possible EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
INSEAD (ID:8): simulation based e-learning platform
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
FOURIER (ID:27): e-learning Science Laboratory tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
Type of sites (indicative)
ZER schools (Catalan region) – Prats
- Rural School in Teo and Ramallosa (Galician region)
- CRA and CRIET centers (Canary islands)
70
TABLE 8.5
SWEDEN
for the full duration
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
6
3
2
1
EUTELSAT (ID:6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
SU-IIE (ID:9)
INSEAD (ID:8)
Provides content to 1 research pilot Provides content to all 5 SMEs pilot
sites (Tarfala pilot site)
sites (in cooperation with Swedish
Trade Council)
SU-IIE (ID:9)
INSEAD (ID:8)
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
for the 1st implementation
phase
Full Duration
i) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 1
site if applicable (Tarfala pilot site)
i) 2 WiFi
ii) web cameras and peripherals for 5
sites where applicable
1st
phase
i) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 1
site if applicable (Tarfala pilot site)
i) 1 WiFi
ii) web cameras and peripherals for 2
sites where applicable
implementation
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
i) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with SU-IIE (ID:9) for 1 research site
(Tarfala) and ASTRIUM in relationship with INSEAD (ID:8) for all 5 SMEs
sites) will provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
Sweden (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
ii) ASTRIUM [ID:2] in relationship with INSEAD (ID:8) for all 2 SMEs site
will provide:
 recommendations and guidelines concerning the deployment of a
wireless local loop.
iii) SU-IIE (ID:9) and INSEAD (ID:8) are responsible
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot site, liaison with local
communities etc)
 to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot
site
EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
INSEAD (ID:8): SME e-learning platform
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
FOURIER (ID:27): e-learning Science Laboratory tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
Type of sites (indicative)
Rural communities in Sweden. The implementation of the project will be performed with the support of:
The Swedish National Rural Development Agency: The National Rural Development Agency´s mission
is to coordinate and develop initiatives in rural areas
ISA: A government agency responsible to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs provides information and contact
services for foreign investors evaluating opportunities in Sweden. http://www.isa.se
NORDREGIO: A centre for research, education and documentation on spatial development, established
by the Nordic Council of Ministers. http://www.nordregio.se/
SMEs Network (Swedish Trade Council)
71
Regarding the 5 pilot sites in Sweden which are connected to SME’s and are under
INSEAD’s responsibility, a full justification is given in the next table 8.6 regarding
INSEAD’s French pilot sites.
Under SU/IIE responsibility as National Coordinator only 1 pilot sites remains: the Tarfala
pilot site (research center).
72
TABLE 8.6
FRANCE
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
8
2
3
0
Equipment provider
EUTELSAT (ID: 6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
INSEAD (ID:8)
Provide content to all sites
ASTRIUM (ID:2)
INSEAD (ID:8)
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25)
Full Duration
i) 2 WiFi
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
1st
phase
implementation
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
i) 1 WiFi
i) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 8sites
where needed
i) PCs, web cameras and
peripherals for 3 sites
where needed
i) 1 high resolution
for
video
applications in 1 site
i) 1 high resolution
for
video
applications in 1 site
camera
lessons
camera
lessons
i) ASTRIUM (ID:2) for all 8 sites will provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
France (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
ii) ASTRIUM (ID:2) for the hybrid satellite-wireless sites will provide:
 Technical definition of pilot sites (site survey, end-to-end
architecture, design validation on test bench, etc.)
 Installation of all network equipment (Wifi, network management etc)
except satellite terminal
 End-to-end system acceptance review
 Pilot site network supervision and maintenance support for the
wireless network during the Test Runs and Final Runs in collaboration
with Eutelsat/TTSA
 Training
 Test runs
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
INSEAD (ID:8): simulation based e-learning platform
FOURIER (ID:27): e-learning Science Laboratory tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
Type of sites (indicative)
Hybrid sites (Satellite+Wifi): Manso (Corsica)
- Satellite only sites: TBC by INSEAD
73
In the following a full justification regarding the need to retain all the pilot sites in France and
Sweden (connected to SME’s) that are under INSEAD’s responsibility is given:
After a careful review and verification with the French Association of Municipalities and the Swedish
Trade Council, the two local public bodies with whom INSEAD have worked until now during the first part
of the project, INSEAD can guarantee that INSEAD can and will make all the necessary efforts to fulfill its
targets as described in the DoW.
Concerning France, INSEAD is currently working directly with the French authorities (French Association
of Municipalities) to identify adequate locations in France (the 3 missing ones for the first 18 month, and
the 5 additional sites to be activated in the second phase of the project – for a total of 8 sites) fulfilling the
conditions put forward by the reviewers. Concerning the new sites to be secured in France, Manso site
has been selected in Corsica for a hybrid satellite-WiFi deployment. Corsica having a very low ADSL
penetration and a large number of territories in which ADSL is not likely to be implementable also over the
next decade. Other satellite only pilot sites are being identified. Through the Corsican Economic
Development Agency INSEAD will be able to identify soon adequate sites working in collaboration with
the Mission des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication established by the CTC (Regional
Government) to implement there the Rural Wings objectives in the second phase of the project.
Concerning Sweden, satellite only sites are being addressed: the 2 sites to be addressed in the first
phase of the project will be implemented, and 3 additional ones will be added in the second part of the
project, as planned in the DoW. Sticking to the plan and contract is furthermore very important for the two
following reasons:
(1) In line with the DoW and one of the project’s targeted objective (“Bridging the Digital Divide”), INSEAD
strongly believe that, although identifying appropriate sites in “developed” countries like France and
Sweden is a more difficult and time-consuming task than in the other pilot countries, the issue of exclusion
and the needs of rural communities in these countries should not be unfairly forgotten just because the
majority of other communities have already reached a higher level of telecom connection.
(2) In addition, operating in these 2 more “mature” countries will enable the project to produce higher
quality results related to a second key project objective (“Validation of Satellite Technology for Educational
Purposes”) providing as a better basis for comparing different technological infrastructures for delivering
relevant and high-quality educational services to local communities, aimed at developing critical
competencies necessary to manage innovation and change. The possibility, in France and Sweden, to
compare the provision of the same educational services in rural and highly isolated communities as well in
more “connected” ones (as we are doing independently) will help to develop a better understanding of key
differences in catering such services to rural and isolated communities and predict their needs in the next
stage (i.e. the next steps to be addressed after the completion of the Rural Wings project), i.e. after the
initial satellite infrastructure will be deployed there. Therefore, the sustainability of the results achieved by
the project will be increased.
Despite the fact that the reviewers recommended to divert the planned resources to new sites and
countries such as Romania, Israel, Georgia and Armenia, INSEAD believes that this should not be done
at the expense of the planned interventions in France and Sweden, and that such countries should rather
find alternative sources of funding which do not disrupt the implementation of the Rural Wings project
objectives in France and Sweden. It is true that the identification of adequate sites in these countries is
harder, and that in France the particular political situation (election time) has made it even more difficult to
get the commitment of public bodies (as explained in the deliverables). Nevertheless there is no reason to
deviate from the plan. On the contrary. For the two reasons explained above INSEAD considers that
diverting resources from France and Sweden would be a serious mistake in terms of making sure that the
project achieves (1) fair and (2) sustainable results.
74
TABLE 8.7
ROMANIA
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
14
1
2
0
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
EUTELSAT (ID: 6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
UPB (ID:17)
Provide content to all sites
UPB (ID:17)
Full Duration
i) 1WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 14 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 2 sites where applicable
i) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with UPB (ID:17) for all 14 sites) will
provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
Romania (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
ii) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with UPB (ID:17) for 1 site) will provide:
 recommendations and guidelines concerning the deployment of a
wireless local loop.
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
iii) UPB (ID:17) is responsible
 to study and install 1 WiFi in one site where applicable
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot sites, liaison with local
communities etc)
to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot sites
EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
Type of sites (indicative)
Rural schools and communities in different remote and/or disadvantaged areas of the country.
75
TABLE 8.8
CYPRUS
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
8
1
2
1
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
HELLASSAT (ID: 13)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
HELLASSAT (ID:13)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
HELLASSAT (ID: 13)
Provide content to all sites
HELLASSAT (ID: 13)
Full Duration
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 8 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 2 sites where applicable
HELLASSAT (ID: 13) for all 8 sites will provide:
 Technical definition of pilot sites
 End-to-end architecture
 Study and installation for WiFi where applicable
 End-to-end system’s acceptance review
 All technical support
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
Type of sites (indicative)
Rural communities in different places on the Island (mainly at the West coast)
2 High Schools in North Cyprus (1 in Rizocarpazo Gymnasium)
76
TABLE 8.9
ESTONIA
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
7
2
2
1
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
EUTELSAT (ID: 6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
A&O (ID:18)
Provide content to all sites
A&O (ID:18)
Full Duration
i) 2 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 7 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 2 sites where applicable
i) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with A&O (ID:18) for all 7 sites) will
provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
Estonia (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
ii) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with A&O (ID:18) for 2 sites) will
provide:
 recommendations and guidelines concerning the deployment of a
wireless local loop.
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible
iii) A&O (ID:18) is responsible
 to study and install the 2 WiFi in the sites where applicable
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot sites, liaison with local
communities etc)
 to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot
sites
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
Type of sites (indicative)
Kuressaare Health Centre- Kuressaare is the capital of the biggest island of Estonia with no bridge connection to
mainland, only a tiny local airport. In this area unemployment rate is high, therefore young people tend to leave.
Kärdla City Government at Hiiumaa (the second biggest island in Estonia). Kärdla is the main town on the island
which population is 12 000 people. There is no bridge connection with mainland, a tiny airport, one hospital,
secondary school, young people tend to leave.
Võru Kreutzwald Gymnasium- is a secondary school in Võru town in South-Estonia.
Narva City Government- Narva is one of the biggest cities in Estonia situated on the Estonia-Russian boarder.
Valga/ Valka City Government- Valga and Valka are two sister-cities on the Estonian- Latvian border, one on
Estonian, another on Latvian side.
Saaremaa – Rural community in the South Estonia , Hiiumaa – Rural community in the South Estonia
77
TABLE 8.10
POLAND
for the full duration
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
10
2
2
1
EUTELSAT (ID: 6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
PBF (ID:29)
Provide content to all sites
PBF (ID:29)
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
for the 1st implementation
phase
Full Duration
i) 2 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 10 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) 1 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 2 sites where applicable
i) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with PBF (ID:29) for all 10 sites) will
provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
Poland (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
ii) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with PBF (ID:29) for 2 sites) will
provide:
 recommendations and guidelines concerning the deployment of a
wireless local loop.
Technical
Coordinator
iii) PBF (ID:29) is responsible
 to study and install the 2 WiFi in the sites where applicable
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot sites, liaison with local
communities etc)
 to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot
sites
Type
of
applications
possible FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
Type of sites (indicative)
The district office in Myslenice, Małopolska Region, where the plans for satellite internet already exist,
and a training centre for unemployed is to be established,
The mountain huts distributed over large distant areas in Beskidy mountains in Southern Poland.
The communication with the forest services in certain national forests, such as Niepołomice, Tatrzański
and Bieszczady national forests is based on the traditional radio communication, and in some areas,
where Polish mobile telephony providers are active, also the mobiles.
Mobile health in rural areas in the Wieliczka community.
78
TABLE 8.11
HUNGARY
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
10
5
0
0
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
AVANTI (ID: 3)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
Avanti (ID:3)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
AVANTI (ID:3)
Provides content to all sites
AVANTI (ID:3)
Full Duration
i) 5 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 10 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
N/A
AVANTI (ID:3) for all 10 sites will provide:
 Technical definition of pilot sites
 End-to-end architecture
 Study and installation for WiFi where applicable
 End-to-end system’s acceptance review
 Technical Support
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible INSEAD (ID:8): SME e-learning platform
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
Educational (schools) applications
Type of sites (indicative)
Schools, Various – in the remote South East of the country. To be taken from a list provided by the
Ministry of Education
Important Note:
Avanti will install the remaining 12 sites in Hungarian schools, which fits both the project objectives and
AVANTI’s aims to cover Eastern Europe. The schools are being provided through the Hungarian Ministry of
Education. Avanti has representatives on the ground in Hungary, who are in regular touch with the Ministry
and these contacts provide also the required information and connection with the relevant User Needs in
Hungary in order to apply the Rural Wings project services and principles. These representatives already
have a background in installing and supporting a satellite based schools network in Hungary, comprising
around 500 schools. They are currently being trained in the Avanti satellite equipment and procedures.
Avanti will be the National Coordinator for Hungary. AVANTI’s representatives will provide local first-line
support for the equipment and service. They can also provide translation services if necessary (the
questionnaires have already been sent to them for translation).
In agreeing with the Ministry AVANTI have provided full details of the project including the terms and
conditions expected from both sides. AVANTI has already emphasized the need for monitoring and feedback
and in this regard have specified that each school should have a teacher with good English who should stay
involved in the project. Through these school teachers, with whom AVNATI will be in close contact, AVANTI
will perform all the implementation (WP6A and WP6B) and evaluation (WP7) activities as foreseen within
Rural Wings. More significantly, AVANTI plans a number of visits to develop contact and close working
relationship with the end users.
79
TABLE 8.12
UK
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
6
3
4
3
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
AVANTI (ID: 3)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
Avanti (ID:3)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
AVANTI (ID:3)
Provide content to all sites
AVANTI (ID:3)
Full Duration
i)3 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 6 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) 3 WiFi
ii) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 4 sites where applicable
AVANTI (ID:3) for all 6 sites will provide:
 Technical definition of pilot sites
 End-to-end architecture
 Study and installation for WiFi where applicable
 End-to-end system’s acceptance review
 Technical Support
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible INSEAD (ID:8): SME e-learning platform
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
Farming Applications
Community Applications
Type of sites (indicative)
Cilcennin, Mid Wales - Cilcennin is a community situated in the remote West of Wales.
Bewholme, Yorkshire - Humberside is a farming community in the north east of England.
Camborne, Cambridge – Camborne comprises several sites for disadvantaged people with learning
difficulties managed by a housing association. close to the technology centre of Cambridge.
Biggar, Scotland– Biggar is a small farming community.
80
TABLE 8.13
ISRAEL
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
7
0
2
0
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
EUTELSAT (ID: 6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
BGU (ID:26)
Provide content to all sites
BGU (ID:26)
Full Duration
i) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 7 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 2 sites where applicable
i) ASTRIUM [ID:2] (in relationship with BGU (ID:26) for all 7 sites) will
provide:
 synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures deployed in
Israel (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 the national coordinators with initial technical support and expertise
with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
(activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
Technical
Coordinator
ii) BGU (ID:26) is responsible
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot sites, liaison with local
communities etc)
 to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot
sites
Type
of
applications
possible EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
FOURIER (ID:27): e-learning Science Laboratory tool
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
Type of sites (indicative)
The Israeli user-groups will comprise of Bedouin communities in the Negev desert.
Municipality of LAKIA (1000 habitants), The village of DUREIJAT (500 habitants), Municipality of KSEIFA
(6000 habitants), Municipality of SEGEV-SHALOM (6000 habitants), Municipality of HURA (5500
habitants)
Village of AROER (less than 1000 habitants)
81
TABLE 8.14
ARMENIA
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
7
0
0
0
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
EUTELSAT (ID:6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
SEUA (ID:31)
Provide content to all sites
SEUA (ID:31)
Full Duration
PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 7 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) ASTRIUM (ID:2) in cooperation with ICCS (ID:1) and SEUA (ID:31) for
all 7 sites will:
 provide synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures
deployed in Armenia (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 provide the national coordinators with initial technical support and
expertise with respect to satellite-based communication network
systems (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
Technical
Coordinator
ii) SEUA (ID:31) is responsible
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot sites, liaison with local
communities etc)
 to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot
sites
Type
of
applications
possible EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
Type of sites
Sites in mountainous rural areas will be selected: local Municipalities, rural schools or villages will be
selected along with possible Cultural Centre. If any additional equipment is needed, will be provided by
the local authorities or the NC (SEUA) in cooperation with the coordinator (ICCS).
82
TABLE 8.15
GEORGIA
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
4
0
0
0
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
EUTELSAT (ID:6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
LAE-TSU (ID:30)
Provide content to all sites
LAE-TSU (ID:30)
Full Duration
PCs, web cameras and peripherals for 4 sites where applicable
1st
phase
implementation
i) ASTRIUM (ID:2) in cooperation with ICCS (ID:1) and LAE-TSU (ID:30)
for all 4 sites will:
 provide synthesis analysis on the satellite system architectures
deployed in Georgia (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
 provide the national coordinators with initial technical support and
expertise with respect to satellite-based communication network
systems (activity carried out in the framework of WP5)
Technical
Coordinator
ii) LAE-TSU (ID:30) is responsible
 to perform the Site survey (selection of pilot sites, liaison with local
communities etc)
 to facilitate EUTELSAT in contacting and communicating with the pilot
sites
Type
of
applications
possible EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
FORTH (ID:16): health emergency training tool / environmental education tool
FORTHnet (ID:23): AgroTeleDiagnosis tool
Type of sites
Sites in mountainous rural areas will be selected: local Municipalities, rural schools or villages will be
selected along with possible Cultural Centre. If any additional equipment is needed, will be provided by
the local authorities or the NC (LAE-TSU) in cooperation with the coordinator (ICCS).
83
TABLE 8.16
SOUTH AFRICA
for the full duration
for the 1st implementation
phase
No of pilot sites
No of WiFi
Satellite Provider
2
0
0
0
Satellite Service
Provider
National Coordinator
Equipment provider
Technical
Coordinator
Type
of
applications
possible
* The number and type of
applications is not binding or
not limited to those presented
here
EUTELSAT (ID:6)
Installs all DVB/RCS terminals plus antenna
Provides satellite capacity for the implementation phases
Technical support of the DVB/RCS equipment
TTSA (ID:25)
Provides satellite service for the implementation phases
Technical support of the Satellite Service
SU-IIE (ID:9) in cooperation with South African Communities
Provides content to all 2 pilot sites
Whatever equipment is needed will be purchased by local communities
The local communities will have the technical responsibilities for the sites
apart from EUTELSAT’s obligations
EA (ID:7): e-learning platform and educational tools
TELEMEDICINE (ID:25): MEDSKY platform
DBC (ID:19): webTV application
Type of sites (indicative)
Kgalagadi District Municipality – rural, lies between the north eastern section of Northern Cape
Province and the western area of the North West Province (180,000 inhabitants)
Eastern Cape (7 million inhabitants, one of SA poorest rural provinces, 40% of teachers are unqualified):
Ilanga Networking (Pty) Ltd South Africa: The company is centrally located in the business hub of
South Africa and operates from 500m² high-tech offices and 1500m² factory at Jet Park. Over the last 5
years Ilanga has been involved with the design and development of Mobile Operator infrastructure
products, created the concept of visual pollution, developed the market in South Africa, Europe and the
USA.
Tshwane University of Technology: Department of Post-Graduate Studies: Rural schools,
specifically for black learners, in remote places in the Northern Province, North West, Eastern Cape and
Mpumalanga have the minimum interconnection. Clinics in remote areas. SA experience a problem at
this stage that doctors do not want to work in these areas because of the poor infrastructure, lack of
resources and undermanned staff available.
NOTE: The type of application in South Africa will be limited and will be decided after the endof the
first year upon the completion of the feasibility study.
NOTE: the feasibility of the selection of pilot sites in South Africa, given the fact that their National
Coordinator (SU/IIE) has a limited role in the project from now on, is to be examined in the 2nd
reporting period (2nd year of the project). Unless proven the difficulty to locate and coordinate the
pilot sites in South Africa, the possibility of selecting sites there (and thus the corresponding Table
8.15) will remain and mentioned in the current version of the Technical Annex.
84
8.1.2
e-PLATFORM and e-TOOLS PROVIDERS
In the following paragraphs a short description of the applications provided by each e-platform and e-tool
provider inside the Rural Wings project is given. By that way, a clear reference of each application (as made
with the pilot sites) is presented for all project contractors of the Rural Wings project.
The RURAL WINGS project will integrate through WP5 all the e-platforms and e-tools in a unique web based
access point (web portal) for every potential user (Responsible for the development of this portal is
FORTHnet). The corresponding providers offer various types of e-platforms, e-tools and e-applications which
will be integrated together in the RURAL WINGS learning environment. In order to facilitate the reader the
following should be made clear before the description of each of the above tools.
There are three main applications, which for efficiency we could call ‘platforms’. Those are:
 EA’s ZEUS platform
 INSEAD’s SME e-learning platform
 TELEMEDICINE’s MEDSKY platform (developed in cooperation with FORTH and ERC)
These platforms may host some or all of the rest of the listed e-tools and e-applications.
The pilots in each country may than use all or some of the platforms to run some or all of the e-tools and
applications in different combinations and in some or all of the three knowledge spaces (at school, at work, at
home), according to design decisions that will be made in the course of the project based on the analysis of
user needs and the scenarios developed.
Schematically:
Rural Wings portal
Platform 1
Application 1
Application 4
Platform 2
Application 2
Application…
Platform 3
Application 3
Application n
Figure 8.2
In any case, the application of the educational scenarios will involve the pilot sites at least of the following
countries: Greece, Spain, Romania, Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Sweden, South Africa while it will not
be limited to that according to the outcome of the WP2 and WP3 in the first year of the project.
Based on the above the description of each e-platform, e-tool or application will take place in the following
paragraphs. The sequence that each e-platform and e-tool or application are presented in the following by no
way implies differences in their significance since this is not an hierarchically based description of them. The
way that each of the e-platforms and e-tools will be used and the percentage of their usage by each partner
will be determined in the framework of the WP2 and WP3 in the first year of the project.
85
The applications (e-platforms and e-tools providers) for the Rural Wings project address the three major
learning pathways (Learning@school, Learning@Work, Learning@Home) and are the following:
a) TELEMEDICINE
TELEMEDICINE provides the MEDSKY platform to the project.
This is an e-learning platform that is fully interconnected to the satellite sub-systems and that enables
complete management of the satellite bandwidth, including booking of sessions, video-transmissions,
agenda of lectures, and more over, this is the only system that includes a full Quality of Service management
system. The platform’s main aim is to provide learning content for the anticipation of emergency medical
situations and address all types of persons regardless their expertise towards medical cases.
Reference to this platform TELEMEDICINE will provide:




appropriate user support (technical support including accounts administration, hotline and on-line
support)
operations cost throughout the project (unlimited number of users)
organize appropriate user feedback: one key feature of the MEDSKY platform is that it is based
on a zero maintenance system relying on an automated on-line upgrade system. In this way new
versions can be released by TELEMEDICINE across a short development cycle (a few days)
along with the adaptations to new user needs or requirements
the platform maintenance for the duration of the project
The above platform is provided by TELEMEDICINE to the consortium for free for the duration of the project.
TELEMEDICINE’s role (manpower) is mainly related to:
 continuously review the user needs and specify new functionalities (MEDSKY platform upgrades
automatically when new releases are available, while 1 to 2 new versions are released every month).
Therefore participation to meetings with the users, contribution to the writing of the corresponding
documents, follow-up reference to the above platform are also included.
 Participation to the assessment of user's feedback (workshops, user forums)
 Participation to the specification of some pilots (as required)
 perform any required integration task
 provide user technical support and training
 provide a hotline service to the users in the project
 Software development that could be benefit to the project is not charged to the project (comes from
TELEMEDICINE’s own investment).
This platform requires the purchase of a video equipment (such as a video camera, a video grabber, a coded
license etc or an alternative low cost solution with webcams). TELEMEDICINE within its budget to the
RURAL WINGS project can provide the following together with the MEDSKY Platform:

one high quality video system (high quality - high cost - camera, videograbber card, encoder) that
can be used for demos and pilots by several partners or National Coordinators or end-users or other
beneficiary party (transport costs at the charge of the concerned partner or National Coordinator or
end-user or other beneficiary party)

an encoder license for up to 7 simultaneous users equipped with low cost webcams (the webcam
has to be purchased by the concerned partner or National Coordinator or end-user or other beneficiary
party)

Licenses are managed dynamically by the system and no installation procedure is required.
The above components lie within TELEMEDICINE’s budget (with the remarks mentioned above) and will be
provided during the first 18 months project period.
b) FORTHnet
FORTHnet provides to the Rural Wings project the AgroTeleDiagnosis tool.
The whole concept also incorporates Synergy with the Ypaithros 1 project.
1
Ypaithros (Ύπαιθρος) means “rural area” in greek
86
The high bandwidth wireless network provided by Rural Wings in combination with state of the art mobile and
portable devices (such as PDAs, Tablet PCs, digital video cameras etc), which in some extend will be
provided by FORTHnet can result in highly innovative agricultural services.
The AgroTeleDiagnosis service, which will be developed by FORTHnet within the framework of the Rural
Wings project, aims to develop a communications platform for providing wireless mobile technologies to the
agricultural sector. The objective is twofold: a) Provision of on-line video communication services between
the agriculturalists and farmers b) Provision of educational services to agriculturalists. By accessing the
proposed tool using mobile devices such as Tablet PCs and PDAs, farmers will be able to raise issues and
questions to agriculturalists, transmit digital photos in real-time of infected plants and wait for immediate
diagnostic feedback from an expert, or even participating in seminars and conferences.
Figure 8.3
The tool will be wirelessly accessible on-site over Satellite Internet that will be distributed to wide areas,
taking advantage of wireless networks like 802.11a/b/g, UWB or LMDS, so as to provide efficient agricultural
communication services anytime and anywhere. The AgroTeleDiagnosis tool will be used as a gateway for
providing instant online access to a database with broad agricultural content, such as DB servers with
geographical data, documents, photographs of plants, multimedia educational video, weather information
and cultivation directions.
Apart from the AgroTeleDiagnosis service, the “Ypaithros” project, will come into assistance and synergy as
follows: after a possible plant disease has been identified by an Expert Agriculturalist, information can be
immediately transmitted to everyone concerned (nearby area farmers or other agriculturalists), with the use
of SMS, MMS, or voice messages. This transfer of information will be done in the framework of “Ypaithros”
project only, since the work carried out for that project incorporates a full relevant user’s profiles list that can
be also targeted by the applications of the Rural Wings project. This is the kind of synergy between
“Ypaithros” project and Rural Wings; “Ypaithros” project provide the targeted users that the applications that
can be addressed by Rural Wings. Additionally, Rural Wings could exploit seminars and workshops of the
“Ypaithros” project, in order to implement the AgroTeleDiagnosis service more efficiently. The recipients
contact information will be present in the AgroTeleDiagnosis tool (that will be developed and adapted in the
framework of Rural Wings), so in order to originate a message to them, no further work is necessary. In this
way, important instructions can be conveyed to the rural population in a matter of minutes, providing alerts
and advice to people, as well as protecting their crops.
87
ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗ:
ΣΤΗΝ
ATTENTION:ΕΧΕΙA ΔΙΑΤΕΘΕΙ
DANGEROUS
ΑΓΟΡΑ
PESTICIDE
HASΕΠΙΚIΝΔΥΝΟ
BEEN
ΦΥΤΟΦΑΡΜΑΚΟ
ΟΠΟΙΟ
DISTRIBUTED IN THEΤΟ
MARKET
ΠΡΟΚΑΛΕΙ ΜΟΝΙΜΕΣ ΒΛΑΒΕΣ ΣΕ
ΖΩΤΙΚΑ
GSM /
internet
Network
ΝΑ ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΟΥ:
ΠΡΟΣΟΧΗ: ΕΧΕΙ
ΔΙΑΤΕΘΕΙ ΣΤΗΝ
ΑΓΟΡΑ ΕΠΙΚIΝΔΥΝΟ
ΦΥΤΟΦΑΡΜΑΚΟ ΤΟ
ΟΠΟΙΟ ΠΡΟΚΑΛΕΙ
Transmission time: 1-10 min
Figure 8.4
The AgroTeleDiagnosis application will further exploit the connection of the pilot sites terrestrial networks to
internet via satellite and especially the WLAN (WiFi etc) networks. The farmers could be equipped with PDAs
with WiFi cards, as well as relevant equipment and be connected to the WLAN networks, which are provided
by a pilot site. In that way they can have access to the application from the homes or even from their farms
and be educated, exchanging information, by the agriculturalists or relevant experts who can act as their
educators and trainers.
FORTHnet can provide a limited number of up to 10 PDAs and WiFi cards (to be connected to the PDAs) or
even one or two PCs for similar functionality to the Rural Wings project, if this is absolutely needed in order
to be able to form a complete network of farmers and experts for such a tele-education application.
The FORTHnet’s AgroTeleDiagnosis service exists in a pilot experimental stage while its further
development and adaptation to the DVB/RCS system will take place under the framework of Rural Wings
WP5 – “Adaptation of Platforms and Tools” and in particular within the scope of Task 5.2 – (“adopt and
integrate a long series of e-tools”). Additionally in the framework of this specific Task 5.2 FORTHnet as an
internet provider and web development company will be responsible also for the integration of the all eplatforms and e-tools in a unique, for the user, access point such as a web portal, as this is defined in details
in Section 6 and in the relevant WP 5.
c) EA
EA will provide to the Rural Wings project the platform and applications described further below, so that they
are implemented in the user sites. EA will adapt to the needs of the target groups and develop further these
platform and applications, which have been developed in the framework of past projects and initiatives. More
specifically these applications are:
a) ZEUS e-learning platform (www.dias.ea.gr)
This e-learning platform supports the professional development and training of teachers in multigrade
schools. Video of lessons, lectures, educational material, exercises could support significantly the work of
teachers in multigrade schools.
The platform originates in the ZEUS project (which does not use DVB-RCS satellite platform), which is
part of the extensive experience that EA has in research and development interventions for the promotion of
local sustainable development of remote rural areas, with a particular focus on their inclusion in the
information society via new ICT avenues.
88
Figure 8.5
In the ZEUS project (Satellite Network of Rural Schools), EA is one of the central partners, with a decisive
design and implementation role. ZEUS envisions the implementation of advanced communication channels
for the provision of support to remote multigrade schools in Greece, which are considered to play an
important role in providing access to Education for All in isolated and underdeveloped rural areas. The
project is based on a close cooperation between pedagogical experts, trainers, teachers, software
developers and communication experts to design, develop and implement an advanced learning
environment which will be based on satellite communications in order to support the training of teachers in
schools located in rural areas of Central Greece and in the Aegean Sea archipelagos. Subsequently, the
teachers will act as instructors familiarizing the local community (e.g. farmers) with using e-Learning facilities
and ICT in general.
In the same line of activity and in the background of the ZEUS e-learning platform one can find EA’s role in
the MUSE (MUltigrade School Education) project. This project took into consideration the numerous
specialized conditions prevailing in multigrade education and established the framework in order to provide
support to multigrade teachers in Europe, mainly in remote and other disadvantaged areas. MUSE aimed at
the development of a new model of teacher's training that assists teaching in multigrade schools, with a
particular focus on fighting educational exclusion and school failure in rural areas, promoting the integration
of pupils with special educational needs, and providing equal opportunities in education. The MUSE project
was based heavily on ICT, acknowledging that the introduction of ICT promises revolutionary changes in any
field of life, but is of particular importance for remote and geographically isolated areas. In this sense, ICT in
multigrade schools is expected to offer teachers and pupils, as well as other groups, accessibility to
information, no matter the area size, geographic characteristics and the distance from the center. The MUSE
project developed a platform for continuous interaction between teachers and trainers, a forerunner to the
ZEUS e-learning platform. The implementation scheme of the training program included extended cycles of
school centered work.
89
Figure 8.6
b) The D-Space web tool (www.discoveryspace.net)
The Discovery Space (D-Space) application provides the user with
access to a network of remotely controlled robotic telescopes around
the world, so that he/she can request professional, scientific-level
photographs of specific parts of the sky. The transfer of data from the
telescope to the students, which requires a broadband connection
(otherwise it is too time-consuming), will be facilitated by the utilization
of the satellite channel.
Through D-Space, a virtual science thematic park can be deployed over the broadband satellite network of
Rural Wings, which will connect remote rural schools, as well as any interested citizen from the remote rural
community, with the network of the robotic telescopes. A network of robotic telescopes has several
advantages. Weather is less likely to cancel or delay an observing session if automated telescopes are
available in widely different geographical locations. More telescopes will serve more users with fewer delays
and on the preferred schedules.
Figure 8.7
90
D-Space aims to bring to students, teachers, researchers and individuals (amateur astronomers, visitors of
science parks) all around the world the opportunity to use in real time unique scientific resources; the sky is a
vast and unique laboratory of science, always in operation, accessible at all times from everybody from
everywhere, where all sorts of interesting physical phenomena take place most of which is impossible to
reproduce in any scientific laboratory. In addition, D-Space supports the provision of key skills to the future
citizens and scientists (collaborative work, creativity, adaptability, intercultural communication).
Figure 8.8
D-Space is a web-based application. The D-Space service integrates robotic telescopes seamlessly into one
virtual observatory, and provides the services required to operate this facility, including a scheduling service,
tools for data manipulation and access to related educational materials provided by projects and networks.
Two ways of observing the sky are offered:
 Advanced and experienced users can remotely operate a telescope in real time.
 All other users can submit their requests, which will be scheduled for the oncoming nights.
Typically, rural teachers, students and citizens are expected to use the function of request submission. This
is done in four steps:
 Selecting a telescope: First the user chooses the robotic telescope for the observation. The system
provides information about the availability of the specific telescope. In case the selected telescope is
not available the system provides alternative options.
 Selecting an astronomical object: The user selects the astronomical object to observe. It is important
to take into account all the conditions described in the relevant form and the sky map of the selected
telescope.
 Checking the weather: The user checks the weather forecast for the telescope location.
 Filling in the details of, and submitting the request: The user fills in the details (date, filters, duration,
etc), and submits the request. An extensive online help is available. The user will receive a
confirmation via email, including the code number of their photo. With this, they will be able to see
the requested image(s) in the Library of the DSpace service.
91
In the case of experienced users living in a remote rural site, they will be offered the opportunity to make a
special registration with the service, which will allow them to operate a telescope in real time, by giving the
coordinates of the object they wish to shoot. The telescope will then start moving to fulfill their request.
The D-Space services portfolio consists of:
 on-line access to the network of the robotic telescopes (on-line or scheduled requests)
 access to scientific data and resource archives (data and images)
 access to a central data archive, making use of a common archive and distribution system
 access to educational material and interactive tools (allow for data representation and analysis)
 access to teacher resources (e.g. professional development materials, lesson plans)
 student-centred materials (e.g. data library, communication area, student’s magazines)
 on-line training courses at different levels (for school students, for university students, for the wider
public)
 participation in contests (the contests cover the levels of all targeted groups of users, e.g. scientific
contests, best science project contests for students, best photo contest for the wider public)
 participation in conferences, workshops and summer schools (the users of the service will have the
opportunity to visit the observatories during different events)
 information on specific events (e.g. transit of Mercury or Venus, Solar Eclipse, Comets).
c) AGROWEB web tool (www.ellinogermaniki.gr/ep/agroweb)
This application allows students to buy and sell agricultural products of their area over the Internet.
AGROWEB constitutes an agricultural e-shop which could be used in the framework of the Rural Wings
project to demonstrate how rural citizens more generally could cooperate to develop their economical status
further. At the same time the application of AGROWEB in Rural Wings will show the importance and
effectiveness of creating horizontal links between the school and the local community.
The tool originates in the AgroWeb project, which provided an integrated framework for activities and real
world results through an interdisciplinary model easily applicable in the educational practice. A network of
European secondary schools, university departments of Pedagogical Psychology, and specialists in the field
of educational multimedia development, developed a web-enabled application platform, the e-shop, through
which students promote agricultural products of their areas. The reality of modern economy practices is thus
transferred into the classroom.
Figure 8.9
The AGROWEB web-based e-shop platform demonstrates an educational concept. It is a tool for students, a
distributed learning environment, facilitating the learning process. The e-shop platform includes facilities to
produce graphical representations of the sales of a product (product's performance), to compare actual and
anticipated performances and in general what is necessary to monitor the financial activities of a real shop.
92
Figure 8.10
The e-shop is the electronic AGORA, the "electronic open market" where, in addition to the commercial
transactions, the person to person contact takes place and where the students have the chance to realize in
praxis the importance of the European single market and the common European currency, the EURO.
d) FOURIER
FOURIER provides to the project the ExperiNet application tool, which is actually an e-Learning Science
Laboratory.
The above platform addresses the specific need of lack of modern SCIENCE Labs from which the rural
areas (and especially schools in isolated areas) usually suffer. The central lab platform is usually placed in
SCIENCE Lab Centers in urban areas (and in the Rural Wings Project probably at Fourier premises) and is
connected through the Internet backbone to the satellite DVB/RCS Hub. The following schematics describe
the principle of operation:
93
This SCIENCE Lab Center consists of the components shown in the following Figure 8.11.
Figure 8.11
In each of the stations in the above schematic the following equipment is included (can be shown also in the
Figures that follow):





PC server running FOURIER’s server software
6Mbps Internet line
Web cameras
MultiLog data logger and sensors
Computer Control card
Different possibilities of Experiment Setups:
Following is the general look of the client software (installed in each of the Rural Wing Pilot Sites and end
user PC’s).
94
Figure 8.12
The requirements for the Client software (that should be available in the premises of every end-user) are the
following:



PC Windows 98 or higher
Internet Connection at least 128 Kbps or higher
Connection to the Rural Wings Satellite system.
The ExperiNet platform is a Highly equipped laboratory controlled Via Rural Wing infrastructure. It is
composed of 2 experiment setups connected to a server (for the project the two experiment setups will be
selected during the first six months. In the operational environment one Lab Center can compose more than
100 set-ups). The ExperiNet platform offers Synchronic, Asyncronic e-Learning activities since one center
serves many rural schools and home users.
The ExperiNet platform enables users to:
 Perform experiment & research remotely
 Control experiment parameters
 Controls camera positioning and zoom
 Receive real video flow
 Receive On-line data flow from the experiment
 Prepare multimedia lab reports
 Teacher control and instructions via online chat with the student.
 Collaborate information by chatting and sharing data The possible experiments can be listed as
follows:
 Radioactive radiation
 Magnetic field of a High current wire
 Laser diffraction
 Capacitors breaking voltage
 Microwave radiation
 Controlling micro-climates in a greenhouse
 Monitoring close habitats (e.g. aquariums)
 Controlling AC/DC engines
 Solid state exploration (e.g. material strength).
FOURIER is highly experienced with this kind of developments since it is a supplier of data loggers, sensors
and software to schools in more than 30 countries. The stations shown in Figure 8.11 along with their
equipment will be developed by FOURIER in the framework of the RURAL WINGS (within FOURIER’s
budget) along with the Client Software, which will be finalized and adapted to the current project activities.
The various sensors and data loggers are available and will be provided also by FOURIER to the project.
The above developments and adaptations will be performed in the first 18 months period of the project, and
the actual installation and tests will be performed during the pilot phase.
95
For all the above reasons a DVB/RCS terminal and the necessary satellite capacity and service will be
provided to FOURIER (by EutelSat following the rules of EutelSat pilot sites) during the first 18 months
period of the project. This equipment and the access to the satellite service is clearly necessary, in order to
proceed to the development and testing of the FOURIER platform.
e) INSEAD
INSEAD provides to the project two platforms: an SME e-Learning Platform (for the Swedish Pilot sites)
and a Simulation-based e-Learning Platform (for the French Pilot sites).
Application 1: SME e-Learning Platform (Swedish Pilots)
The e-Learning platform deployed in the 5 Swedish pilot sites represents an innovative approach to support
distributed collaborative learning for managers in SMEs. The specific web-based platform (including content)
deployed in the 5 pilot sites will provide a concrete demonstration of the value of this new way of learning
and management competencies development in SMEs, which can be then flexibly extended to address
specific learning, networking and knowledge exchange needs of SMEs Europe-wide.
The specific platform itself is under deployment and continuous development with already more than 1000
SME users in Sweden (coordinated by the Swedish Trade Council), and supports managers in SMEs to
acquire competencies in the domain of international (mainly European) trading and knowledge exchange
related to best practices of exporting for Swedish SMEs.
Technically the platform is based on IBM Domino/Sametime middleware, accessible through the web, and
enables both real-time and asynchronous communication (see “Designing Effective Virtual Community
Environments: The ICDT Platform“ [1] for detail specifications). It has been tested to deliver static content as
well as dynamic multimedia e-Learning content and real-time event. The platform also includes an advanced
intelligent agents modules (see “Designing Intelligent Agents for Virtual Communities“ [2] for detail
specifications) supporting the distributed users in gradually taking advantage of all the features of the
platform and enhance the networking and collaborative learning process.
Software developments related to the platform to further adapt it to the needs of the pilot users will be carried
out at INSEAD as well as in Sweden (through the Swedish Trade Council as a subcontractor). An extension
with advanced (higher quality) videoconferencing features will be considered for experimentation in
collaboration with the Rural Wings Telemedicine Technologies in order to take full advantage of the satellite
infrastructure.
Application 2: Simulation-based e-Learning Platform (French Pilots)
The e-Learning platform deployed in the 9 French pilot sites represents an innovative approach to support
simulation-based learning at the level of citizens and communities.
The specific platform and simulation deployed in the 9 pilot sites will provide a concrete demonstration of the
value of this new way of learning and citizens competencies development in rural communities, which
prepares communities and citizens to learn and appreciate the value of change, innovation, and collaborative
learning, and which can be then flexibly extended to provide a channel for other types of simulations and
‘learning-by-doing’ applications matching the needs of rural communities Europe-wide.
The platform supports the deployment of distributed simulation software involving citizens in small
communities in the process of learning and developing their competencies related to change, innovation and
knowledge management at the level of their community, as described in detail in the article “Learning-byPlaying: Bridging the Knowing-Doing Gap in Urban Communities” [3].
The platform itself consists of an advanced social simulation enabling the real-time interaction with virtual
characters (see “Advanced Social Simulation: Innovating the way we learn how to manage change in
organizations“ [4]) with multimedia communication features supporting co-located and distributed groups of
citizens to participate in simulation sessions. It also includes e-Learning content supporting continuous
learning focused on developing enhanced innovation and change competencies in small communities, in
order to favor their development.
Technically the platform is based on a combination of IBM Domino/Sametime middleware (to support
distributed players interacting via rich media) and MetaCard code (for the real-time simulation engine).
96
Developments related to the specializing the simulation to the specific needs and characteristics of the pilot
users (small communities in France) and related software developments will be carried out at INSEAD. An
extension with advanced (higher quality) videoconferencing features will be considered for experimentation
in collaboration with the Rural Wings Telemedicine Technologies in order to take full advantage of the
satellite infrastructure.
A) Equipment related to the 2 applications
A server is needed to host the 2 applications and make them accessible to the pilot users (via the sat
network, over IP) throughout the duration of the project. This server will be provided by INSEAD and lies
within its budget while it will be made available in the first 18 months period.
Audiovisual peripherals necessary to support the real-time components of both applications should be
purchased from each National Coordinator that would use the above platforms for his country pilot sites
(depending on the availability of the National Coordinator’s resources).
B) Extension of 2 applications to other sites
Given the generic interest of both eLearning platform (for SMEs and for rural communities/citizens) it is
conceivable to use them in other pilot sites besides France and Sweden. Their availability is currently in
English and French, and a certain amount of translation work would have to be taken into consideration in
case other sites are included.
Related articles
[1] Angehrn, A.A., “Designing Effective Virtual Community Environments: The ICDT Platform,” CALT
Report, 10-2004.
[2] Angehrn, A.A., “Designing Intelligent Agents for Virtual Communities,” CALT Report, 10-2004.
[3] Angehrn, A.A., “Advanced Social Simulation: Innovating the way we learn how to manage change in
organizations,” Forthcoming in Int. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2004.
[4] Angehrn, A.A., “Learning-by-Playing: Bridging the Knowing-doing Gap in Urban Communities,”
Forthcoming in Intellectual Capital for Communities: Nations, Regions, Cities, A. Bounfour and L.
Edvinsson (eds.), 2004.
f) DBC
DBC provides to the project the WEB TV application.
WEB TV for education is a free community media, realized on an interactive, user-friendly tool, managed by
non-professional team and oriented for a large, geographically isolated public. The aim is to develop internet
broadband satellite channels dedicated to provide rural public and communities « tele-education».
This application should have at the end of the project, different thematic program modules such as:
 general information
 distance learning
 entertainment, animation
 live events
DBC has to imagine, define or develop and coordinate the different necessary tools and technical facilities in
order to guarantee the feasibility of internet broadband satellite application, from program production, editing,
organization to distribution. DBC has to develop and adjust the dedicated tool for video, site and streaming
hosting, live and on demand. The goal is to consider and apply the upgraded possibilities of
transmission/reception of informational and educational program and so to optimize a modern way of
interactive communication.
For this, an existing tool and some interfaces have to be upgraded and adapted to the satellite
transmission/reception of informational and educational program, using the maximum of possible interactive
tools for this communication. Other programs and interfaces have to be developed to fulfill the targeted
thematic channels.
The existing and future interfaces, for which DBC is responsible, have to allow automatic uploading and
exchanges of self made production on an online standardized basis: text, audio, audiovisual, PowerPoint,
forum, chat, accompanied and/or combined with one of them.
97
Different access levels to this tool have to be created and managed, in order to let the authors discuss with
authors, directors with directors, public with public, with privacy or not, or to mix their interactivity, following
the to define requests.
Two levels are already developed in their simplest version for the actual webTV for students, and will be
developed and adapted to satellite internet in priority during the first 18 months of the project. Other tool
levels and interfaces remain under development and have to be updated, combined and adapted to the
different communities target during the rest of running time of the project.
For all the above reasons a DVB/RCS terminal and the necessary satellite capacity and service will be
provided to DBC (by EutelSat following the rules of EutelSat pilot sites) during the first q8 months period of
the project. This equipment and the access to the satellite service is clearly is clearly necessary, in order to
proceed to that work and the testing and the adjustments of the WEB TV application. Adjustments are
completely dependent of the type of equipment and specifications and have to be determined during the first
18 months period.
g) FORTH (in cooperation with ERC)
FORTH provide to the project two applications. Two scenarios will be implemented by FORTH in the RW
project; one concerning the training of non-professionals in health emergency situations (developed in
cooperation with ERC) and the other concerning Environmental Education Studies in Primary and
Secondary School Education.
A) Firstly, as far as the application in health emergency training is concerned, this will be used for
educating and training the ordinary citizen and a variety of non-emergency trained professionals (in other
words people with a duty to respond – such as policemen, firemen, rural doctors, life-guards, etc. - through
the use of advanced information technologies and certified content. It is expected that the RW application will
contribute to a significant increase in the level of preparation prior to health emergency incidents through this
kind of improved training, by helping people in reducing errors and by enhancing their practice efficiencies.
The expected improvement will be in terms of training frequency, training quality, assessment of trainees and
cost effectiveness. The result of all these will be that the better training of key target groups is expected to
improve considerably the mortality and morbidity rates in an emergency situation and therefore to
considerably reduce the social costs imposed by exaggerated rehabilitation needs and the loss of productive
hours.
B) Secondly, as far as the Environmental Education Studies in Primary and Secondary School Education
is concerned, this will provide assistance and material to students and the general public in remote areas in
cooperation with environmental officers in central locations. There has already been a preliminary agreement
of the Office for Primary Education of the Region of Crete. The aim of the RW application will be two-fold: a)
to Train the Trainers (Teachers of Primary & Secondary Schools); and b) to Educate (Students of Primary
& Secondary Schools, Rural Residents), in a number of Possible Subjects in Environmental Education.
These subjects can be in areas such as Agriculture (i.e. see the cycle of wheat or grapes growing, Weather
prediction signs, etc.), Energy Conservation, or in the collection of environmental information relating to:
coastal and marine ecosystems; water resources and freshwater ecosystems; climate and atmosphere;
population, health and human well being; economics, business and the environment; energy and resources;
biodiversity and protected areas; and agriculture and food.
FORTH will mainly develop content for the above mentioned applications and will perform in cooperation with
FORTHnet all the necessary adjustments of the above mentioned applications to the satellite platform (in the
framework of WP5). It will also be involved in the administration and management of the installations and the
monitoring of the offered services. Finally, FORTH will collect relevant information regarding the usage of
these services and carry out an evaluation of their effectiveness.
The proposed services are expected to be deployed in a number of remote rural areas, with no access to
high bandwidth telecommunication services, not only in Greece (i.e. on the island of Crete) but also in other
European countries such as Estonia, France etc.
98
Project Milestones for the 3rd 18 months duration (M25-M42)
8.1.3
Milestone 1: Kick-off meeting has been successfully accomplished during M1 of the project.
Milestone 2: 2nd Collaboration meeting This Milestone was divided into 2 sub-Milestones (M2a and M2b)
since it was conducted in 2 phases:
Milestone M2a: Delivery of the Users profile report, Step by step planning of the set up of the pilot sites and
the fore coming test runs, 2nd internal training WP for the NC with emphasis to the pilot sites installation. M2a
was accomplished at M6 where the 2nd Collaboration meeting took place.
Milestone M2b: Delivery of the high level definition of the end-to-end system architecture, Delivery of the
technical definition of the pilot sites, Delivery of the Rural Wings learning environments, Delivery of the
Synthesis Feasibility Report, Assessment of the work carried out within WP2 and WP3. M2b was
accomplished at M12 but no Collaboration meeting took place at that time.
Thus, the final official assessment of Milestone 2 was done in the 3rd Collaboration meeting on M15.
M2
Month
15
(officially)
M3
21
M4
25
M5
30
M6
38
M7
44
Related activities
3 Collaboration meeting: - Delivery of the Users profile report.
Delivery of the high level definition of the end-to-end system
architecture. Delivery of the technical definition of the pilot sites. Delivery
of the Rural Wings learning environments. Delivery of the Synthesis
Feasibility Report. Step by step planning of the set up of the pilot sites
and the fore coming test runs. 3rd internal training WP for the NC with
emphasis to the pilot sites installation. Assessment of the work carried
out within WP2 and WP3
Start of the test runs: Delivery of the Rural Wings scenarios to be
applied during the Test Run in the pilot sites. Delivery of the Integrated
system - The system ready to be used: The first test control pilot sites
ready to be used - Start of the pilot phase (Test Run) - Delivery of the
Usability Test and usability evaluation Plan - Delivery of the WP8 Market
definition and the 1st version of the Business Case report.
4th Collaboration meeting: Assessment of the test runs - Start of the
system improvements and adaptation (phase A). Start of the scenarios
adaptation/integration (1st cycle). Selection of the remaining pilot sites for
the final implementation. Start of E-Platforms adaptations
Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation (phase A) Delivery of the evaluation framework. Start of the final run (Phase A).
Start of the evaluation procedures in the pilot sites.
Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A) - Delivery of the system
improvements and adaptations towards all system components - Start of
the final run (Phase B)
End of the implementation phases – End of the evaluation phase in
pilot sites – Finalisation of the scenarios of use (adapted/integrated
scenarios) - Start of the Business Plan Development-Start of the final
evaluation report development.
rd
99
8.1.4
Partners Responsibilities
In Table 8.17 the main responsibilities and the different tasks in which each partner is involved are presented
in detail.
Table 8.17: The roles and the functions (responsibilities and involvement) of each participant in the Rural
Wings consortium. The tasks correspond to the activities of the work-plan of the project, as described in B.4.
All partners are involved to the following activities: reporting, collaboration meetings and dissemination
activities.
#
Partner
Nature of main tasks within each WP
Project Coordinator
WP Leader
ICCS
WP1, WP7 and WP9 co-leader
Task leader or co-leader
1.1Administrative/scientific coordination
1.2 Continuous Implementation of organization and monitoring mechanisms
1.3 Reporting
1.5 Collaboration meetings
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (Greece, Georgia and Armenia)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (11 pilots site in Greece and support / consulting in the
installation of the 3 sites in Armenia and the 2 sites in Georgia except DVB/RCS terminals)
6A.4 Development of support material (Greece and Georgia / Armenia (only on line) except for DVB/RCS
support material. Production of support material for 11 sites in Greece)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (11 pilot sites in Greece and support for the sites in Georgia and Armenia)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Greek WiFis and the
equipment of 11 sites apart the DVB/RCS equipment and network monitoring)
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (co-leader)
7.4 Development of a holistic concrete evaluation framework for the Rural Wings project (including all the
evaluation instruments
7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact
7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases
9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
1
Involved in tasks
1.4 Quality Control procedures, 5.3. Wireless system adaptation, optimization and integration, 6A.1
Identification of the pilot groups of users, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and
Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan
WP Leader
WP5
ASTRIUM
2
Task leader or co-leader
5.4 Satellite system adaptation, optimization and integration,
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (Astrium will coordinate the wireless network installation
for terrestrial wireless networks in France and in Spain
6A.4 Development of support material (France and Spain)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring ( only for the France and the
Spain WiFis )
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (co-leader, in terms of its overall technical coordination of the
project)
7.5.4 Network traffic and reliability evaluation in Final Run Phases (continuation of 7.4.4)
Involved in tasks
1.1Administrative/scientific coordination, 1.5 Collaboration meetings, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2
Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s
Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6
Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
3
WP Leader
W8, WP7 (co-leader)
100
AVANTI
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for UK pilot sites)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (16 pilot sites in UK)
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (France and Spain)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (16 pilot sites in UK except DVB/RCS terminals)
6A.4 Development of support material for UK
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (16 pilot sites in UK)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the UK sites apart the
DVB/RCS equipment and network monitoring)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (for UK sites)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
8.2 Market Research and Analysis
8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools, 5.3. Wireless system
adaptation, optimization and integration, 5.4 Satellite system adaptation, optimization and integration, 7.4.1
Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact, 7.4.4. Network traffic
and reliability evaluation, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination
Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 ProjectsDissemination and promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
EUTEL
SAT
6
Task leader or co-leader
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (only for the allocated countries and the DVB/RCS equipment)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (only for the allocated countries and the DVB/RCS
equipment)
6A.4 Development of support material (only for the allocated countries provision of DVB/RCS support
material)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (DVB-RCS services provision for 24 sites for 4 months for the 1st period, 77 sites for 12
months for the second project period)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for all the allocated countries
for the DVB/RCS equipment and the satellite network monitoring)
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the countries covered by Eutelsat for the site survey and the
DVB/RCS equipment installation)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
Involved in tasks
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools, 5.3. Wireless system adaptation, optimization and
integration, 5.4 Satellite system adaptation, optimization and integration, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs
Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s
Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
WP Leader
W6A, WP6B, WP4 (co-leader)
EA
7
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (co-leader with UoA for all Greek sites)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (co-leader with ICCS and UoA for Greek sites)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (6 pilot sites in Greece)
6A.4 Development of support material (co-leader with ICCS and UoA for Greek sites-responsible for the
production of the material for 6 sites)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (6 pilot sites in Greece)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for 6 Greek sites apart
DVB/RCS , WiFi equipment and network monitoring)
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (co-leader for the special task of co-coordinating the NC)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (leader and
coordinator of all training activities in the strategic level for all pilot sites. Co-leader with UoA for Greek sites)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 8.1 Market Definition and Forecast for the business case, Usability testing (test
run phase), 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact, 7.5
Testing within Final Runs Phases, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 ProjectsDissemination and promotion activities, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and
Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and
Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
8
WP Leader
101
WP4 (co-leader)
INSEAD
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (leader for 8 pilot sites in France and 5 SMEs sites in Sweden and (for the
platform offered by INSEAD)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (8 pilot sites in France and 5 in Sweden)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (co-leader with Astrium except for DVB/RCS equipment and
WiFi)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (8 pilot site in France) co-leader with Astrium and 5 in Sweden
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the French and 5 Swedish
pilot sites for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS, WiFi and the network monitoring )
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for INSEAD’s offered platform)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (for the 8 sites in
France and the 5 in Sweden)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 8.1 Market Definition and Forecast for the business case, 7.4.1 Design of the
overall holistic evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs
Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s
Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6
Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
9
SU/IIE
SU/IIE will remain in the project as National Coordinator in Sweden for the Tarfala pilot site only and no other
sites. To this respect all the responsibilities derived from WP6A and WP6.B tasks along with the
implementation of scenarios (WP4) and evaluation framework (WP7) will be conducted by SU/IIE only for the
Tarfala pilot site. Thus implies a limited type of SU/IIE contribution in the Rural Wings project for the next 3
project years.
The case of the involvement of the South African pilot sites and their coordination will be examined during the
2nd reporting period by the Project Coordinator and the corresponding WP leaders.
WP Leader
EDEN
WP9 (co-leader)
Task leader or co-leader
9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan
10
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and
promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
Q-PLAN
Involved in tasks
1.1Administrative/scientific coordination (project office), 1.2 Continuous Implementation of organization and
monitoring mechanisms, 1.3 Reporting, 1.5 Collaboration meetings, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3
Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan,
9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
12
HELLAS
SAT
13
Task leader or co-leader
1.4 Quality Control procedures
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (l for 6 pilot sites in Cyprus).
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (Greece for the DVB/RCS equipment. Full technical coverage for 6
pilot sites of Cyprus)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (Greece for the DVB/RCS equipment. Full technical
coverage for 6 pilot sites of Cyprus)
6A.4 Development of support material (Greece provision of DVB/RCS support material. All technical support
material for Cyprus)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (DVB-RCS services provision for 10 sites for 4 months in the first period, 35 sites for 12
months in the 2nd period)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for all the allocated countries
DVB/RCS equipment and satellite network monitoring). Full technical support for 6 Cyprus sites
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the countries covered by HELLAS SAT for the site survey and
the DVB/RCS equipment installation)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (for the 6 sites in
Cyprus)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
Involved in tasks
102
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools 5.3. Wireless system adaptation, optimization and
integration, 5.4 Satellite system adaptation, optimization and integration, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic
evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact, 7.4.4. Network traffic and reliability evaluation, 7.5
Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1
Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with
ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
UB
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (10 pilot sites in Spain)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (10 pilot sites in Spain)
6A.4 Development of support material (10 sites in Spain)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (10 pilot sites in Spain)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Spanish sites except for
WiFis DVB/RCS equipment and the network monitoring)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (for 10 sites in
Spain)
15
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (Task leader Astrium for Spain sites.
UB will provide all necessary support and liaisons with local communities). 6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites –
Learning Hubs (task leader Astrium for Spain. Eutelsat will install DVB/RCS equipment. The rest of the needed
equipments PC etc. will be provided by UB, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including
the socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3
Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan,
9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities - Local
Dissemination and promotion activities in Spain, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
Group leader of the platform providers group
FORTH
16
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for the platform offered by Forth)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the FORTH platform)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation (Group leader)
7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases,(Group leader)
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (for Greece), Installation of the
pilot sites – Learning Hubs (provide technical support to the University of Aegean mainly to the WiFi
installation), 6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Greek
sites that may be installed in Crete apart for the network monitoring), 6B.2 Training activities – Info days –
Workshops- Development of support training material ( training and support material for FORTH’s platform),
8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s
Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6
Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
UPB
17
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (10 pilot sites in Romania)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (10 pilot sites in Romania)
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (10 pilot sites in Romania)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (Eutelsat will install DVB/RCS equipment. The rest of the
needed equipments PC/WiFis etc. will be installed and provided by UPB)
6A.4 Development of support material (for 10 sites in Romania)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (10 pilot sites in Romania)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for Romanian sites except for
DVB/RCS equipment and the network monitoring)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (for 10 sites in
Romania)
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the
socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market
Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2
Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities-Local
Dissemination and promotion activities in Romania, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
18
A&O
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (7 pilot sites in Estonia)
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (7 pilot sites in Estonia)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (Eutelsat will install DVB/RCS equipment. The rest of the
103
needed equipments PC/WiFis etc. will be installed and provided by A&O)
6A.4 Development of support material (for 10 sites in Estonia)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (7 pilot sites in Estonia)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Estonian sites except for
DVB/RCS equipment and the network monitoring)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (7 pilot sites in
Estonia.
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the
socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market
Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2
Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities - Local
Dissemination and promotion activities in Estonia, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
DBC
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for the platform offered by DBC)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for DBC platform)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
19
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training
material (training and support material for DBC platform), 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market
Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5
and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
UoA
20
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (co-leader with UoA for all Greek sites)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (co-leader with ICCS and UoA for Greek sites)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (10 pilot sites in Greece except for DVB/RCS equipment
and network monitoring)
6A.4 Development of support material (co-leader with ICCS and UoA for Greek sites-responsible for the
production of the material for 10 sites)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for 10 Greek sites apart
DVB/RCS and WiFi equipment)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material. Co-leader with EA
for Greek sites)
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the
socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market
Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2
Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities - Local
Dissemination and promotion activities in Greece, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
WP Leader
TUD
WP7 (co-leader)
Task leader or co-leader
7.4.2 Update and adjustments of the usability evaluation reference to the overall holistic approach
21
Involved in tasks
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use, 6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the usability issues and the
data collection), 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6
Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
FORTH
net
23
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for the platform offered by FORTHnet)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the FORTHnet platform)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (provide technical support to University
of Aegean’s pilot sites especially to the WiFi installation), 6A.4 Development of support material (manuals, online support), 6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Greek
sites that may be installed in Crete) 6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of
support training material (training and support material for FORTHNet’s platform), 8.2 Market Research and
Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-
104
Dissemination and promotion activities, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
ERC
Involved in tasks
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan
9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
24
TELEME
DICINE
25
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for the platform offered by TELEMEDICINE)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the TELEMEDICINE platform)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 5.3. Wireless system adaptation, optimization and integration, 5.4 Satellite system
adaptation, optimization and integration, 6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of
support training material (training and support material for TELEMEDICINE platform), 7.4.4. Network traffic
and reliability evaluation, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market
Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan
WP Leader
WP4 (co-leader)
BGU
26
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for the 6 Israeli sites)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (6 pilot sites)
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (for the 6 Israeli sites)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (Eutelsat will install the DVB/RCS equipment. BGU the rest
equipment such as PCs, web cameras etc.)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (6 pilot sites in Israel)
6A.4 Development of support material (on line support, manuals)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Israel sites except for
DVB/RCS equipment and the network monitoring)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (for the Israeli
sites)
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the
socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market
Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2
Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities, 9.3
Preparation of Dissemination Material
FOURIER
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (for the platform offered by FOURIER)
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms (for the platform offered by FOURIER)
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators (for the FOURIER platform)
7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation
27
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training
material (provision only for training and support material for FOURIER platform), 7.5 Testing within Final
Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.2 Clustering and
Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities
PBF
29
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users (10 pilot sites in Poland)
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (10 pilot sites in Poland)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs (Eutelsat will install DVB/RCS equipment. The rest of the
needed equipments PC/WiFis etc. will be installed and provided by PBF)
6A.4 Development of support material (for 10 sites in Poland)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (10 pilot sites in Poland)
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Polish sites except for
DVB/RCS equipment and the network monitoring)
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support training material (10 pilot sites in
Poland)
105
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the
socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market
Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination pla, 9.2
Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities - Local
Dissemination and promotion activities in Poland, 9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material
LAE-TSU
30
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (Particularization of the scenarios for the Georgian sites in cooperation with
ICCS)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Georgian sites except
DVB/RCS equipment)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (2 pilot sites in Georgia in the 2nd period)
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (Task leader ICCS for Georgian sites).
LAE-TSU will provide all necessary support and liaisons with local communities, 6A.3 Installation of the pilot
sites – Learning Hubs (EUTELSAT will install DVB/RCS equipment), 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic
evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market
Research and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination
Strategy and Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 ProjectsDissemination and promotion activities
Task leader or co-leader
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (Particularization of the scenarios for the Armenian sites in cooperation with
ICCS)
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring (for the Armenian sites except
DVB/RCS equipment)
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run (3 pilot sites in Armenia in the 2nd period)
SEUA
31
Involved in tasks
1.5 Collaboration meetings, 6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites (Task leader ICCS for Armenian sites).
SEUA will provide all necessary support and liaisons with local communities, 6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites
– Learning Hubs (EUTELSAT will install DVB/RCS equipment), 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation
framework including the socioeconomic impact, 7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases, 8.2 Market Research
and Analysis, 8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating, 9.1 Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and
Dissemination plan, 9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and
promotion activities
Specifically, regarding the project Management in order to simplify the administrative procedures, a split-up
of the total management activities is foreseen among the partners ICCS, ASTRIUM and QPLAN. The rational
for this separation lies in the following:


Intensive workload of Project Management given the fact that 25 partners from all over the world are
involved in 9 WPs and more than 35 interactive tasks
Technical component of the project is of significant importance and a technical manager is needed
for the project decision making
The exact tasks and responsibilities in the management level for each of the involved partners is given in
detail in the table 8.18 below:
TABLE 8.18
PARTNER
ICCS
Responsibility
•
Overall scientific management and project administration
in the strategic level
• Decision making, Consortium Agreement, control of
budget and financial issues, forming of the various
committees, pilot sites strategic coordination in all levels (in
cooperation with NC)
• Decisions about budget and human resources allocation
106
Interactions With the rest
partners in the P.M.
Close cooperation with:
 Q-Plan, concerning
administrative and general
management issues
 Astrium, concerning
scientific management
and technical coordination
•
Q-Plan
Astrium
Official contacts with the EC (submit the reports and the
deliverables)
• Overall Communication with all the partners for the
effective elaboration of the project.
• Responsible for the Project Office (Preparation and
gathering of all official project documents-ContactAccession Forms-Consortium Agreement signaturesContract Amendments-Annual Cost Statement). The filling
of all the official documents after their completion and
signature will be done by ICCS)
• Organize and support plenary meetings (preparation,
agenda, support during the events, circulation of minutes,
presentations and proceedings).
• Develop the Project Management Guidelines (D1.1)
• Creation of Communication Channels (Internal and
External) and communication with the Project Partners for
all issues related with the project Office
• Monitoring the time for the submission of deliverables
• Monitor the time schedule (activities, recourses)
• Monitoring of the financial progress of the project.
• Creation of an effective support system for the monitoring
of the financial progress of the project (in Cooperation with
the Coordinator)
• Checking of the cost statements in the 1st level
• Process for the 6-month managerial reports and the
annual reports all the financial data and relevant ManMonths
• Annual review of the EC (Administrative issues)
• Advice the Steering Committee & PC for the management
of project's resources and control the project's budget.
• Advice the PPB & PC for monitoring the activities (timeplan of the tasks, critical tasks) and the allocation of
manpower.
• Ensure the effectiveness of the project’s internal
procedures
• Control the quality of the projects’ activities (Monitoring of
internal review committees-Other quality procedures).
• Monitoring of the internal reporting system (partners
financial recourses, MM, actual work according to project’s
time plan)
- Astrium SAS participates to coordination activities linked to
scientific/technical coordination
- in relationship with National Coordinators :
- provides synthesis analysis on the satellite system
architectures deployed in every national area (activity
carried out in the framework of WP5)
provides the national coordinators with initial technical
support and expertise with respect to satellite-based
communication network systems (activity carried out in
the framework of WP5)
- provides recommendations and quidelines concerning
the deployment of wireless local loops as mentioned in
tables 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.9 and 8.10 .
-
107
Complementary with the
activities of the Project
Coordinator concerning the
administrative management
of the project
Cooperation with ICCS for
the technical coordination
and scientific management of
the project
8.2 Planning and timetable
8.3 Graphical presentation of work packages
Project’s Plan (Gantt Chart)
For 3rd 18 Months period (M25-M42)
(reference files in Microsoft Project)
108
8.4 Work package list /overview
Work package list (3rd 18 months period M25 – M42)
Work
package
No1
Work package title
Lead
contractor
No2
Personmonths3
Start
month4
End
mont
h5
Deliverable
No6
D1.2, D1.3, D1.4
WP1
Project Management and
Coordination
1
18.5
1
42
WP4
Scenarios Adaptation and
Development
7/8/26
48,5
1
42
WP5
Adaptation of Platforms and
Tools
2
42,5
3
42
D5.4 issue 2,
D5.5
WP6.A
Pilots – Implementation and
Trials
7
131
7
42
D6A.1 issue 2
WP 6.B
Training of the users
7
32
2
42
D6B.1 updated
1/21/3
51,5
7
42
D7.3, D7.4, D7.5
3
26
12
42
D8.2
1/10
38
1
42
D9.1 (revised),
D9.4 (updated),
D9.5
WP7
Evaluation
WP8
Market Investigation
WP9
Dissemination
TOTAL
392
Workpackage number: WP 1 – WP n.
Number of the contractor leading the work in this workpackage.
3
The total number of person-months allocated to each workpackage.
4
Relative start date for the work in the specific workpackages, month 0 marking the start of the project, and all other
start dates being relative to this start date.
5
Relative end date, month 0 marking the start of the project, and all ends dates being relative to this start date.
6
Deliverable number: Number for the deliverable(s)/result(s) mentioned in the workpackage: D1 - Dn.
1
2
109
8.5 Deliverables list
Deliverables list (3rd 18 months period month 25 - 42)
Del.
no. 1
Deliverable name
WP no.
Lead
particip
ant
Estimate
d
indicativ
e personmonths
Nature2
Dissemination
level
3
Delivery
date4
(proj.
month)
D1.2
Management reports
1
1
6
R
CO
Every 6
months
D1.3
Cost statement
1
1
6
R
CO
36
D1.4
Annual Report
End-to-end system design,
validation and performance
evaluation
1
1
6.5
R
CO
36
5
2
20
R
RE
34
System’s
report
5
23/1
22,5
O
RE
38
131
R/O
PU
D5.4
Issue
2
D.5.5
improvements
platform
privders
(*)
Pilot sites – Learning Hubs:
Pilot Site Description and
Installation for the Final
Runs (Remaining 96 sites)
6
Workshop proceedings, and
support
material
(final
submission)
6
NC****
32
O
PU
35
D7.3
Design of the overall holistic
evaluation framework for the
Rural Wings project
7
1/21/3/2
23
R
RE
31
D7.4
Network traffic and reliability
evaluation for the Rural
Wings project
7
2
12
R
RE
36
D7.5
Interim Results Analysis of
the
overall
holistic
evaluation of the Final Runs
Phase A
7
1
16,5
R
RE
37
D6A.1
Issue
2
D6B.1
Updat
ed
NC***
SSPs
30
Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates: D1 – Dn
2 Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes:
R = Report
P = Prototype
D = Demonstrator
O = Other
3
Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes:
PU = Public
PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services).
RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services).
CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
4
Month in which the deliverables will be available. Month 1 marking the start of the project, and all delivery dates
being relative to this start date.
1
110
D8.2
(D8.1 updated version): “2nd
version of the business case
report
including
market
analysis and monitoring”
8
3
26
R
RE
32
D9.1
Revised Dissemination Plan
9
10
20
R
RE
30
st
D9.4
1 dissemination report
9
1/7/10
10
R
PU
D9.5
Printed
and
electronic
Dissemination material
9
1/10
8
O
PU
TOTAL
36
(updated
yearly)
27
392
(*) All platform providers will be responsible for all related actions to be reported to this Delievrable (i.e.
upgrade of adaptation of their platforms etc). These partners are (INSEAD, TELEMEDICINE, FORTH,
FORTHnet, FOURIER, DBC and EA). So for this deliverable all the above partners are responsible too.
(***) Main reference should be made to the analytical tables of Section 8.1.1, which describe with every
detail which partner (in most cases these are the NC except for France, Spain and Greece) is responsible for
the deployment of the pilot sites. HELLASSAT and EUTELSAT have the responsibility for the DVB/RCS
terminal/antenna site survey installation and technical support. Especially regarding the D6A.1 deliverable,
the nature of this deliverable will be the physical deployment of the pilot sites/learning hubs in each country
accompanied by a short document briefly describing the main facilities and functionalities of each pilot site
(photos of the facilities and the infrastructures of the sites could be very useful to this document).
(****) According to the type of application that will be decided for each pilot site and each country the training
material may be altered. The training and support material that is mentioned above is indicative in the sense
that it is all the support material that a National Coordinator should have available for a fully equipped site
(DVB/RCS, WiFi, video conferencing with multiple applications etc). It must be also noted that a significant
part of this material will be reproduced from deliverables that will have been already developed in the
framework of the project (e.g. D 5.1, D2.3, D5.3).
IMPORTANT NOTE
Apart from the deliverables listed here there is also a number of Internal Task Reports (ITR)
that are mentioned in the following work packages. These reports are the outcomes of
specific tasks and are internal control documents that briefly describe the outcomes of
these tasks. The Project Coordinator and WP leaders for the better monitoring of the
progress of work in each WP will use them as reference documents. The content of these
reports may be used later by the corresponding Deliverable responsible for the production
of the relevant deliverables that are related to the above-mentioned tasks.
111
8.6 Work package descriptions
Work package description
(third 18 months period, month 25 – 42:
January 2008 – end of June 2009)
112
Project Management and Coordination
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Participant id
Person-months
per participant:
Start date or starting event:
1
Month 1
Management
ICCS
ICCS
ASTRIUM
QPLAN
Objectives
As the project brings together numerous partners composing a multidisciplinary team in order to accomplish a very
demanding work under a specific time schedule the aspect of management is very crucial. The main objective is:
The effective management of the project. An effective project management system requires effective decisionmaking, operational internal communication, and development of solid work breakdown structures, schedules, costs
and resource plans, effective administrative and technical control of the project. The basic performance of an
effective management includes assurance that all the overall objectives of the project are achieved, confirmation that
the project results are disseminated and exploited according to plan and verification that quality assurance
requirements are followed in the most possible manner.
The whole project management is described in detail in section 7. The reader can refer to this section for more
information.
Description of work
1.1 Administrative/scientific coordination: The management structure of the Rural Wings project consisted of a
Steering Committee (SC), which is coordinated by the Project’s Coordinator (Project Manager, PM). The roles
the functionality and the consistency of this committee will be analytically presented in the Consortium Agreement
and partially the B.6 section of this document. The whole consortium will be represented in the Plenary Board
Committee (PBC), All the above will be run by the Project’s Office through continuous quality assurance process,
as describe in detail in section B.6. The roles and functionality of the PBC will be analytically presented in the
Consortium Agreement and the B.6 section of this document. The managerial structure of Rural Wings foresees
three level of managements (upper, middle and lower), 4 managers with extended responsibilities
(technology/application/implementation managers), 4 relevant committees under these managers and WP leaders.
The Technology Manager and the Application Manager will have the responsibility to ensure a strong consistency
between the technology and the application that will be used. The Dissemination – Commercial Committee (DCC)
will have the responsibility to ensure a strong consistency between the scientific results and market. Under this
framework DCC has the responsibility to suggest the roadmap for implementing end-to-end satellite communication
applications. The Dissemination – Commercial Committee of the Rural Wings project will be responsible for:
 the development of the dissemination strategy of the project’s deliverables (artefacts and documents)
 the definition of the commercialization strategies of the project
 the collaboration and interaction with companies, organizations and industries interested in the project results.
As a member of the Plenary Board Committee and the SC the Commercial Manager will have advisory role, in
particular in the final development of the project’s services and applications, by providing input from the market
research and analysis.
There will be an Implementation manager, which will have the responsibility of organizing and monitor the overall
implementation phase of the project (WP6.A) and the whole training (WP6.B). The Quality Manager will be in
charge for the quality assurance of the work and will have as main object the implementation of the quality control
process as well as for drawing up a detail Quality Plan of work that that will describe the complete analysis of work,
the allocation of resources and the relative processes and will be included in the Project Management Guidelines
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
113
document (D1.1). The Work package Leaders will have the responsibility for the work-packages. The Work-Package
Leaders will be responsible for the co-ordination and execution of their allocated work-package. The Project’s Office
will be responsible for the efficient administration of the project. Finally as it can be seen by each WP description
there are also task leaders within each WP that refer directly to the WP leader.
NOTE: Since the scientific coordination and the project administrative management will be undertaken jointly by three
institutions (ICCS, ASTRIUM and Q-PLAN) their detailed responsibilities in terms of the project management are
shown in Table 8.18. The reader should always refer to this table where each partner’s role is described with detail.
Task responsible: ICCS
Involved Partners: ASTRIUM, Q-PLAN
1.2 (Revised) Continuous implementation of organization and monitoring mechanisms: Following the
distribution of the first project Deliverable D1.1 Project Management Guidelines Document to the whole
partnership which took place during the first reporting period, the Project Office will continue the monitoring of the
administrative issues. The Project Office will continue to improve and develop and the Coordinator to authorize a
management system with all the appropriate procedures, so that the partners of the consortium collaborate
effectively. Active planning and control of the project makes it possible to measure interim results, to forecast the final
result and to take advantage of experiences that may be useful to the future Market Deployment of the Rural Wings
applications. The most crucial procedures foreseen in the D.1.1 were also briefly described in the Consortium
Agreement in order for all the partners to commit themselves to the basic Management procedures before the official
commencement of the project. A web based e-communication tool (based on the PLONE platform) was created
during the first reporting period to give the ability to the partnership to perform mainly the following actions:
a) to share documents by uploading and downloading them in a shared workspace
b) to provide an efficient progress reporting system and
c) an efficient effort reporting system since the number of partners was too large.
This reporting system web based application was used successfully by the consortium during the 1 st reporting period
to provide the final progress and effort reporting to EC. During the M25-M42 period and following all the issues
initiated during the reporting, the web tool will be constantly improved and adjusted in order to provide the best
possible usage and facilitation to the partnership. Furthermore, an online (based on the PLONE) Alert tool (online
Progress Tracking Tool) was setup by Q-Plan and ICCS for all project coordination issues and for early notification of
the partnership regarding the due deliverables and related responsibilities. This tool was operated during the 2 nd and
the 3rd reporting period and will again be reinitiated during the period between M37-M48. Coordination and
management will be further proactive in managing all partners and all workpackages, in order to achieve the common
goals of the objectives, and to ensure that partners are not working towards the objectives that are only in their own
interest. The project management team will make further rfforts to indicate to the consortium that deliverables are an
instrument intended in the first place as a means to support internal project documentation and communication while
the progress reporting function of the deliverables to the EC and the reviewers is a secondary function.
Task responsible: ICCS
Involved Partners: QPLAN
1.3 Reporting: There will be two categories of managerial reports. The first category of will consist of two separate
reports, the Annual Report, and 6-month Management Report that are also deliverables of the projects. The
second category of reports is the Quarterly Management Report (QMR), which is an internal report that will be given
by each partner to the project coordinator and the relevant other recipients (WP leaders, task leaders, etc.) describing
the main work carried out by each partner for the whole project for the reporting period and the resource (mm and
funds) allocation for the period linked with the QMR. This report will be mandatory for each partner and its nature and
structure is already clearly defined in the D.1.1 deliverable. These QMR reports will be forwarded every 3 months
from each partner and WP Leader to the foreseen recipients (Relevant Manager, the Project Office and the Project
Coordinator etc.), who will compose the overall Annual and 6-month management reports and communicate them to
EC. The detailed reporting system is presented in Section 7 and in the Consortium Agreement. The coordinator will
verify the projects account of the whole project and check the resource reporting for inconsistencies and missing
information in a more proactive way. For the avoidance of any confusion this task is only referring to
managerial reports and not to any other deliverables or internal task reports (ITR) that are described in all the
other WPs.
114
Task responsible: ICCS
Involved Partners: Q-PLAN
1.4 Quality Control procedures: The development of the Quality System, in order to facilitate the implementation of
the Quality Management, will include the next phases:
 identification of the procedures needed
 plan, design and development of the procedures and the forms to be implemented
 enrichment and adaptation of the implementation guide for all the partners when needed
The Quality Management System will cover the procedures ensuring that all the needed activities will be implemented
by the partners. The whole organization and monitoring system is described in detail in section B.6. This Task
involves also the Quality of the Deliverables submitted to the EC and the reviewers. In this sense, it is decided by the
project Steering Committee that all deliverables should be submitted to the Coordinator at least 1 month prior the
official deadline (deliverable due date according to the contract). In order to ensure the proper quality of the
Deliverables and its compliance to the Technical Annex of the Rural Wings project the creation of a Quality
Assurance (QAD) Deliverables Committee was decided to be set up, which will consist of three (3) members: a.
The project Coordinator, b. the second member will be appointed by ASTRIUM (a person from ASTRIUM’s
personnel, not related to project and with the appropriate expertise, to act as an independent reviewer and c. the third
member will be appointed each time by the Project Coordinator in order to assess the pedagogical pathway of the
project, depending on the relevant deliverables. This Committee will review the Deliverables prior to their submission
to EC and will suggest the corresponding related comments and modifications to the Deliverables Responsibles and
Authors. Finally, the management and coordination will continue to pay close attention to detail in its reporting (also of
resources) and in the quality assurance of the deliverables, not only for their usefulness within the overall project
objectives, but also with regard to the editorial details: submission date, revision history, versioning.
Task responsible:
Q-PLAN for the implementation of the Quality Assurance Mechanisms
ICCS for the formulation and operation of the Quality Assurance (QAD) Deliverables Committee
1.5 Collaboration meetings: Five – to six major plenary board meetings will be performed in the framework of the
Rural Wings project (at least one each year). The partnership will asses the project’s implementation and progress
and will derive useful conclusions and decisions for the coming activities. During the first plenary board meeting (kickoff meeting) the composition of the Project’s Committees was decided while the partners involvement to them will be
adjusted according to the Consortium Agreement where needed. The Steering Committee meetings will be organized
at least 2-3 times a year in order to follow the project’s progress in a more analytical and organized way. To this
respect, in case of occurrence of special situations additional plenary meetings or Steering Committee meetings may
be held. The consortium will interact in a more proactive manner with other related 5th and 6 th Framework projects or
other R&D national/international programmes in particular in the areas of using existing eLearning resources and
market reports. The project will improve coordination also with external resources and will take into account past
experiences from similar projects and initiatives, e.g. SINCERE (rural education – experience of Malaysia), Trapeze
(UK and The Netherlands), SchoolSat and SchoolCast (Ireland), NLTree (The Netherlands), the JISC Satellite Trials
(UK), Telesat Satellite Multimedia Trials for Schools (Canada), IST programme on eLearning FP5+6 projects,
SATMAC, BASE2 etc. A more elaborated collaboration and exchange of experiences will be enforced with projects
such as Hermes and Base2. This issue addresses also WP9 (Dissemination) and all the consortium partners are
involved for its fulfillment.
Task responsible: ICCS
Involved Partners: ALL
Deliverables
D1.2: 6-months progress and Management report (every 6 Months, M42 and M48 for this period)
Deliverable responsible: ICCS
Involved partners: ALL
D1.3: Cost Statements (Month 48)
Deliverable responsible: ICCS
115
Involved partners: ALL
D1.4: Annual report (Month 48)
Deliverable responsible: ICCS
Involved partners: ALL
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start*
End **
Input from task
Output to task
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
M37
M37
M37
M37
M37
M48
M48
M48
M48
M48
1.2 and 1.4
1.2
-
1.3 and 1.4
1.3
-
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
D1.2, D1.3, D1.4
D1.2, D1.3, D1.4
D1.2, D1.3, D1.4
D1.2
At least 2 plenary consortium
meetings are foreseen
NOTE:
* Start is indicated as the beginning of the mentioned month (e.g. M1 is the beginning of the
project)
** End is indicated as the end of the mentioned month (e.g. M2 means the end of the 2nd month)
116
Feasibility Study
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
2
Start date or starting event:
Month 1 – End M12
RTD
ICCS
Participant id
Person-months per participant:
Objectives

To select the most appropriate applications, and propose a roadmap up to the operational status including
demonstrations and technical developments in order to promote and facilitate the use of satellite
communications over Europe and beyond.

To address all the issues relevant to the overall viability of the use of advanced satellite networks and
infrastructure as introduced by the Rural Wings project. These include manageability issues, acceptability of
solutions to all relevant organizations and institutional bodies, acceptability and attractiveness of the
proposed solutions to all categories of users
Description of work
2.1 Review of available and planned applications/services-Definition and analysis of Satellite communication
Solutions
2.2 User acceptance
2.3 Satellite System architecture definition
2.4 Recommendations for the integrated service adaptation and evaluation
THIS WORK PACKAGE HAS BEEN FINALIZED DURING THE 1st REPORTING PERIOD
Deliverables
D2.1: Available and planned applications and Satellite Scenarios definition report
Deliverable responsible: ICCS/AVANTI
Involved partners:, ASTRIUM, EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT
D5.1 (=D2.2): High level definition of the end-to-end system architecture
Deliverable responsible: ASTRIUM
Involved partners: ICCS, AVANTI
D2.3: Synthesis – Feasibility Report
Deliverable responsible: ASTRIUM
Involved partners: EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT. This report will come as the major outcome of this WP receiving input
from all the WP2 tasks and including the main conclusions of all the other deliverables of WP2
ALL THE ABOVE DELIVERABLES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE 2ND REPORTING PERIOD
Milestones and expected result
M2. 3rd Collaboration meeting (Month 15): Assessment of WP2.
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
117
User Needs Analysis
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
3
Start date or starting event:
Month 1 – End M20
RTD
INSEAD / SUIIE
Participant id
Person-months
per participant:
Objectives
 To set the basis for the development of the scenarios that will be introduced to the users’ communities during
the project’s implementation and
 To provide the project team with all the necessary information concerning the users’ demand in order to
proceed to the Market investigation.
In the framework of this WP the consortium will perform an assessment of the users’ demand for the satcom
applications and services for distance learning and training.
Description of work
The duration of this WP was extended for 4 months (that is to end on M16, end of April 2007) in order to
perform the respective tasks for South Africa and the two new countries, Georgia and Armenia (2 new
contractors for Georgia and Armenia entered the RURAL WINGS project following a Contract Amendment).
The case of South Africa pilot sites will be examined separately by the Consortium, in terms of finding
appropriate contact persons and selecting the sites. The effort for the above actions will be focused to
examine whether it is possible with the project resources to set pilot sites in Africa which will be operational
during the final runs implementation phase (M27 and then). Until the results of this examination are made
obvious, South Africa pilot sites and user needs related issues will be continued to be included in the Rural
Wings technical annex.
3.1 User Needs Analysis
3.2 User Segmentation – User Profile
3.3 Task Analysis
THIS WORK PACKAGE HAS BEEN FINALIZED DURING THE 2nd REPORTING PERIOD
Deliverables
D3.1: User needs analysis and User Profiles report
Deliverable responsible: SUIIE
Involved partners: EA, INSEAD, LAE-TSU, SEUA
D3.2: Task Analysis
Deliverable responsible: INSEAD
Involved partners: SUIIE, EA, LAE-TSU, SEUA
ALL THE ABOVE DELIVERABLES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE 2ND REPORTING PERIOD
Milestones and expected result
M2: 3rd Collaboration meeting (Month 15): Assessment of WP3
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
118
Scenarios Adaptation and Development
Work-package
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Participant id
Person-months
per participant:
Participant id
Start date or starting event:
4
Month 1
RTD
EA / INSEAD / BGU
EA
INSEAD
SU/IIE
UoB
FORTH
UPB
A&O
UoA
TUD
FORTH
net
ERC
TELEM
EDICIN
E
BGU
FOURIE
R
PBF
LAETSU
SEUA
AVANTI
Person-months
per participant:
Objectives:
a) Introduction of a new learning culture for the citizens in rural communities. The aim of this project is not
to impose solutions but rather to empower people in all the stages of their life to invent their own
solutions. The project is going to demonstrate the use of a new generation of technologies and applications that
enable people to design, create, and learn in new ways by themselves, helping them to become more active
participants in their communities.
b) Provision of a range of learning methods that will enable users to become independent learners. The
project targets several types of users. As each person has different ways of learning and understanding, the
proposed competence-based scheme should provide a wide variety of instructional approaches. The
methodology has to support learners to work independently, co-operatively and in an increasingly self-organizing
way. This will be achieved through the development of different educational scenarios (educational pathways)
that will cover different contexts (Learning at School, Learning at Work and Learning at Home)
Description of work
4.1 Determination of the implementation parameters: THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED DURING THE 1st
REPORTING PERIOD.
4.2 Scenarios design and development: THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALIZED DURING THE 1st REPORTING
PERIOD.
4.5 Redesign of Scenarios of Use (revision and update of Tasks 4.3 Adaptation of content & 4.4 Scenarios
adaptation/integration):
The content for each scenario per country was specified at an initial level by the National Coordinators in face of the
Test Run, who thus specified how the scenarios were to be implemented in the rural communities of their countries.
In the current phase of the project, following the completion of the Final Runs Phase A, the experience
gained through this first stage of the 2nd project Implementation Phase will be transformed into all possible
necessary modifications and improvements in the final Scenarios of Use and their localisation by the
National Coordinators (NCs). This will be a dynamic process, in which the partners responsible for the development
of the Scenarios (EA, INSEAD, BGU) will interact with the NCs and the e-Application Providers so as to produce the
next, updated and final version of the Scenarios of Use. This dynamic process will be continuous, its outcomes
depending on the input from the pilot activities and the relevant evaluation. Taking into account that education
(certainly at compulsory level) is generally quite regulated, the project will take care that application scenarios are as
much as possible relevant in that perspective and furthermore, to avoid limitations towards the area of application
(subject area, age group, linguistically specific, relevance to the curriculum), in order to be available for a general
deployment over larger groups of users. Thus, the Final version of the Rural Wings scenarios (and the
respective final version of the relevant Deliverable D4.1) is set to be delivered on M46, after the end of the
final implementation Phase (Final Run Phase B) and towards the end of the Rural Wings project,
incorporating all changes and adjustements in the Rural Wings scenarios taking place during the Final Runs
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
119
Phases. Until then and through this process the generic scenarios may be further elaborated, to cover more
examples of user-centred activities in the pilot sites; most importantly, however, the content of the scenarios will be
further elaborated and enriched by the NCs in accordance with the development of implementation activities in the
pilot sites. Each NC, having selected the pilot sites and knowing exactly the special user needs of these communities,
will provide the appropriate content so that the Scenarios are best matched with the local circumstances. The WP
members will take care in order the outcomes of the WPs 3, 5 and 6 to be adequately fed within the corresponding
final version of the D4.1 while the practical applicability or relevance of all e-applications for the typical target
audience (e.g. WebTV scenarios) will be one of focused WP targets. A mapping showing which application is used at
each Rural wings trial site will be provided as well (not only per participating country). The existing 1 st version of D4.1
deliverable will be evaluated by the relevant partners with regard to all three learning contexts (@school, @home,
@work) in order to create more user friendly scenarios. In the next and final version of D4.1 (scenarios updates) it is
expected that the focus will shift towards real usage experiences and feedback, and towards open resources for
teaching and learning. In general, the redesign of the Scenarios of Use will incorporate and reflect the fundamental
conception of the Rural Wings project, that users will be involved in more and more advanced and independent
activities. The idea is that in each cycle of user-centred work and especially ion the last one (Final Runs Phase B),
less and less guidance will be needed, giving the chance to the users to actively participate in the co-design of the
final version of the Rural Wings service, and the corresponding final Scenarios of Use.
TASK RESPONSIBLE: Each National Coordinator for their country, all e-applications (e-platform and e-tools)
providers (INSEAD, TELEMEDICINE, FORTH, ERC, FORTHnet, FOURIER, DBC, EA).
INVOLVED PARTNERS: Responsible for the overall coordination of this process and the delivery of the revised final
scenarios are INSEAD (learning@work), BGU (learning@home), and EA (learning@school).
Deliverables:
D4.1 “Rural Wings Scenarios of Use: Final version” (Month 46)
Deliverable responsible: BGU (learning at home scenarios, EA (learning at school scenarios), INSEAD (learning at
work scenarios).
Involved partners: EA, TUD, UoA and all e-applications (e-platform and e-tools) providers (INSEAD,
TELEMEDICINE, FORTH, ERC, FORTHnet, FOURIER, DBC), FORTHnet (farmers training scenarios) FORTH
(training people for emergency health situations scenarios).
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start
End
Input from task
Output to task
4.5
M37
M46
4.3, 5.2, D3.2,
6A.5
5.2, 6A.5, 7.4
120
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
D4.1 Final version
WP6A, WP5, WP7
Adaptation of platforms and Tools
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Start date or starting event:
5
Month 3
RTD
ASTRIUM
Participant id
ICCS
ASTRIUM
AVANTI
EUTELSAT
EA
INSEAD
HELLASSAT
FORTH
DBC
FORTHnet
TELEMEDIC
INE
FOURIER
Person-months per participant:
Participant id
Person-months per participant:
Participant id
ERC
Person-months per participant:
Objectives:
a) To define the end to end architecture of the whole system
b) To adapt where economically and technically feasible the end-to-end network architecture and configuration
parameters to the specific needs of the e-learning applications and scenarios of Rural Wings.
c) To determine if and how the various offered e-applications (e-platforms and e-tools) will need to be further
improved or expanxded in order to meet the demands of a larger number of users and to explore the adequacy of the
satellite service.
d) To develop a new cognitive based open learning system and environment that can generate creativity and a
capacity of learning to learn in the users, through the development of a new learning culture. It will offer to the users
ubiquitous access to the learning content. The Rural Wings integrated service system will be developed through the
effective utilization of a wide range of ICT applications for educational purposes
Description of work
During the 3rd reporting period (and in parallel to the Final Runs Phase A) quite many activities took place in the
framework of this WP; more optimizations were conducted in terms of the offered e-applications by the platform
providers, new e-applications were identified, the D5.2 was validated and assessed by the SSPs and finally
extensive validation and performance assessment tests took place at ASTRIUM’s Test Bed both on QoS network
devices and on the different satellite services offered in Rural Wings. The main workload of the e-applications
adaptations has already been carried out and additional tests were carried out case dependent where needed. The
Satellite Service Providers explored ways of handling the overall load; especially for the 2nd project implementation
phase where a dramatically large number of users was involved for 128 pilot sites in total.
As described extensively within the Technical Annex for M25-M42, the 2nd cycle of “systems improvements – phase
B” was substantially continued in parallel to the Final Runs Phase A and thus, constant and additional system’s
debugging took place during M30-M36 especially considering the dramatically increased number of pilot sites and
users. Besides this issue, a conventional intervention from M37 until the end of M38 is being set in order any minor
improvements or technical issues left to be tackled finally (following the same scheme as in WP6A). Then the Final
Runs – Phase B will continue without further major adaptations (in the known sense) until M44. This conventional
interval between the Final Runs Phases has been reduced to 2 months in order the end users not to face any severe
gap within the implementations and is facilitated by the fact that the 2 nd cycle of system improvements and
adaptations took already place in parallel to the Final Runs Phase A.
The Deliverable D5.5 “System Improvements report” due to M38 incorporates the actions within the subtask 5.2B
(e-applications) but also any other kind of actions that confronted any kind of deficiencies during all the Runs periods
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
121
including all related improvements within this 2 nd cycle of system’s debugging. Only the issues related to Task 5.4,
since they are related to global evolutions on the Rural Wings system will be addressed within the Deliverable D5.4
Issue 3.
In the following a brief overview of the WP5 Tasks allocated within the period M37-M48 will be given:
5.1 High level definition of the end-to-end satellite system architecture. THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED
DURING THE 2nd REPORTING PERIOD.
5.2 Adaptation and integration of e-platforms and e-tools: Two are the key components of this Task: CAP’s
performance and e-applications issues (e-platforms and e-tools).
A) CAP’s improvements
CAP’s development has been evolved adequately within the 2nd reporting period. Two main releases were
encountered while CAP is continuously subject to the consortium comments and to updates and improvements. The
Rural Wings offered e-applications were incorporated while new e-applications have been identified and added. CAP
was used through the Test Runs and new improvements, especially concerning the user (graphical) interface are in
order while debugging of certain technicalities is foreseen. To this respect, and since the Final Runs Phase A is
foreseen, CAP converges into a web “clever” portal, to “decide” for the users following similar cases found on the
web (for instance curriculumonline etc.). This clever portal will guide the user to select his preferred services (eplatforms and e-tools) according to his basic needs and own experience driving from the related tools database the
most suitable ones matching the users inquires. In a more general term, the e-platforms and e-tools database of
CAP will be further expanded to involve existing commercial or other similar e-tools beyond those offered by the
project partners. By this way the pool of applications offered by the Rural Wings will be expanded to include existing
applications available on the web and provide selection and recommendation of “best of breed” applications to be
used in the context of the Rural Wings. These new applications are being selected by the Consortium and are tested
prior to their implementation and inclusion into CAP. Thus, CAP will turn to a unique access point to all platforms and
e-tools that will be available under the Rural Wings umbrella in order all these e-tools to be integrated in an-onesystem service. Throughout the Final Runs – Phase B (M38-M44), FORTHnet will collect again the feedback from a
dramatically increased number of users and, elaborating on the feasibility and applicability of the proposed
suggestions will translate them again into additional requirements for the improvement of the project’s CAP in order
the received feedback to provide an added value to this integrated service tool. This process will be done in parallel
with the 2nd implementation phase (Test Runs) evolution, in order this CAP to comply with the user requirements
and with the remarks and suggestions of the project’s partners. All these activities will result in continuous updates of
the CAP tool which consequently lead to various updated versions in order these to be compatible to the
expectations of both the Rural Wings users and the various stakeholders resulting in a final clever portal Deliverable
of CAP; all the relevant actions concerning these continuous updates will be reported with the D5.6 “CAP Final
Release” due to M40.
To this respect, the large focus on technical aspects of the technology behind the portal (CMS, Database technology)
that was given in the previous versions (which were necessary for its proper development) will be gradually replaced
with focus on the pedagogical, learning and practical usefulness rationale behind its development. During M37-M48
more emphasis will be given to the user’s design choices while the requirements analysis will be expanded: The User
Needs analysis of the D3.1 will be profoundly used in order to be interpreted into specific requirements of CAP: effort
will be devoted to practical issues (linguistic issue, usability, previous evaluation results from the end users etc)
related to the facilitation of the user entering the CAP portal and its guidance inside through a user centered
approach in order the CAP’s usefulness within the overall project to be evident and demonstrated. Emphasis will be
given to the CAP’s transformation into a personalized and multilingual access portal to content making the utmost use
of the strong CMS features of the underlying technology.
SUB-TASK RESPONSIBLE:
 FORTHNET (for CAP’s improvements)
B) e-applications (e-platforms and e-tools) tests and adaptations (improvements).
During the 2nd reporting period, the platform providers made the main bulk of adaptations needed in order to ensure
the proper quality of their performance through the satellite platform. The main issue was the trade-off between the
quality of performance and the available satellite capacity which resulted in adaptations in higher or lower degree in
all project offered e-applications. Quite many tests were held before and during the Test Runs, while it is evident that
122
each e-application is substantially tested every time that is being used by an end-user through the satellite platform.
Additional tests that were identified included the examination of the simultaneous testing of groups of applications
through the satellite platform; the satellite service providers need to check how these e-applications perform in an
environment of a dramatically large number of end users. This issue is not directly connected to the e-applications
themselves but rather to the satellite adequacy to support the use of quite many applications and quite many end
users. Thus, this aspect is connected more to Task 5.4.
However, during the 3rd reporting period, D5.2 has been evaluated by the Satellite Service Providers (SSPs) in order
to be profoundly and critically assessed and validated and a first report of this D5.2 assessment by the SSPs has
already been submitted to the EC. Based on the feedback from the reviewers on D5.2 assessment by the SSPs the
following key conclusions can be drawn: There is a relationship between the selection of applications and the way
that the education partners are planning to use these and the technological limitations and performance of the
network. Both parties (satellite service providers and education partners) need to understand each other’s
requirements and needs as well as possibilities and limitations in order to provide realistic and sustainable solutions.
Scalability is an important issue that needs to be addressed and shared amongst all. Based on these, a more
profound discussion between SSPs and education platform providers took place in the beginning of the Final Runs
Phase A (July 2008), through an imperson meeting, the minutes of which were supposed to be treated as Deliverable
and were already sent to EC. The conclusions were a mapping of the available e-applications and the setting of
certain further optimisations tests especially to address scalability issues, that finally were carried out through the
Final Runs Phase A period (where a dramatic increase of the system’s end users took place). This imperson meeting
denoted mainly the fulfilment of Task 5.2 since it would resulted to the final optimized technical related issues and
tools both in terms of the e-applications and the satellite capacity monitoring and upgrade to accommodate the etools where needed.
On the other hand, the e-application providers made in parallel to the Final Runs Phase A (3rd reporting period) all
the needed minor adaptations and optimisations connected to the user-friendliness of the applications or added
more features or environments for a more professional level of users and performed additional validation tests of
their tools; all these were case dependent (on the users feedback through the Final Runs) and were enabled by the
Final Runs Phase A itself due to the large number of users involved. The Final Runs Phase A themselves consisted
simultaneously the final tests and validations of the e-applications through their implementation by the end users. By
this way, this Task is connected to the network usage results of WP7. Based on this feedback, many platform
providers scheduled specific interaction with the users at the pilot sites during the Final Runs in order to ensure
adequate performance and conducted additional optimisation tests. All these additional adaptations in a minor or not
way will be reported by the platform providers, where applicable and case driven, within D5.5 (M38).
Another important aspect of this Task is the identification and testing of new e-applications even outside Rural Wings
(commercial, open source etc) with learning concept. Such e-applications were identified also within the 3rd reporting
period (thalassokosmos, organic garden etc). By this way, a clear interaction with the content of the Scenarios of use
(WP4) takes place since the newly identified e-applications lead in the development of new scenarios and thus the
project’s aim at the development of a new cognitive based open learning system and environment takes place.
During the next period M37-M48, all consortium partners will be involved in the selection of more new e-applications
in order to be included in the Rural Wings pool of applications, be implemented and used by the end-users. The
results of all these activities of identifying and testing new applications will be reported within D5.5 due on M38 as
well.
It is clear that, inside this D5.5 the outcomes of all the previously mentioned related actions concerning Task
5.2 will be inserted; in other words every activity concerning Task 5.2 will be finally reported within the D5.5
“System’s improvements report” due on M38. With the delivery of D5.5, the main bulk of work related to Task
5.2 will have been accomplished, since during the conductance of the Final Runs Phase B (M38-M44) no
other major tests and optimisations will be necessary and foreseen because the system will have been
already optimised for the final phase of users implementations.
However, since the users’ feedback is continuous, the platform providers will constantly monitor the implementation
of their platforms and will be constantly assisting the end users towards this goal within the whole period of the Final
Runs Phase B. Thus, any more adjustments based on the user feedback are possible to take place. Furthermore,
the related content of the e-applications may need to be enhanced along with the insertion of new discovered ones.
These issues are directly connected to the redesign of the Scenarios of Use within task 4.5 and D4.1 Final version.
This interaction with the scenario and content developers is vital in order for the e-tools to integrate finally the
foreseen adapted scenarios for the applications in the pilot sites. At the end of the project an integrated Rural Wings
learning environment will have been developed.
123
To the above respect, despite the fact that no other deliverable in foreseen apart from D5.5, Task 5.2 will continue to
take place in parallel to Final Runs Phase B. However, based on the above, any additional adjustments to the
content of the existing e-applications or any new discovered ones and the related scenarios that will take place, as
described previously will be incorporated within D4.1 Final version; furthermore, any highlights of these actions will
be inserted within the 4th Annual Activity Report (M48).
TASK RESPONSIBLE:
 All platform providers (INSEAD, EA, TELEMEDICINE, FORTH/ERC, FOURIER, DBC FORTHnet) for
optimisations of their offered applications over the different satellite solutions through the Final Runs and
identification of new ones. FORTH is set as the group leader of the platform providers group.
 ICCS only for D5.5: for coordinating the platform providers to conduct the e-applications improvements and
gathering of results
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
 Satellite providers (Eutelsat, Avanti and Hellassat) for providing the necessary means and monitoring tools
(in relation to Task 5.4 and WP7)
 ALL partners for identifying new available e-applications
5.3. Wireless System adaptation, optimisation and integration (continuation of the previous 5.3 End-to-end
system validation task): THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED DURING THE 3rd REPORTING PERIOD.
5.4. End to End system adaptation, optimisation and integration (continuation of the previous 5.4 Satellite
system adaptation, optimisation and integration task): Based on the feedback from the end-users and the traffic
statistics collected through WP7, the Satellite Service Providers (SSPs) will verify the adequacy of the satellite
services and solutions put in place. In particular, within this work package the Rural Wings SSPs will adapt the
configuration of the traffic shaping and QoS protocols to the specific needs of the Rural Wings users and applications
(since a dramatically larger number of users will be involved). The SSPs will also investigate the adaptation and finetuning of service performance optimisation tools at MAC, IP and application layer (i.e. TCP acceleration, HTTP
acceleration). Particular and devoted tests will be carried on this subject between Astrium and TTSA since this
solution is the one that counts with the largest number of pilot sites deployed and some congestion issues were
detected during the last period. During the 2nd and 3rd reporting period, Astrium has set up and improved a test
environment in its premises (in Toulouse) to carry out a performance assessment of the satellite service solutions
provided in the Rural Wings project. The results of the first tests have been reported within the Deliverables of the 2nd
reporting period). Further tests were carried out within the 3rd reporting period (reported within D5.4 issue 2) and will
continue to take place in the 4th reporting period. In order to enlarge the project experience on satellite system and to
compare with the current Rural Wings satellite services, a performance test campaign will also be carried on on
another satellite service: Tooway the latest Eutelsat mass market offer not based on DVB-RCS but on DOCSIS
standard.
The results of the on site integration of local QoS device presented last year by ICCS will also be addressed in this
task.
A new final version of D5.4 issue 3 will incorporate all the above.
TASK RESPONSIBLE: ASTRIUM
Involved partners:
 HELLASSAT for satellite services adaptation and provisioning for sites in Cyprus and Greece .
 AVANTI for satellite services adaptation and provisioning for sites in UK .
 TTSA(TELEMEDICINE) for satellite services adaptation and provisioning for the other sites.
 ICCS for wireless local loop desing, adaptation & integration with the HELLASSAT services for sites in
Greece.
124
Deliverables:
D5.5: System Improvements report (M38)
Deliverable responsible: All platform providers (INSEAD, EA, TELEMEDICINE, FORTH/ERC, FORTHnet,
FOURIER, DBC) for the tools and applications where this is applicable, FORTHnet for CAP’s improved releases,
ICCS for coordination and presentation of results (FORTH is set the group leader of the platform providers group).
Involved partners: HELLASSAT, EUTELSAT, AVANTI, ALL partners
D5.4 Issue 3: End-to-end system design, validation and performance evaluation (Month 46)
Deliverable responsible: ASTRIUM
Involved partners: AVANTI, ICCS, HELLSSAT, EUTELSAT, TTSA
D5.6 “CAP Final Release” due to M40.
Deliverable responsible: FORTHnet
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
Output to deliverable or
TASK
Start
End
Input
M37
M44
interaction with
5.2
5.4
4.4, 4.5
M37
M46
Output to task
Internal report
D5.5 (M38)
6A.5 (Final Runs)
D5.6 (M40)
D5.1, task 7.3 and
6A5
D5.4 (M46)
125
Pilots – Implementation and Trials
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Participant id
Start date or starting event:
6.A
Month 7
RTD
EA
ICCS
ASTRI
UM
AVANT
I
EUTEL
SAT
DBC
UPB
A&O
UoA
EA
INSEA
D
SUIIE
HELLA
SSAT
UoB
FORT
H
SEUA
FORT
Hnet
TELEM
EDICI
NE
BGU
FOURI
ER
LAETSU
PBF
Person-months
per participant:
Participant id
Person-months
per participant:
Participant id
TUD
ERC
Person-months
per participant:
Objectives
a) To introduce the Rural Wings system and its applications in real environments.
b) To create a worldwide network of Learning Hubs in rural areas. These centres (in the initial phase schools,
public offices and health centres will serve as Learning Hubs) will be equipped with the necessary infrastructure in
order to support the project’s implementation. These Learning Hubs pilot sites will serve as working models within
which the project’s activities will take place. The Learning Hubs should not emulate traditional training centres. The
Learning Hubs will be a place for digital creation, fostering the human spirit, civic development and collective
efficiency.
c) Utilization of the ICT capabilities for promoting the local community’s interests. Special attention will be
given to the use of ICTs to serve the local community’s goals. The use of ICTs is expected to contribute strongly to
the connection of the young people’s education with real life in their community and the transformation of the
Learning Hubs to communication centres for social and economic development.
Description of work
6A.1 Identification of the pilot groups of users: THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED DURING THE 3rd
REPORTING PERIOD.
Only very few pilot sites are pending identification. This identification will take place within the first months
of the last 4th reporting period (until M40). Responsibles are the corresponding NCs.
6A.2 Technical definitions of the pilot sites: THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED DURING THE 3rd
REPORTING PERIOD.
Only very few pilot sites are still pending as denoted iin 6A.1. This technical definition will take place within
the first months of the last 4th reporting period (until M40). Responsibles are the corresponding NCs and
SSPs.
At a first stage this technical definition involves a site survey for the proper installation of the DVB/RCS equipment.
At a second stage it mainly involves the study of the architecture of the local WiFi Networks or LAN networks that
may be deployed in each site so that the optimum solution can be found for the connection of as-many-users as
possible. For the pending pilot sites within France, the hybrid satellite-wireless architecture will be examined on site
and ASTRIUM will provide coordination of the site survey activity of the terrestrial wireless network and final pilot site
end-to-end architecture taking into account the feedback coming from the performed site survey (WP Task 6A.3)
6A.3 Installation of the pilot sites – Learning Hubs: THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED DURING THE 3rd
REPORTING PERIOD.
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
126
Only very few pilot sites are still pending as denoted iin 6A.1. This installation will take place within the first
months of the last 4th reporting period (until M40). Responsibles are the corresponding SSPs for the DVB/RCS
installation. All the corresponding partners and NCs according to their responsibilities as described in the tables in
Section 8.1.1.
6A.4 Development of support material (short manuals, on-line support): The identification, tracking and
resolution of the technical problems related with the DVB/RCS system installation and implementation requires the
development of proper user support, including manuals and customer support help lines. HELLASSAT, EUTELSAT
and AVANTI (through their local providers) continuously provide this support, as designed and implemented
previously in the project. Initial technical support for the terrestrial networks and the technical definition of the pilot
sites is provided to the NCs by ASTRIUM, especially to Romania, Poland, Estonia, Israel and Sweden.
TASK RESPONSIBLE:
 EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT and AVANTI for support material/on line help for DVB/RCS terminals for all the
allocated countries.
 AVANTI for full technical and on line support in the UK and Hungary.
 ASTRIUM for technical support material for France.
 ICCS for any other technical-on line support apart from DVB/RCS in Greece, Georgia and Armenia.
 HELLASSAT full technical and on line support in Cyprus.
 FORTHnet and FORTH for technical support and consulting to the University of Aegean (especially for any
pilot sites installed in Crete, Greece).
6A.5 Pilots – Test Run, Final Run-Phase A and Final Run-Phase B: The scenarios developed in WP4 will be
implemented in three major cycles of user-centered work, being treated as case studies tested in real life conditions
at the pilot sites. For each pilot activity, the developed Scenarios of Use (WP4) are presented by the National
Coordinators, with assistance by the Application (platform) Providers, to the end users, so that the best possible
match is made between the pilot activities and the local needs and circumstances. Users’ reactions to the service will
be monitored and analyzed, as foreseen by WP7. These user trials serve evaluation purposes, but importantly also
give users the chance to provide feedback to the project and its technical (especially usability) and pedagogical
aspects. The first of the three foreseen cycles of user-centred implementation (Test Run) was initiated in M22 and
was continuing beyond its foreseen end, evolving dynamically in each country and pilot site, merging into the phase
of initial evaluation in the beginning of the third project year (M25-M27). In this first phase, the installed Learning
Hubs gradually started their operation with some initial user involvement, whereby end users become familiar with the
Rural Wings technological and learning environment, and this environment is for the first time tested in real usage
settings. The main objective of the Test Runs period is to facilitate the consortium to identify possible technical and
application problems that affect proper implementation of the project. Thus the Test Run provided feedback for the
improvement of the provided services and the intensive involvement of more end users in the use of more
applications in the subsequent Final Run. By M30, the experience gained during this first phase of trials and the
assessment of pedagogical and technological aspects have been transformed into all possible necessary
modifications and improvements in the satellite/terrestrial network arrangements, the e-applications, the pedagogical
design (scenarios) and the evaluation approach. Thus the project was inserted into the long phase of Final Run
activities. During the Final Runs phases of system’s deployment and implementation, it is crucial to have a good
reporting system that keeps track of deployment, of (design and technical) issues and of actions taken to deal with
those. A more coherent and common approach to keep track of all related information of a pilot site (contact
information, profile of users, installation information..) etc is being applied. EA provided the National Coordinators with
templates requesting the necessary information. Again, as the number of test sites was dramatically increased, it
becomes necessary to maintain a good overview, to be able to track changes and to use information related to
individual test sites (e.g. contact persons, training, applications, etc). The specific template was already developed
and initiated within Final Runs Phase A in order to provide proper documentation for all implementation parameters.
This template involves a comprehensive overview of all sites, and includes previously existing templates provided by
the various involved partners (i.e. SSPs, platform providers to show i.e. coordinates, installation data, applications
ran, number of computers, description of the local usage context, LAN, Furthermore, sort of sheets of
acknowledgment indicating what was placed and installed were provided by any stakeholder involved in any
equipment installation. By this way, and since the Final Runs Phases incorporate a large number of sites (128) and a
large number of users accordingly, the project avoids confusions about status and number of sites, type and number
of users, support issues, improvements required and planned. Scalability of deployment towards 128 sites will be
demonstrated also through this way. The Rural Wings project uses the data inserted within this template in order to
127
provide the relevant information of “what happened during the project implementation phases (Final Runs)” in a more
comprehensive and easy to read format since a large number of pilot sites is being involved. By this way, an
overview is being made on what happens in the pilot sites during implementations. This also facilitates the better
exchange and communication from especially national contacts on management and WP coordination level. The
Final Run period spreads from M30 to M44. In these fifteen months, end user activities in each pilot site will cluster
in two phases, Final Run Phase A and Final Run Phase B, each of which will be of an approximate length of six
months. This leaves an extra three months per pilot site within the overall Final Run period, for readjustments,
improvements, interim assessments, etc. The Final Runs Phase has already been activated within the 3 rd reporting
period (while the related activities in each pilot site started on M30).up to M36. Of course, activities within the pilot
sites are continuous through the whole period of M30-M44; however, M37 and M38 are set as the conventional
overall milestone period between the two cycles, Phase A and Phase B. This period was used for reporting
progress for every partner and thus for the NCs and for their respective pilot sites, as well as for summing up
formative evaluation findings and inserting the relevant improvements in the corresponding aspects of the
project. Immediately after the 3rd annual review meeting that will be held on M38, denoting also M6, the Final Runs
Phase B will officially commence. Overall, NCs are responsible for organising the activities in their countries, planning
ahead, keeping track of progress, and resolving problems and deviations, in close collaboration with all involved
partners (evaluation teams, application providers). It should be stressed that in the Final Runs Phase B, users will be
involved in more and more advanced scenarios of use, acting more freely and by their own intitiative, as an outcome
of intensive and continuous co-operation between the learning team, the NCs and the users. The underlying concept
foresees that in each of the cycles of user-centred work (Final Run Phase A and Final Run Phase B), less and
less guidance will be needed, giving the chance to the users to actively participate in the co-design of the final
version of the Rural Wings service, forming, as individual empowered learners and as learning communities, their
own solutions to match their own personal and local needs.
TASK RESPONSIBLES:
A) All National Coordinators for the pilot sites in their countries for the whole implementation. All National
Coordinators are responsible for filling in and updating the specific template that was created by EA (see below). All
National Coordinators are the sole responsibles for the content of this template for the respective implementation in
their own country. The NCs (and all partners in respect to related activities) should be ready to fill-in and update the
relevant template entries during the overall implementation phases (Final Runs Phases A and B).
B) EA, as the WP leader, during the whole implementation phase (final Runs Phases A and B), will:
i) Monitor and coordinate the whole implementation procedure in the strategic level in all countries. EA will coordinate
the whole procedure of the implementation process within Final Runs Phase A and Final Runs Phase B.
ii) EA also defined and developed the template during the 3rd reporting period, introducing specific entries related to
all aspects of the overall implementation process and defining the guidelines for their completion. NCs are the whole
responsibles for filling in and updating this template in constant time intervals according to the specifications posed by
EA. EA will coordinate the whole procedure and will ensure that all NCs comply with the above activities and
responsibilities and will provide all information related to the pilot sites for both Final Runs Phases A and B
(description of the pilot sites, implementation outcomes etc).
iii) EA will provide the implementation results in a Final overview document. In particular, towards the end of each
Final Runs Phase (both Phase A and B), EA will organise the data and feedback provided by the NCs. Thus, this
overview document will be provided as follows:
a. at the end of Final Runs Phase A (M36): the document “Overview of Final Runs implementation:
interim results (Final Runs Phase A)” will be delivered as internal report on M36
b. At the end of the Final Runs Phase B (M44): the document “Overview of the overall Final Runs
implementation” will be delivered in a deliverable format (to be decided within the 4 th reporting
period) on M44 incorporating the overall results of both Final Runs Phases (getting the overview
results of Phase A and focusing on the overview results of Phase B).
6A.6 Technical support-system maintenance and satellite network monitoring: This task started with the
installation of the first Learning Hubs (M14) and will finish with the end of the Final Runs and (possible) de-installation
DVB/RCS equipment (M44). The foreseen technical support can be divided in two main categories: the technical
support and the maintenance of the DVB/RCS equipment, which is being done by the satellite providers; and the
technical support and the maintenance of the rest of the equipment (WiFi, LAN, PCs, etc.), which is being done by
the NC of each country. The Satellite providers (HELLASSAT, EUTELSAT, AVANTI) perform the satellite network
monitoring, with the purpose mainly to monitor the satellite capacity usage by the users, the traffic profile of each site,
the % of each platform usage etc. All this data are valuable for the evaluation (WP7), since it provides valuable data
for the validation of the DVB/RCS services and for the monitoring of the implementation procedure.
128
TASK RESPONSIBLE:
 EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT and AVANTI for the support and the maintenance of the DVB/RCS equipment and
the satellite network monitoring for the allocated pilot sites.
 UoB for all the rest equipment (apart WiFi and DVB/RCS) in Spain.
 INSEAD for all the rest equipment (apart WiFi and DVB/RCS) in France and Sweden (SMEs).
 ASTRIUM for the terrestrial wireless networks in Spain and France
 AVANTI for all equipment in the UK.
 ICCS for the terrestrial networks (WiFis) and other equipment in Greece (as specified in Section 8).
 EA/UoA for all the rest of equipment apart from DVB/RCS in Greece (as specified in Section 8).
 HELLASSAT for all equipment in Cyprus.
 A&O for all the equipment apart DBV/RCS in Estonia.
 PBF for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS in Poland.
 UPB for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS in Romania.
 SUIIE for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS in the Tarfala site in Sweden.
 BGU for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS in Israel.
 LAE-TSU for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS in Georgia.
 SEUA for all the equipment apart DVB/RCS in Armenia.
INVOLVED PARTNERS: FORTH, FORTHnet technical support to the University of Aegean and especially to any
pilot sites that will be deployed in Crete region (apart from the DVB/RCS equipment).
IMPORTANT NOTE: Since the synergies and the responsibilities especially in WP5 and 6 are very
complicated for each partner, the corresponding tables of Section 8.1.1 should be regarded as the ultimate
reference for everything that it is presented as task responsibility in WPs descriptions.
IMPORTANT SCHEDULE NOTE:
As the project moved into a phase of upscaling to the targeted 126 test sites, the deployment management
(scheduling, support) were extremely critical. The Coordinator and the Consortium aimed for a realistic and feasible
schedule for the deployment phase. This has already been described in the above while mitigation strategies
especially for current pending installations due to specific reasons were planned. It should be noted that the delays
that occur (based to our previous experience) are more or less case dependent. For that reason, the project needs to
carefully stick to the timing of the Final Runs phases as described below. In other words the (timing of the) feedback
loops need to be respected in order to obtain valuable evaluation results as is planned in WP7.
To this respect and in order to be absolutely clear and to avoid any confusion, the planning that has already
described in the previous tasks is given herein in a table deadlines format. By this way, the whole implementation
issue and the evaluation process as it is described in WP7 are shown in each of their steps in order the partnership to
have a clear view of all the cycles of implementations and evaluation and thus, the different planned activities
(installation, training, application, evaluation) to be clear in a substantial way. The various cycles of implementations
are given in the following:
2nd implementation Phase
Preparation actions
Action
Deadline (end of Month)
Ultimate Deadline (if delays
occur for specific objective
reason and case dependent
ONLY)
Identification of the pilot sites (Task 6A.1)
M29 (May 2008)
M30
Technical Definition of pilot sites (Task
M29
M32 (August 2008)
6A.2)
129
Installations of the pilot sites (Task 6A.3)
M30 (June 2008)
M32 (only in exceptional cases
up to end of M33*).
* This applies for the hybrid pilot sites
where additional time is required fort he
design and installation of the wireless
local loop.
Development of support material (Task
Continuous
6A.4)
Deliverable D6A.1: Pilot Sites – Learning
M30 (June 2008)
Hubs (responsibles NCs, SSPs)
Final Runs Phases and Evaluation cycles (M30-M44)
(the Evaluation cycles refer to WP7 and are only mentioned here in order to provide an overall
timeschedule for all key project activities)
Action
Start
Final Runs Phase A
End (end of month)
M30 (beginning of June 2008)
M36 (end of December 2008)
M28 April 2008
M31 (end of July 2008)
Preliminary evaluation tests
M30
M31
Evaluation implementation and Testing
M32 (beginning of August 2008)
M36 (end of December 2008)
Implementations according to Task 6A.5
(Template design and development by EA)
Set up of evaluation framework
Task 7.4, WP7
(Task 7.5, WP7)
Deliverable
D7.3
Holistic
M31
Evaluation
Framework
Time interval for reporting to EC
M37 (beginning of January 2009)
M38 (end of February 2009)
Assessment of implementations (WP6A)
Continuous
M38 (end of February 2009)
and
evaluation
(WP7),
Finalisation
of
improvements cycle on system (WP5) and
evaluation (WP7).
Deliverable 7.4 Network Traffic
M36
Deliverable D7.5 Evaluation results
M37
Internal report: “Overview of Final Runs
M36
implementation: interim results (Final
Runs Phase A)” by EA
Final Runs Phase B
M39 (beginning of March 2009)
Implementations according to Task 6A.5
130
M44 (end of August 2009)
Evaluation improvements and adjustments
Continuous
M39 (end of March 2009)
M40 (beginning of April 2009)
M44 (end of August 2009)
(Task 7.4, WP7)
Evaluation implementation and Testing
(Task 7.5, WP7)
“Overview of the overall Final Runs
M44
implementation” by EA
Deliverable 7.4 Network Traffic (update)
M45
Deliverable D7.5 Final Evaluation Results
M46
(update)
M46
Deliverable D4.1: Rural Wings Scenarios of
Use – Final Version
ALL INVOLVED PARTNERS SHOULD STICK TO THE ABOVE SCHEDULE AND FOLLOW CLOSELY THE
POSED DEADLINES
Deliverables
D6A.2: “Overview of the overall Final Runs implementation” (M44)
Deliverable responsible: EA
Involved partners: All National Coordinators as described in section 8.1.1 for filling in and updating the content of
the template.
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start
End
Input from task
Output to task
6A.4
M37
M42
-
6B.2, 6.A5
M30
M36
6A1, 6A2, 6A3,
6A4, 6B.1, 6B.2
(WP7 evaluation,
test run
assessment)
M37
M38
M39
M25
M44
M44
6A.5
6A.6
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
D6B.1
Final Runs: M30-M44
Interval: M37-M38
-
-
(WP7 evaluation)
131
-
Training of the users
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Start date or starting event:
6.B
Month 2
Training
EA
Participant id
Person-months per
participant:
Participant
LAE-TSU
id
Personmonths per
participant:
ICCS
ASTRI
UM
UPB
A&O
AVANT
I
TUD
EA
INSEA
D
HELLA
SSAT
UoB
FORT
H
UoA
SEUA
FORT
Hnet
BGU
FOURI
ER
PBF
Objectives
a) To train and introduce the NC to the new technology (DBV/RCS) and provide the necessary initial technical
support and expertise with respect to satellite-based communication network systems
b) To train and introduce the NC to the available software platforms and applications
c) The NC coordinators to train and introduce the local agents (key persons form the local communities) to the
new technologies, proposed applications and to the evaluation/validation instruments
Description of work:
6B.1:Training of the National coordinators
The main part of work for National Coordinators’ training has already been completed. In M37-M44, the project
Coordinator, ICCS, in collaboration with the satellite providers, the e-application providers, the developers of the
Scenarios of Use, the Evaluation team, and under the coordination of EA as leader of WP6A and WP6B, will use all
available opportunities to keep NCs updated and support them, so that all foreseen activities are smoothly and
effectively implemented in all countries and all pilot sites. In addition to every-day communication and exchange (on
demand by the NC), all plenary project meetings will also be exploited to this end, through the organisation of special
NC Training sessions.
TASK RESPONSIBLE: ASTRIUM through its technical coordinating role and the provision for initial technical
support to the NC, EUTELSAT/TELEMEDICINE, HELLASSAT and AVANTI for their own allocated countries
respectively, ICCS (for the planning and organization of the whole training activities of this task), EA for coordinating
the NCs
INVOLVED PARTNERS: ALL PARTNERS for participating and especially ASTRIUM for offering its valuable
expertise. ALL e-application providers for the presentation of their platforms to the NCs, EA, BGU and INSEAD as
developers of the Scenarios of use.
6B.2 Training activities – Info days – Workshops- Development of support material: Building on the knowledge
gained through Task 6B.1 activities, as well as through the End User Training activities already implemented, NCs
will continue organising local training activities in their countries, in order to familiarize the local users with the
relevant technology and to decrease their resistance to change. In the framework of the workshops, end users will
be informed about the project’s approach. The project will consider also the importance of appropriate training also
during the test phases A and B in regular time intervals while the National Coordinators are encourage to exploit
their already given resources for many training activities in alocal level. These training activities from the NCs to their
end users and “local agents” involve a great deal of training regarding the new holistic evaluation scheme that is
described within WP7. This will also enable the development of a common vision and implementation of better
communication among the partners which would benefit the level of motivation and thereby performance of the
overall project. Efforts will continue to be made, and even more, will be intensified, in order to enhance the
involvement of the relevant stakeholders, e.g. Departments of Education, Regional Development authorities, etc., in
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
132
order to increase the potential for sustainability. The deep commitment of the various stakeholders (NCs, local
coordinators, users) to the project is of paramount importance in order to assure creative community involvement.
The mobilization of stakeholders will take place through:
 Continuous dialogue with local stakeholders in order to assure that they feel this is their project and it
responds to their needs.
 Additional workshops and open days will be organized during implementation in the pilot sites in order to
maintain the motivation and the interest of the local stakeholders and to attract new users.
 At least one workshop will be organized with community leaders by each NC
The kind and the nature of the training activities that will take place in every country is being decided by the NCs,
based on the special needs and circumstances of each country and pilot site. The above mentioned activities are in
that sense indicative of a large set of possible training activities that could be implemented. More than one workshop
may be organised, or specific on-site training activities could take place instead of general workshops. End User
Training activities will tend to cluster in cycles, parallel to the evolution of pilot activities (WP6A). However, user
support and updating from the NCs will never cease.
Through the previous 2 years (Test Runs and Final Runs Phase A) very extended training activities took place
resulting in too extensive and oversized D6B.1 (first and updated versions) Deliverables. Although, training activities
will continue to take place within the Final Runs Phase B, there will be no other Deliverable in the type of D6B.1. After
all, the main bulk of the end users training has alresdy been accomplished within Final Runs Phase A. In the
framework of Final Runs Phase B certain 1-2 key focused workshops or training schools are foreseen (to cover also
the evaluation WP7 framework) in a more central and general manner incorporating the presence of quite enough
end users concentrated altogether in a training place. Thus, the outcome of this WP in terms of Deliverables will be
the proceedings and /or training material in the framework of these focused events. The Rural Wings Consortium will
soon define this 1-2 key focused training workshops (since ideas and candidates already are in order) and thus,
these will consist the main Deliverables of this WP in the 4th reporting period.
TASK RESPONSIBLE: All NCs
Involved partners: All partners that may have knowledge to share
NOTE: EA which is the WP leader will monitor and coordinate the whole training procedures of task 6B.2 in the
strategic level.
Deliverables
D6B.2 “Key focused Training Workshop proceedings (M44)
Deliverable responsible: EA, All NCs
Involved partners: All partners
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start
End
6B.1
M37
M44
6B.2
M37
M44
Input from task
6A.4, 6B.1
Output to task
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
6B.2, 6A.5
provision of training workshop
material to the NCs
D6B.2
6A.3, 6A.5
133
Evaluation
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Start date or starting event:
7
Month 7
RTD
ICCS / TUD / AVANTI
Participant id
Person-months per
participant:
Participant id
Person-months per
participant:
Participant id
AVANTI
EA
INSEAD
ERC
UoB
FORTH
UPB
A&O
UoA
TUD
FORTHnet
BGU
FOURIER
PBF
ICCS
ASTRIUM
EUTELSAT
HELLASAT
TELEMEDI
CINE
LAE-TSU
SEUA
Person-months per
participant:
Objectives
The aim of the evaluation process is to act as a parallel procedure to the project’s implementation phase, so as to
synthesize from an innovation perspective all relevant results from the project’s implementation. In the framework of
this WP, the project team will try to transform the initial results to concrete recommendations to all the
stakeholders in the project, both those working in the field of satellite tele-education applications, as well as
to satellite service providers. More specifically, the aim of the proposed evaluation procedures is firstly to
determine whether the claimed results are valid and secondly to obtain qualitative and quantitative evidence of
the positive project impact of the Rural Wings offered satellite educational services and applications to the
envisaged user groups in rural areas. The evaluation plan will give a mechanism that will help improve the quality of
the project. This will be achieved by monitoring the relevant parameters that can be applied to this project and by
taking actions to correct any processes that degrade the quality (as this is defined in the different related aspects)
and deviate from the targets set.
Thus, in concrete terms, the objectives of WP7 are:
1. to evaluate and provide recommendations for improvement the usability of the RW-platform and the
integrated applications
2. to obtain qualitative and quantitative evidence of the impact (either in pedagogical or more general terms) of
the tele-education applications and services on the users groups in rural areas
3. to synthesize and analyze the gathered evidence from an innovation perspective
4. to transform the results into recommendations for stakeholders in the field of (a) tele-education applications
and (b) satellite service providers.
Description of work
During the 3rd reporting period, an overall holistic evaluation scheme incorporating all evaluation components and
introducing an evaluation towards the socioeconomic impact of the project in rural communities was introduced and
established. The usability and the network traffic and reliability evaluation continued to be components of this holistic
approach, adjusted accordingly following the overall evaluation scheme which is being tested and implemented
through the project’s 2nd implementation phase – Final Runs Phases A and B.
The pedagogical evaluation scheme is addressed by examining the broader learning dimension of the overall holistic
evaluation scheme addressing the socioeconomic impact of the project in the rural communities. In other words, the
pedagogical evaluation issue is being merged inside the broader learning impact of the overall holistic approach. To
this respect certain tasks (present in the previous versions of TA) were merged and inserted into new ones.
7.4 Development of a holistic concrete evaluation framework for the Rural Wings project (including all the
evaluation components); integration and finalization of the Task 7.1 Evaluation framework. (TASK
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
134
RESPONSIBLE: ICCS)
Subtask 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the socioeconomic
impact. (SUBTASK RESPONSIBLE: ICCS)
Subtask 7.4.2 Update and adjustments of the usability evaluation design and instruments for the
Final Runs reference to the overall holistic evaluation framework (SUBTASK RESPONSIBLE: TUD)
Subtask 7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation (e-platforms and e-tools)
(SUBTASK RESPONSIBLE: AVANTI, SSPs, PLATFORM PROVIDERS)
Subtask 7.4.4 Network traffic and reliability evaluation (formerly part of task 7.3.1). (SUBTASK
RESPONSIBLE: ASTRIUM)
This Task involving the design of the overall holistic evaluation framework has already been finalized within the 3 rd
reporting period with the delivery of D7.3. However, the components of this Task (the subtasks described above)
indicate the way and the manner of how the evaluation testing and implementations is and will take place within the
Final Runs Phase B (as done within the Final Runs Phase A). In this sense the principles and methodologies of this
Task are still valid and will be the roadmap of all related evaluation testing activities to be conducted within Final
Runs Phase B as well. To avoid long texts at this point, each of the following Tasks and subtasks activities, as
described in the previous TA version for M25-M42, are given again herein in every detail in the APPENDIX of this
WP7. This APPENDIX is still a substantial part of the present contract in order to ensure the commitment of the
relevant contractors and to provide the necessary guidelines and reference to the involved partners for the proper
conductance of task 7.5 that follows.
7.5 Testing within Final Runs Phases. Since the Rural Wings consortium takes into serious account the importance
of the evaluation of the system and since an overall holistic evaluation framework has been conducted, a first cycle of
testing has been initiated during the 3rd reporting period. This evaluation testing cycle was initiated in the middle of
the Final Runs Phase A (M33) and will continue until the end of the evaluation process, roughly until the end of the
project’s duration with the finalization of the Final Runs Phase B on M44. Thus, this Task will take place in parallel to
the 2nd Implementation project Phase for the conductance of Evaluation Tests during Final Run – Phases A and B
to take place from M30-M44. The Evaluation testing will follow the guidelines set within Task 7.4 (as seen in the
Appendix) regarding the design of the overall holistic evaluation framework and will evolve as follows:
 Preliminary testing with the new enhanced instruments set on Task 7.4 tookplace between M30-M31 to the
32 pilot sets operated during the Test Runs (1st implementation phase) and to selected one or more of the
rest pilot sites that were made operational during the initial months of the Final Runs Phase A. This
preliminary evaluation acted as preliminary testing of the new evaluation instruments in order to provide
feedback to the Task 7.4 leaders.
 The evaluation testing was implemented in its full extend, as defined within the previous Task 7.4, from M33
until M38 and will cover all the Phase A of Final Runs. The evaluation results of this Phase and with all the
holistic evaluation components as described in subtasks 7.4.1 – 7.4.4 will be included within the
Deliverable D7.5 (interim results) due on M37.
 Since the network traffic data and relevant analysis for the Final Runs Phase A are currently finalized within
the D7.4 “Network traffic and reliability evaluation for the Rural Wings project” (Month 36), a new cycle of this
related work and analysis of network traffic data for the Final Runs Phase B will be made. This cycle will
incorporate data from M37 until M46 (January 2009 until end of October 2009), that is from the whole
duration of Final Runs Phase B and incorporating the monthly basis of the relevant methodology, and will
result in the Deliverable D7.6 “Network traffic and reliability evaluation for the Rural Wings project –
Final Runs Phase B” due on M46.
 Depending on the feedback gathered from the evaluation process during the Final Runs Phase A, continuous
improvements and adjustments of the evaluation framework will take place. This process will end on M39
where the evaluation testing and the overall holistic evaluation framework and instruments will be adjusted.
Thus, the evaluation testing process will be again repeated and implemented within Final Runs Phase B from
M40 until M44. The related results will be inserted with the appropriate deliverable D7.7 “Rural Wings Final
Evaluation report - Overall Results Analysis of the overall holistic evaluation” due on M46 as seen in
Task 7.6 that follows.
The data collection for the usability evaluation tests will be done in a local level from all NCs. In this case, NCs would
have to give the proper support to their local users in order this task to be conducted properly. This task is connected
strongly to the second implementation phase since the Final Runs will start at month M30 and will finish at
135
M44. All holistic evaluation components will be tested as defined in Task 7.4 while the overall evaluation instruments
will be implemented. According to subtask 7.4.2 the on-line tool that is provided by the Technical University Dresden
(TUD) will be adjusted and exploited appropriately in order to facilitate the overall data collection. In all cases of the
implementation of the evaluation instruments (interviews, focus groups, questionnaires etc), the NCs would have to
give the proper support to the local users in order to use these tools. The overall data collection and processing will
be done under the ICCS coordination while TUD, ASTRIUM, AVANTI, platform providers and the NCs will be strongly
involved in the relevant processing as defined in Task 7.4. EA and the rest consortium partners in this Task will have
consulting and supporting role.
TASK RESPONSIBLE:
ICCS for the coordination of the data gathering and the overall data processing and presentation of results
including the socioeconomic impact data and results.
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
 All the NCs for the data collection (interview, questionnaires etc.) from the end users and the coordination in
local level.
 TUD, ASTRIUM, AVANTI, EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, PLATFORM PROVIDERS (group leader: FORTH) as
defined in Task 7.4 will be involved in the relevant data gathering and data and results process according to
their own responsibilities in Task 7.4 as these will be implemented through the testing procedure of this Task
7.5.
7.6 System’s Final Evaluation outcome and Production of Rural Wings final evaluation Report: Once a solid
evaluation framework has been adequately designed, evolved and tested, the system’s final evaluation outcome will
take place incorporating all results from all Phases (A and B) of the Final Runs – 2nd project implementation phase
and from all the 128 pilot sites of the project. Immediately after the end of the project’s implementation (M44), the
delivery of the D7.7 Rural Wings Final Evaluation report will take place (M46) giving input to development of the
project’s Business plan. The results concerning the users reaction on the evaluation of the infrastructure and services
are among the most important elements of the market investigation (WP8) and a strong collaboration between the
WP7 and WP8 is foreseen. It should be noted that a great deal of the work within the framework of this WP is
foreseen for the next project year.
APPENDIX OF THE OUTLINE OF TASK 7.4:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION AS GIVEN in TA for M25-M42 for consortium reference
In the following a detailed description of each Task or subtask provided in the previous outline will take place referring
to the activities of WP7 to be held during the period M25-M44. The reader may find all details regarding the partners
involvement and the responsibilities to be undertaken by each consortium member.
7.4 Development of a holistic concrete evaluation framework for the Rural Wings project (including all the
evaluation components); integration and finalization of the Task 7.1 Evaluation framework.
This is the key task of this WP for the whole period. The project team will build a concrete evaluation framework that
will adopt a multidisciplinary approach in order to analyze the results and the innovation value of the offered services
and applications. This evaluation framework will include multiple evaluation components and instruments (socio
economic impact, usability tests, technical assessment of the network system by the technical partners, all related
questionnaires and other instruments such as focus groups etc.) that will be used as an integrated evaluation tool
during the 2nd implementation phase (Final Runs Phase A and Phase B) of the project implementation.
In order to get valid and transferable outcomes from the project, the evaluation approach will be reinforced during the
next project years: following the outcomes of the evaluation components implemented and conducted during the 1st
project implementation phase (Test Runs), the evaluation will be conducted from now on, in a more systematic and
more coordinated way. An overall holistic concept for the establishment of one coherent “Evaluation Framework”
addressing all components (technical, usability, learning etc) will be conducted in the framework of this Task. Some of
these components (usability, network traffic and technical component) were designed and tested during the 2nd
reporting period and the 1st implementation phase (Test Runs). These evaluation components will continue to run
and implemented during the 2nd implementation phase (Final Runs) but will be adjusted and fine-tuned according to
136
the overall holistic evaluation approach. Some other evaluation components (pedagogical) were tried during the past
period but with no large elaboration. This pedagogical evaluation component will now be merged into the broader
learning impact of the overall holistic evaluation framework that is going to be designed and implemented during the
M25-M42 period and the Final Runs.
Evaluation Framework
The evaluation framework will provide clear instructions on the evaluation of the Runs Phases, and on how to
process the outcomes, in order to feedback the conclusions and recommendations into the implementation
framework. An overall evaluation approach will be described in Deliverable D7.3. The approach will be holistic and
will include a method to measure the socio-economic impact of the Rural Wings in rural communities (e.g. indicators
could be number of businesses/hotels setting up homepages on the web, number of local inhabitants buying
computers/laptops, etc). The means of data collection will be carefully defined to ensure consistency in
implementation. Involvement of the National Coordinators together with the “local agents' to act as the information
collectors will contribute mostly to a more effective approach. One most important issue that will need much closer
evaluation is scalability (in terms of installation, training and bandwidth usage but also in terms of integration of the
satellite-based solutions in predominantly terrestrial network environments.)
It should also be noticed that this evaluation plan will include evaluation of the technology in comparison with
previous developed satellite communication standards and with other competitive terrestrial broadband solutions
(DSL). For this reason results from previous surveys with the use of older satellite communication standards will be
used as well as results from other European projects, which have already used these standards and were funded
either by ESA of EC. By that way the project will have a very solid ground of previous results based on which it will
perform the data collection and analysis of its own results drawing very useful conclusions. Efforts will be made in
order the produced outcomes to be useful and to be communicated to the consortium in executing the project as well
as to the wider community and especially to the stakeholders (e.g. Government, Representative Stakeholder Groups
etc.) in order to demonstrate by that way the outcomes of the project.
This task starts on M27 directly after the implementation of the Test Runs and the directly after the evaluation
process that was used then which gathered the preliminary feedback. It will be elaborated for M27-M39 receiving
feedback from Phase A of the Final Runs (in order the overall holistic evaluation framework to be anticipated and
interacted) with a time interval of M37-M38 for the project reporting to EC. During this period the following will take
place:
i)
a holistic evaluation framework will be set, designed and delivered (D7.3) on M31.
ii)
Through the evaluation testing (Task 7.5) continuous feedback will be gathered leading to constant
improvements and adjustments of this framework during the Final Runs Phase A implementation. This
assessment will be continuous and will lead to the delivery of the holistic evaluation results (D7.5) on
M37.
iii)
This process will continue until M39 in order to lead to possible adjustments of the evaluation instruments
and to give input to the evaluation implementation and testing in parallel to the Final Runs Phase B that
will last until M44. All gathered results including the framework improvements will be included within the
relevant final evaluation deliverables related to Task 7.6 towards the end of the project.
It is very important to be made clear that this task will have an interaction with the results from all the evaluation tests
during the Final Runs (Task 7.5), because these results will play an important role in the definition of the final
evaluation methodology providing an “overall, global approach” of the whole evaluation issue of the users responses.
As mentioned earlier the overall evaluation framework will consist of the overall approach including a socio economic
impact analysis along with the usability evaluation and the network traffic and reliability evaluation (technical
component) which were tested and examined during the 2 nd reporting period and the 1st implementation phase. The
latter two components (usability and technical) will be adjusted properly according to the overall holistic design of the
evaluation framework. Since for the usability and the technical evaluation components specific consortium partners
were in charge (which already have produced the respective methodology) and since for the overall holistic
evaluation framework a reallocation of resources took place, this Task is divided into the following 4 subtasks, all
of which are components and parts of the overall evaluation framework.
Subtask 7.4.1 Design of the overall holistic evaluation framework including the socioeconomic impact.
The following Key conceptual areas will be investigated as initial guidelines of the whole approach:
137







Capacity building and performance – what added value does RW offer to its user communities?
Ownership of technology and cost – is there a sense of ownership or appropriation of the technology via
use? How has it been integrated into the everyday lives of the people in remote areas?
User motivation – individual/collective: what is the motivating factors underlying use? Have new needs
been created?
Diversity of user groups – their needs and expectations & the alignment of project/regional/national
needs with this: the diversity of our sample group is a great strength of this project and should be
embraced. How do users differ in their expectations and experiences of RW and how can the services
offered by RW adapt better to this?
Learning activity models – the three contexts of school, work and home are examined here to understand
how learning can and is being facilitated by RW?
Opportunities for the future opened – sustainability in terms of jobs/ professional development skills, user
training (e.g. teacher training) etc.
Quality of life and future strategy: finally, by nature of the remoteness of these communities, what
improvements have been enabled by RW in terms of cultural and social wellbeing and what new links
have been forged?
Reference to the above, key elements will also be to investigate that all possible conditions such as
representative size of samples, availability of good baseline material, avoiding interference from pilot
conditions, focusing on a longer term evaluation and avoiding “pilot project bias” in order to come up with
reliable conclusions.
The Methodology that will be used comprises the following: Drawing from the vast body of literature on sociotechnical studies, the investigation will be end-user oriented and starting with a baseline study to capture the
situation before the runs start will be fully elaborated in a more concrete way. Given the large scale of the
project and the very diverse nature of the implementations, a selection of evaluation targets and methods will
be necessary (i.e. within limited number of countries, limited number of contexts, depending on sample size
for example). Thus it will strive towards an integrated approach via which the exact impact of RW and its
technical platforms can be evaluated. The tools that will be used for data collection are as follows: a) Focus
groups/ Workshops – with both practitioners and users invited to exchange experiences and discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of the system b) Questionnaires: including both open-ended questions allowing
for rich user input, as well as graded numerical questions (yes/no & scale questions) c) Interviews: subjective
semi-structured interviews allowing an in-depth examination of user experience and perceived impact.
The stages that the implementation of this impact analysis will follow are: Drafting of methodology to be used
across the board in order to enable comparative analysis. This will be put to the consortium for feedback/
comments and amendments. Once consensus is reached this can be finalized and distributed to all partners
along with the questionnaire and interview templates. A Pilot implementation of the evaluation will take place
– a “test run” will be carried out in one of the sites and this can be used as a template/model, which can be
followed by all partners. Supervision of implementation in sites will take place either directly or remotely. As
new sites are set up – tests can commence. However a certain threshold of use has to be built up before
meaningful information can be elicited on impact. Hence the earlier sites – those that have already been
running for some time, will be the first to be evaluated. Finally when a majority of sites have been covered,
data will have been collated into a central base, wherein it can be analyzed.
To this respect, concrete elaboration in tasks, schedules and tools will be posed and exploited in order to
achieve the interpretation of these guidelines in practical actions to be executed by the relative partners and
thus, to involve all subtasks under this Task, concerning the overall evaluation framework, in a coherent
manner and take advantage of all possible information. Tools that are already available (online usability
questionnaire through its improvements (please see next subtask), the features provided by specific eapplications, the template that will be developed in the framework of WP6A assessing and integrating former
existing approaches of this manner (i.e. various templates formed by individual partners, for example
ASTRIUM, UoA etc, during the Test Runs) will be exploited in order to provide feedback to the evaluation
framework: collecting the information from the test sites, involving the local actors in order to obtain clear
instructions on the evaluation of the Runs and on how to process the outcomes. By exploiting the
practicalities of the template and the basic technical information from the following subtasks (reports of
usage, logs of usage, acceptance of use, applications used, number of users (per site) etc) will be a major
step in integrating all feedback in an overall holistic approach. As mentioned many times, and in the
framework of the following subtasks it will be ensured that this and the technical evaluation (network
138
performance, usability, support and technology issues, etc) are elaborated in such a way that this evaluation
can be concretely adopted by all partners before the pilot phase starts and in such a way that evaluation data
can be cross referenced between the different implementations in order to validate them.
The Analysis of findings will include: Different tools will be employed in order to do justice to a diverse and
rich data set. Socio-cognitive analysis tools such as Activity Analysis will be used to investigate the role of
technology mediation and to examine more deeply the motivations of users, their perceptions and
experiences. Qualitative as well as quantitative analytical models will be used to arrive at a more holistic
understanding of the impact of RW – as well as how users engage with the technical systems and what the
added value is for them.
Finally an overall evaluation will be carried out of how the various aspects of RW influence the lives of the
communities in question – i.e. social impact, usability, learning, technical and economic feasibility. A
framework will be drawn on how this integration can be achieved and how diverse data across Europe can be
compared and meaningfully analyzed.


The design of the overall evaluation framework will be the subject of Deliverable D7.3 which will be
delivered during the first months of the 2 nd implementation phase (Final Runs Phase A) on M31 including
the overall approach (overall holistic framework, socio economic impact analysis while the pedagogical
evaluation will be merged into the learning impact that is being addressed under this holistic evaluation).
Chapters of this Deliverable will be the usability evaluation and the network traffic and reliability
evaluation as these where presented within the D7.1.1 Deliverable while these components will be
properly adjusted inside this Deliverable version in order to meet the holistic evaluation guidelines.
The interim results analysis of the evaluation will be subject of the Deliverable D7.5 which will include the
results and outcomes of the evaluation testing as this will be conducted in Task 7.5 during the Phase A of
the Final Runs (2nd implementation project phase) including all evaluation components results (socio
economic, learning, usability, network traffic, overall evaluation results) and will be delivered on M37. The
final overall project evaluation results of all the implementation phases (including Phase B of the Final
Runs that will be conducted during the 4th reporting period) will be subject to Task 7.6 and to the relevant
deliverable that will be defined then.
IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR THE FOLLOWING: THIS SUBTASK 7.4.1 DEFINES THE OVERALL
HOLISTIC EVALUATION APPROACH OF THE RURAL WINGS PROJECT. THUS, THE FOLLOWING
SUBTASKS 7.4.2, 7.4.3 AND 7.4.4 ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THIS SUBTASK IN RESPECT TO
THE GUIDELINES THAT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER THE SUBJECTS OF TASK 7.4.2, 7.4.3
AND 7.4.4 TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO THE OVERALL APPROACH. THE TASKS 7.4.2, 7.4.3
AND 7.4.4 WILL BE CONDUCTED SEPARATELY BY THE RESPECTIVE SUBTASKS LEADERS BUT
THEY WILL REFER TO THE SUBTASK 7.4.1 FOR THEIR OVERALL RESULTS AND METHODOLOGY IN
ORDER TO GUARANTEE AN OVERALL HOLISTIC EVALUATION APPROACH AND ABOVE ALL THE
OVERALL EVALUATION TO BE CONDUCTED IN A COHERENT WAY (BASIC ASSUMPTIONS,
CLARIFICATION SCHEMES ETC) IN ORDER THAT ALL ASPECTS TO BE ASSESSED JOINTLY IN A
MEANINGFUL MANNER.
SUBTASK RESPONSIBLE: ICCS for having the following responsibilities:
 setting and designing the overall holistic evaluation framework
 coordinating the implementation of the overall evaluation scheme
 testing the socioeconomic impact and gathering the relevant feedback
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
All NCs for the implementation of the holistic evaluation framework
EA for the interaction with the project implementation phases (Final Runs)
BGU for contributing to the learning component of the overall holistic framework
Subtask 7.4.2 Update and adjustments of the usability evaluation design and instruments for the Final Runs
reference to the overall holistic evaluation framework
As mentioned earlier this subtask is directly related to the previous subtask 7.4.1 in the sense that the
usability evaluation designed and conducted in the previous Tasks 7.1 and 7.3 will be reworked, improved
and adjusted towards the following both terms:
i) to meet the overall holistic evaluation guidelines set in subtask 7.4.1 and
ii) to be properly set and adjusted for the conductance of the usability tests for the large number of pilot
139
sites and the large number of users consequently during the Final Runs Phases (phase A and
Phase B).
To this respect, since the overall evaluation instruments will be enhanced, the usability evaluation
instruments need to be adjusted too accordingly with regard to scalability of solutions, acceptance and
reliability where applicable. Thus, the online usability questionnaire needs to be improved and adjusted to
meet the large number of users and to be integrated into the overall holistic evaluation instruments.
Discussions and actions between the leaders of subtasks 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 will take place in order the holistic
evaluation guidelines to be applied within usability evaluation and to check the way of exploiting the already
developed usability evaluation questionnaire for the overall evaluation design. The adjustments made on the
usability framework will be included inside the Deliverable D7.3 due on M31 indicating the updated scope in
order to provide adequate metrics for QoS. The present subtask (Usability evaluation) will be interacted more
with the following subtasks 7.4.3 and 7.4.4 in order to ensure that several technical parameters that also
influence usability of the Rural Wings infrastructure like available bandwidth, applications and platforms,
quality of service, access policies, nature of the satellite links etc to be adequately reflected as metrics to
assess QoS. The analysis of the usability evaluation results during the Final Runs Phase A will be included
within the Deliverable D7.5 due on M37.
SUBTASK RESPONSIBLE: TUD for having the following responsibilities:
 reworking and adjusting the usability evaluation framework following the roadmap of the holistic
evaluation
 readjusting and enhancing the instruments (online questionnaire etc) to be used for the overall
holistic evaluation and for a large number of users
Subtask 7.4.3 Technology evaluation and e-application evaluation (e-platforms and e-tools)
The following activities will be performed towards the technology evaluation in the framework of this subtask:
DVB-RCS technology evaluation in comparison with other satellite technologies
Satellite technology evaluation in comparison with terrestrial solutions
The following activities will be performed towards the e-applications evaluation in the framework of this
subtask with regard to scalability of solutions, acceptance and reliability where applicable:
E-learning software tools evaluation
Comparison with e-learning solution based on different technologies (terrestrial)
This subtask will be also responsible for the interaction and the connection between the usability holistic
evaluation framework and the issues dealt within WP8 regarding the market investigation of the Rural Wings
project especially since this is related to the technology and applications component of both WPs (WP7 and
WP8) and the overall quality of service of the whole project that is both dealt and needs to be indicated within
both WP7 and WP8.
The outcomes of this subtask 7.4.3 will be inserted within the Deliverable D7.5 due on M37.
SUBTASK RESPONSIBLES:
I) AVANTI, EUTELSAT, HELLASAT: for the technology evaluation as it is defined within this
subtask 7.4.3
ii) All E-PLATFORM AND E-TOOLS PROVIDERS (their leader towards this Task is set to be
FORTH, which can facilitate the subtask evolution through its HET platform) for the e-application
evaluation as defined within this subtask 7.4.3. ICCS will relate this subtask with Task 5.2.
iii) AVANTI for the interaction between WP7 and WP8.
Subtask 7.4.4 Network traffic and reliability evaluation (formerly part of task 7.3.1). The monitoring of the
network traffic, scalability of solutions and reliability of the deployed networks at the Rural Wings validation sites in
order to assess the adequacy of the satellite bandwidth resources for the usage scenarios implemented on the pilot
sites. The detailed network performance statistics will be correlated with the key design and configuration parameters
as identified in WP 5 and where necessary adaptations and modifications proposed. The following Steps are
envisaged:
Step 1: Data collection and processing by RURAL WINGS SSPs. Each SSP will provide the following data
(source excel files and graphs) in accordance with the common network traffic and reliability monitoring
framework as specified in D7.2.1 Issue 1.
-
Monthly network traffic statistics
140
Three-monthly network reliability statistics
-
Data is to be provided no later than the 15th of the month following the period under study. The statistics
provided should be correlated with any changes in system architecture, subsystem or configuration
parameters. SSPs should include their feedback and answers regarding the information and questions of the
latest Internal Task Report.
Step 2: Data analysis and synthesis by ASTRIUM.

Verification and analysis of the statistics provided by the SSPs

Identification of critical system design and configuration parameters impacting network performance

Recommendations and questions to SSPs and National Coordinators
It is clear that, as mentioned earlier, an interaction between all subtasks of Task 7.4 will take place in order to
ensure that all evaluation components will meet the requirements and the guidelines of the overall holistic
evaluation framework and the large number of users. Furthermore, interaction between the subtasks 7.4.3
and 7.4.4 will also takes place in order to ensure compatibility between the technological parts. The outcomes
of the present subtask will be inserted to the relevant WP7 deliverables as follows: a) the methodology of the
network traffic will be adjusted accordingly (as former part of D7.1.1) and will be included within D7.3 due on
M31 and b) the results of the network traffic and reliability during the 3 rd reporting period (Final Runs Phase
A) will be inserted in a separate Deliverable D7.4 (given on a yearly basis) due on M36 while they will be
largely taken into account for the D7.5 overall evaluation results due on M37.
SUBTASK RESPONSIBLE: ASTRIUM
INVOLVED PARTNERS: AVANTI, TTSA, HELLASSAT
General Note to Task 7.4.
From the above description, it is clear that all 4 subtasks are essential components to the Task 7.4 and the overall
holistic evaluation framework. Thus, a Task Force (team of the leaders of the subtasks) is being herein setup (ICCS,
TUD, AVANTI, ASTRIUM) that will undertake all related issues as described above and will be in constant interaction
and contact to define the various issues. It should be noted also that interaction with the implementation leader (EA)
will take place in a very large degree in order to be able to conduct and implement the holistic evaluation in parallel to
the project’s implementation phase.
The involvement of the National Coordinators and their “local agents” within the pilot sites are of utmost importance
since they will be those that will implement the evaluation framework and gather the feedback from the pilot sites
while they have resources from the beginning of the project towards this task.
Furthermore, the involvement of the platform providers is of key importance for the evolution of subtask 7.4.3; the
leader of this group for this specific subtask is set to be FORTH).
Thus, the overall responsibilities towards the whole Task 7.4 are the following:
TASK RESPONSIBLE: ICCS for the coordination of the whole task 7.4
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
TUD: subtask 7.4.2 responsible
AVANTI, EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, ALL PLATFORM PROVIDERS (group leader: FORTH): subtask 7.4.3
responsibles
ASTRIUM: subtask 7.4.4 responsible
EA for interaction with the implementation phases
ALL NATIONAL COORDINATORS for implementing the evaluation framework and gathering the proper feedback.
The NCs should take all measures and exploit their resources to make their “local agents” and their end users
actively and strongly involved within the evaluation issue including translating the evaluation instruments
(questionnaires etc) in the corresponding National Languages)
.
141
Deliverables
Deliverable D7.5 “Interim Results Analysis of the overall holistic evaluation of the Final Runs Phase A” (M 37)
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE: ICCS for the coordination of the data gathering and the overall data processing and
presentation of results including the socioeconomic impact data and results.
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, ALL PLATFORM PROVIDERS
 ALL NATIONAL COORDINATORS for the data collection (interview, questionnaires etc.) from the end users
and the coordination in local level.
 TUD, ASTRIUM, AVANTI, EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, PLATFORM PROVIDERS according to their own
responsibilities as defined in Task 7.5 and in Task 7.4.
Deliverable D7.6 “Network traffic and reliability evaluation for the Rural Wings project - Final Runs Phase B”
(M 46)
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE: ASTRIUM
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
ASTRIUM for the coordination of the overall deliverable. TTSA, HELLASAT, AVANTI for the continuously network
traffic usage and reliability data collection and first monthly processing.
Deliverable D7.7 “Rural Wings Final Evaluation report - Overall Results Analysis of the overall holistic
evaluation” ( M46)
DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE: ICCS for the coordination of the data gathering and the overall data processing and
presentation of results including the socioeconomic impact data and results.
INVOLVED PARTNERS:
EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, ALL PLATFORM PROVIDERS
 ALL NATIONAL COORDINATORS for the data collection (interview, questionnaires etc.) from the end users
and the coordination in local level.
 TUD, ASTRIUM, AVANTI, EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, PLATFORM PROVIDERS according to their own
responsibilities as defined in Task 7.5 and in Task 7.4.
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start
End
Input from task
Output to task
7.4
M27
M44
(WP6A, WP8,
WP4, WP5)
7.5
M30
M44
WP6A, WP8,
WP4, WP5 and
D2.3
7.4
7.6
D7.4, D7.5, D7.6
7.6
M44
M45
D7.3, D7.4, D7.5
End of project
D7.6, D7.7
142
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
D7.3, D7.5, D7.6
Market Investigation
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Start date or starting event:
8
Month 12
RTD
AVANTI
Participant id
ICCS
ASTRIUM
AVANTI
EA
QPLAN
DBC
INSEAD
HELLASAT
FORTH
FORTHNET
FOURIER
UoB
UPB
A&O
DBC
Person-months per participant:
Participant id
Person-months per participant:
Participant id
Person-months per participant:
Objectives
Investigate the exploitation of the Rural Wings technology, offered service, and applications across Europe and
beyond (mainly Canada, USA, South America and Africa) i.e.



evaluate the financially viability in terms of return on investment for the main market players, including
Satellite builders, Telecoms operators, Software providers, Content providers, Governments and local
authorities;
identify the methods for commercialising and web based applications offered via satellite under the unique
umbrella of RURAL WINGS system exploring the benefits for the users; Satellite technologies constitute an
infrastructure for the delivery of electronic communication services and a wide area of applications. This
market is a commercial one characterized by an intense competition between operators and technologies.
estimate the growth rate of the market for applications in remote rural areas.
The work-package will be based on the outcomes of WP.2, WP.3 and WP.7 and mainly on the Synthesis Feasibility
report (Deliverable D2.3), the Users segmentation and the Users profile definition (Deliverable D3.1) and the initial
evaluation results from WP7 derived during the test Runs period.
Description of work
8.1 Market Definition and Forecast for the business case. THIS TASK HAS BEEN FINALISED DURING THE 2nd
REPORTING PERIOD
8.2 Market Research and Analysis: The task will make use of existing resources and existing market reports as well
as internal deliverables, as well being based on an adequate analysis of the cost components of the Rural Wings
service provision. It will also be examined the means and ways to include demand and supply of eLearning content in
to be able to assess the long term sustainability aspects. Connecting to national and regional access and inclusion
initiatives and programmes will be further examined. This task will be based on the following key activities:
 Identification of Europe's market opportunities
 Looking to the US and worldwide market for case studies relevant to European market
 Definition of the target user groups and segments.
 Assessment of the market size.
 Research of the needs and demands of the potential users and identification of possible competitors.
 Product's positioning and risk analysis.
 Identification of Strength – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats through a SWOT analysis.
 Promotion and advertising possibilities.
 Definitions of sales and distribution channels.
 Price definition along with profit and costs projections.
 In conclusion, the initial market analysis will provide the partnership with a roadmap of how the new products
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
143
and services will be fitted in the future markets.
Within the D8.1 an overview of the main providers of Educational Software and information on most popular
educational software and applications was initiated focusing on traditional elearning products. Within the D8.2 (which
stands as an updated version of D8.1) an assessment of the educational situation will be enhanced to incorporate the
existence of Open Education Repositories and the increasing importance of user and community generated content.
The SWOT analysis and risk assessments (dealing mainly with the characteristics of DVB-RCS) will be expanded to
to focus on the aspects of the RuralWings service as a whole. To this end, a competitive analysis will be dealt and
presented. With regard to standards and especially the DVB-RCS standards, a reflection on the status of this specific
standard as it is presented as a key technology within this project will be given: the partners will examine if and how
the solutions and services of the three satellite service providers can be exchanged amongst each other and the
related market effect will be taken into account. Multicasting or other content management technologies will be
investigated, especially in the light of the heavy network load of some eLearning applications.
Finally, the sustainability issue of the Rural Wings pilot sites will be addressed since it is one of the most important
aspects of the Rural Wings service as a whole and beyond the project’s lifecycle. In the framework of this Task, the
sustainability for the RW sites will be addressed: what will happen with sites after project lifecycle? A relevant exit
strategy needs to be designed. This, in combination with the dissemination mechanisms towards policy makers and
the evaluation results towards the same goal are of crucial importance especially to the last year of the project. Thus,
proper preparation of this issue will start at this point and gfor that reason, a preliminary study on the sustainability
approach (exit strategy) will be included in the business case report (D8.2) while it will be further elaborated within the
relevant deliverables of the next project year (4th reporting period).
The output from this task will be an updated deliverable D8.2: (D8.1. updated) “2nd version of the business case
report including market analysis and monitoring”. Many of the above issues were dealt within the D8.1
Deliverable. Thus, this Deliverable D8.2 will be also enriched from the qualitative results of the usability and
implementation evaluation that is taking place during the Test Runs. Thus this deliverable will be mainly elaborated
during the Test Runs (M21-M27).
Task Responsible: AVANTI
Involved partners:
 AVANTI – ASTRIUM – Q-PLAN / EA - ICCS - DBC – EUTELSAT – HELLASAT – FORTHNET - FOURIER
will contribute to conducting market research and analysis on different market segments
 All the e-application (e-platform and e-tools) providers and all NCs for contributing and consulting
8.3 Market Monitoring and Updating: This task will be implemented for a period of almost two years starting from
M24 and will be more elaborated during the implementation phases of the project. This task will provide feedback in
order to update the initial market analysis. Furthermore, it will provide feedback about possible channels of
approaching the main customer groups that will be identified. In this way the final products and services will be
market-oriented and ready to be commercialized.
A continuous monitoring of the potential RURAL WINGS targeted market will take place both through a) the users
communities of the RURAL WINGS pilot sites that will participate and use the RURAL WINGS offered e-learning
services and b) users outside RURAL WINGS that will be informed regarding the project either through dissemination
activities or the partners contacts and liaisons channels. In order to get the necessary feedback, several means for
market monitoring will be examined and implemented i.e. specific questionnaires, qualitative feedback through
dedicated info days or workshops in combination with the project’s major events during the 3rd 18 months period. This
task ends on M42.
The output from this task will be inserted within the updated deliverable D8.2 to address the monitoring means and
qualitative feedback.
Task Responsible: AVANTI
Involved partners:
 AVANTI – ASTRIUM – Q-PLAN / EA - ICCS - DBC – EUTELSAT – HELLASAT – FORTHNET will contribute
for conducting the continuous market monitoring
 All the e-application (e-platform and e-tools) providers and all NCs for contributing and consulting
144
Deliverables
D8.2 (D8.1 updated): “2nd version of the business case report including market analysis and monitoring”
(Month 32).
Deliverable responsible: AVANTI
Involved partners: ICCS, ASTRIUM, EA, Q-PLAN, DBC, EUTELSAT – HELLASAT – FORTHNET
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start
End
Input from task
Output to task
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
8.2
M25
M32
2.3 , 3.1, 7.2,
WP6.A and
WP6.B
8.3
D8.2
8.3
M25
M42
Next project phase
D8.2
145
Dissemination
Workpackage
number
Activity Type1
WP Leader
Start date or starting event:
9
Month 1
RTD
ICCS / EDEN
Participant id
Person-months per
participant:
Participant id
Person-months per
participant:
Participant id
Person-months per
participant:
ICCS
ASTRIUM
AVANTI
EA
INSEAD
EDEN
HELLASS
AT
FORTH
A&O
QPLAN
UoA
TUD
FORTHnet
ERC
UoB
UPB
BGU
PBF
LAE-TSU
SEUA
Objectives

To increase awareness about the “to date” status of the Rural Wing services and applications and about its
ultimate objectives.

To establish ways of communication with educational and scientific community, with organizations of
standardization and research and finally with the public that consist the end users of the providing services.
Utilizing the support of large Organizations in Europe and beyond (e.g. CEN/ISSS, ETSI), the participant
organizations from 15 European different countries, as well as the users communities that will be participating in the
pilot projects (extends from the official national and European educational organizations, satellite operators, industrial
telecom organizations, educational policy makers, content developers, regulatory bodies and decision makers) it has
been built up complementary channels for the dissemination of the project’s objectives, activities and outcomes
Description of work
Dissemination activities will include participation in concentration activities, interaction with user groups, and the
production of appropriate information materials such as regularly updated brochures and newsletters. A major
dissemination platform will be the World-Wide-Web, on which information about the project will be maintained and
updated. For this reason a Web site will be developed within the second month from the project’s start.
9.1 (Revised) Revision of Rural Wing’s Dissemination Strategy and Dissemination plan: A dissemination
strategy for the dissemination of the Rural Wing’s service has already been set up in the framework of this Task
during the 1st project period. This strategy consists of a preliminary research for the market impact of the possible
project's products. Dissemination activities that will be used throughout exploitation, participation to exhibitions and
workshops, events and other related issues in terms of this strategy were envisaged and examined. The
dissemination plan that was developed (Deliverable D9.1) acts as the reference guide that will lead the whole
package of the project dissemination activities that were and will be carried out from the beginning till the end of the
project. The dissemination plan that was developed covers the first two project years (until M24). It should be noted
that it is not logical to develop a dissemination plan for a 4 year project period, since in the mean time many of the
foreseen activities especially the distant ones may change. Consequently, according to Chapter 6, task 9.1 will be
revised in the period after the 1st project’s implementation Phase (Test Runs M21-M27). So on M23 and for the period
(M23-M29) a new revised dissemination plan will be produced summarizing the main dissemination activities of the
project for the next project phases. This revised dissemination plan will involve also a more systematic inquiry about
the perspectives of the basic and applied results of the project. The goal of this inquiry will be to examine the possible
benefits for reserving the rights of the research and exploiting them later. Interaction with the relevant project
exploitation strategy and market analysis from WP8 will strongly take place since a common goal of the two project
activities is in line. The large educational network of EDEN will be mostly exploited; not only to disseminate the
project results to a large audience, but also to take advantage of the large variety of stakeholders that this network
represents worldwide. By this way, valuable feedback will be obtained in order the project dissemination strategy to
be revised towards modern trends and substancial concepts directly related and addressing all possible kinds of
1
For Integrated Projects each workpackage must relate to one (and only one) of the following four possible
Activity Types: RTD/Innovation activities, Demonstration activities, Training activities, Management activities
146
target groups. The dissemination message will be defined more consistently, standardization bodies will be
addressed and will demonstrate its focus on the relevant stakeholders who will be eventually the “buyers” of the
service. The goal is that the dissemination plan to become effective in addressing the relevant stakeholders (policy
makers and governmental bodies, national and regional authorities (especially education ones) and regional
development authorities). The results of discussions on stakeholder and policy level will b strongly pursued while the
relevant outcomes will be reported as well.
Task responsible: EDEN
Involved Partners:
 ASTRIUM and Satellite Providers (for targeting the space industry)
 All NCs for providing the relevant feedback from their country experiense
 ICCS, EA, Q-PLAN, AVANTI, FORTH and ERC (for targeting user groups related to health emergency
situations)
9.2 Clustering and Networking with ESA, FP5 and FP6 Projects-Dissemination and promotion activities: The
partnership will continue to support and contribute to the creation of working groups on educational and technology
issues. Representatives of running or former projects, under relevant action lines of EC or ESA programmes
(integrated projects, Networks of excellence, STREPs and actions of the ARTES), will participate in such working
groups, in order to demonstrate a model of active synergy among a network of people working with similar targets.
Also it will support cooperation with other on going projects (RCST, ZEUS, SchoolSAT, AMERHIS, RIA, NMBn
VERDI, NeTTADDeD, OURSES, WISECOM, SFERA) in which partners of the consortium participate. Specific
attendance was given in networking and cooperating with SATMAC (after the final definition of its scope). In addition,
currently the project started to carry out a more aggressive approach towards dissemination, strengthening the
procedure for participating even more actively (as took place in the 2nd reporting period and through the Test Runs
results), to promotional activities, demonstrations, participations in exhibitions, conferences, symposia and workshops
and relevant events. Since the Test Runs (1st project implementation phase, M21-M27) are close to their end, the
Project Coordinator will intensify the necessary attempts to participate as exhibitor and/ or present the RURAL
WINGS project to the IST EVENT (2008), one of the major EC events. Rural Wings has developed liaisons with
Athabasca University, the largest Canada’s Open University which delivers distance education to students around the
world, being an associate partner to the Rural Wings consortium. This collaboration will be further enhanced in the
fore coming months since the first measurable results of RURAL WINGS test runs are currently available. The project
started already to improve coordination also with external resources and will take into account past experiences from
similar projects and initiatives, e.g. SINCERE (rural education – experience of Malaysia), TWISTER, BASE-2,
EXPLOAR, RURALEARN, HERMES, TELEACCESS, while contact have been made already with Trapeze (UK and
The Netherlands), SchoolSat and SchoolCast (Ireland), NLTree (The Netherlands), the JISC Satellite Trials (UK),
Telesat Satellite Multimedia Trials for Schools (Canada), IST programme on eLearning FP5+6 projects, SATMAC, etc
(Final reports were obtained and closer liaisons are in line). A more elaborated collaboration and exchange of
experiences was enforced with projects such as Hermes and Base2. All the consortium partners are involved for the
fulfillment of this activity. The outcome of all these Dissemination activities during this period will be reported in the
Deliverable D9.4 (updated).
Task responsible: ICCS (for gathering the outcomes of these activities from the consortium members)
Involved Partners:
 ASTRIUM for clustering and networking with on-going projects and initiatives and for the participations to
workshops/conferences regarding technological issues on the use of satellite communications for learning
purposes
 ICCS for clustering and networking with other projects
 EA for clustering and networking with other projects and for the participations in workshops, info days
concentration meetings
 NCs for promotion activities in their countries
 FORTHnet-INSEAD, ALL e-applicaton providers
 ALL PARTNERS
9.3 Preparation of Dissemination Material: During the first reporting period (M1-M12) a set of printed dissemination
material (leaflet, flyer, folder and a poster) for the project promotion were developed in order to serve the project for
dissemination purposes and to attract the users and general public’s interest and awareness regarding the foreseen
Test Runs in the first selected pilot sites. During the Test Runs (1st Implementation Phase) valuable material for the
project’s promotion was gathered in the framework of the implementations and operations at the pilot sites. To this
147
respect, a booklet publication (M27) has been conducted, with all the gathered information from the operation of the
pilot sites during Test Runs. The other printed dissemination material that has already been produced will be updated
if necessary. Additionally printed and electronic dissemination material of any kind will be produced depending on the
occasion or targeted event, if needed. It must be noted that any other dissemination material that will be obtained
through the project dissemination activities (presentation of the project to EU activities, workshops or conferences)
will be gathered in the end of the 3rd reporting period (M36) and will be used for the production of the relevant
Deliverable D9.4 (updated), while it will be further used for the production of the relevant deliverables of the next
project’s phases. Since the project 2nd implementation phase (Final Runs Phase I) will commence within this period,
the upgrade of the dissemination materials produced within year 1 (leaflets, flyers etc) will be examined. Various
flyers can be developed in order to disseminate the project to the end users of the new pilot sites of the Final Runs
period, depending on the case. Furthermore, in the framework of this activity the continuous improvement and
updating of the project’s web site (www.ruralwings-project.net) is included (ICCS is responsible for the RURAL
WINGS web site, while redesign of the graphical layout and better interaction with the CAP tool is foreseen). Despite
the fact that no relevant deliverable is foreseen, the corresponding progress on the web site along with all new printed
dissemination material, that will be developed, will be included in Deliverable D9.4 as reporting. Furthermore, as was
done for the Test Runs, all National Coordinators will provide short profiles of all the new identified pilot sites, to be
operational during the Final Runs – Phase I; all these profiles are integrated within the Rural Wings web site
(submenu: Gallery) so that an e-bulletin of all Rural Wings pilot sites to be completed within the web site. It should be
noted also that EA will produce the Rural Wings project CD incorporating data and information for the overall
implementation in all 128 Rural Wings pilot sites in the end of the project (M46).
Task responsible: ICCS (for emerging the partners and gathering the dissemination activities reports and material)
Involved Partners: EA, EDEN, AVANTI, ICCS (continuous update of the web site), ALL NCs (for providing the pilot
sites information for the project’s web site), ALL (for gathering relevant material)
Deliverables
D9.1: Revised Dissemination plan (Month 30)
Deliverable responsible: EDEN
Involved partners: ICCS, EA, ASTRIUM, Q-PLAN, AVANTI, FORTH, ERC, ALL NCs, ALL e-application providers
D9.4 2nd Dissemination report (M36 updated yearly)
Deliverable responsible: ICCS/EDEN/EA
Involved partners: All NCs (for the pilot sites information to be implemented within the project’s web site), All
partners for reporting to the task leaders their national or international dissemination and promotion activities for the
project
D9.5 Printed and electronic Dissemination material (Month 27)
Deliverable responsible: ICCS/EDEN (booklet)
Involved partners: EDEN, AVANTI, ALL (for gathering the material)
Note: this is a Deliverable of the 2nd reporting period, the printed version of which has been produced on M27.
Milestones and expected result
M4. Assessment of the Test Runs, Month 25
M5. Delivery of the system improvements and adaptation – Start of Final Run - phase A, Month 30
M6. Assessment of the Final Run (Phase A), Month 38
TASK
Start
End
Input from task
Output to task
9.1 Revised
9.2
9.3
M25
M25
M25
M30
M42
M42
9.1
9.2
9.2, 9.3
9.3 (interaction)
Next
project’s
phase
148
Output to deliverable or
Internal report
D9.1(revised) and D9.4 (updated)
D9.4 (updated)
D9.5
9. Project resources and budget overview
149
9.1 IP Efforts for the full duration of the project
IP Effort Form - Indicative efforts for full duration of project 1
IP Activity Type
RTD / Innovation
activities
1 ICCS
2 ASTRIUM
3 AVANTI
6 EUTELSAT
7 EA
8 INSEAD
9 SU/IIE
10 EDEN
12 QPLAN
13 HELLASSAT
15 UoB
16 FORTH
17 UPB
18 A&O
19 DBC
20 UoA
21 TUD
23 FORTHnet
24 ERC
25 TELEMEDICINE
26 BGU
27 FOURIER
29 PBF
30 LAE-TSU
31 SEUA
45,5
73,5
65,5
15
135
78
11
10,5
10,5
30
33,5
37,5
25
28
16,5
34,5
29
30
10
12
41
16,5
24
6,5
13
TOTAL per ACTIVITY Type
Overall TOTAL efforts
831,5
1
Demonstration
activities
Project number (acronym) : RURAL WINGS
Training activities
Consortium
TOTAL per
management
PARTICIPANT
activities
2,5
21
73
5
6,5
85
2
67,5
0,5
15,5
6
141
3,5
81,5
11
10,5
24
34,5
1
31
5,5
39
1
38,5
5
30
3
31
16,5
7
41,5
1
30
1,5
31,5
10
0,5
12,5
2
43
1
17,5
2
26
1
7,5
2
15
53
55,5
939
26Specify efforts in person months
150
9.2 IP Efforts for the third 18 months period (M25-M42)
IP Effort Form1 - indicative efforts for 18 months period covering detailed implementation plan (project month 25 to 42)
Project number (acronym) : RURAL WINGS
1
Specify efforts in person months
151
ICCS
1
ASTRIUM
2
AVANTI
3
3,5
5
6
1,5
2
18
5
6
6
1,5
3
21,5
1
3,5
6
5
6
1,5
23
Training activities
WP 6B
Total Training
1,5
1,5
4
4
1
1
Management activities
WP 1
Total Management
8,5
8,5
2
2
TOTAL ACTIVITIES
28
27,5
RTD/Innovation
activities
WP 2
WP 3
WP 4
WP 5
WP 6A
WP 7
WP 8
WP9
Total RTD/Innovation
EUTELSAT
6
0,5
5,5
0,5
6,5
EA
7
INSEAD
8
11
6
17
6
3
7
50
9
5
11
4,5
3
4
36,5
4
4
2
2
SU
9
EDEN
10
QPLAN
12
HELLASAT
13
3,5
1
4,5
3
6
1,5
0,5
0,5
11,5
1
1
3
3
BARCEL
15
FORTH
16
BUCUREST
17
3
2
11
4
0,5
1,5
20
5
5
6
1,5
2,5
3
23
7
1,5
0,5
1
12
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
12,5
23
24
14
Total Demonstration
8
8
24
6,5
54
38,5
152
1
3
12,5
A&O
DBC
AEGEAN
DRESDEN
FORNET
ERC
TTSA
BGU
FOURIER
PBF
LAETSU
SEUA
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
2
1
2
2
0,5
0,5
5
1
2
9
4
0,5
2
1,5
0,5
1
1
1,5
0,5
0,5
7,5
1
4
0,5
4
1
5,5
0,5
10
0,5
6
0,5
2,5
1
19
2
2
0,5
0,5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
7,5
1,5
0,5
1
12,5
2
2
8
1
2
7
3
14
1,5
11,5
1
3,5
3
1,5
1
1,5
11,6
3
3
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
1
5
2
2
1
6
TOTAL
PM
48,5
42,5
131
55,5
26
38
341,5
32
32
18,5
18,5
14,5
5
17
12
12
6
2,5
21
153
6
11
7
9,5
392
9.3 Overall budget for full duration of the project (Forms A3.1 from CPFs)
OrganiPartici sation
pant n° short
name
1
ICCS
2
ASTRIU
M
3
AVANTI
6
EUTELS
AT
7
EA
8
INSEAD
Detailed financial information – whole duration of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
Total
Cost
Estimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Consortium
(4)=(1)+(2)+
Training
model
receipts
InnovationManagement
(3)
activities
used (whole duration of the project) related activities
activities
(2)
(1)
(3)
Direct costs (a)
409233,33
314899,81
18900.00
75433.52
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
81846,67
AC costs
62979,97
3780.00
15086.70
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
491080.00
377879,78
22680.00
90520.22
Requested EC contribution
491080.00
377879,78
22680.00
90520.22
Direct costs (a)
1039037.30
97390.80
97390.80 1233818.90
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
161260.14
FC costs
135802.18
12728.98
12728.98
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
1174839.48
110119.78
110119.78 1395079.04
Requested EC contribution
807660.08
587420.52
110119.78
110119.78
Direct costs (a)
600610.00
582920.00
17690.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
300305.00
FC costs
291460.00
8845.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
900915.00
874380.00
26535.00
Requested EC contribution
435000.41
408465.41
26535.00
Direct costs (a)
905018.00
898382.00
6636
111997.20
111997.20
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
56937.60
FC costs
54565.20
2372.4
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
961955.60
952947.20
9008.4
Requested EC contribution
480977.88
471969.48
9008.4
Direct costs (a)
610167.00
583167.00
27000.00
41000.00
41000.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
113833.40
FCF costs
108433.40
5400.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
724000.40
691600.40
32400.00
Requested EC contribution
362000.20
329600.20
32400.00
Direct costs (a)
466653.00
449149.00
17504.00
26000.00
26000.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
161546.00
FC costs
155127.81
6418.19
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
628199.00
604276.81
23922.19
Requested EC contribution
314099.74
290177.55
23922.19
154
Total
receipts
0
0
0
0
0
0
OrganiPartici sation
pant n° short
name
9
SU/IIE
10
EDEN
12
QPLAN
13
HELLAS
ASSAT
15
UoB
16
FORTH
Detailed financial information – whole duration of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
Total
Cost
Estimated eligible costs and
RTDor
Consortium
(4)=(1)+(2)+
Training
model
receipts
InnovationManagement
(3)
activities
used (whole duration of the project) related activities
activities
(2)
(1)
(3)
Direct costs (a)
59560.30
58720.30
840.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
11912.10
AC costs
11744.06
168.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
71472.40
70464.36
1008.00
Requested EC contribution
71472.40
70464.36
1008.00
Direct costs (a)
50020.00
50020.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
10004.00
AC costs
10004.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
60024.00
60024.00
Requested EC contribution
60024.00
60024.00
Direct costs (a)
218867.00
71067.00
147800.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
43773.40
FCF costs
14213.40
29560.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
262640.40
85280.40
177360.00
Requested EC contribution
220000.20
42640.20
177360.00
Direct costs (a)
418592,27
8680.00
427272,27
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
41859,23
FC costs
868.00
42727,23
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
460451,50
9548.00
469999.50
Requested EC contribution
235000.00
225452,00
9548.00
Direct costs (a)
125000.00
114454.00
10546.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
25000.00
AC costs
22890.80
2109.20
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
150000.00
137344.80
12655.20
Requested EC contribution
150000.00
137344.80
12655.20
Direct costs (a)
185254,91
177054,91
8200.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
200745,09
FC costs
195411,09
5334.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
386000.00
372466,00
13534.00
Requested EC contribution
193000.00
179466,00
13534.00
155
Total
receipts
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed financial information – whole duration of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
OrganiCost
Estimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Consortium
Partici sation
Training
model
receipts
InnovationManagement
pant n° short
activities
used (whole duration of the project) related activities
activities
name
(2)
(1)
(3)
Direct costs (a)
127000.00
12000.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
UPB
17
AC costs
25400.00
2400.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
152400.00
14400.00
Requested EC contribution
152400.00
14400.00
Direct costs (a)
183196.00
12942.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
18
A&O
FCF costs
36639.20
2588.40
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
219835.20
15530.40
Requested EC contribution
102152.60
15530.40
Direct costs (a)
245564.00
11316.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
19
DBC
FC costs
22100.76
1018.44
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
267664.76
12334.44
Requested EC contribution
127665.16
12334.44
Direct costs (a)
199330.00
11503.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
20
UoA
AC costs
39866.00
2301.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
239196.00
13804.00
Requested EC contribution
239196.00
13804.00
Direct costs (a)
90000.00
10000.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
TUD
21
AC costs
18000.00
2000.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
108000.00
12000.00
Requested EC contribution
108000.00
12000.00
Direct costs (a)
275800.00
13000.00
15000.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
FORTHn
Indirect costs (b)
23
FC costs
144000.00
7200.00
et
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
419800.00
20200.00
Requested EC contribution
199800.00
20200.00
156
Total
(4)=(1)+(2)+
(3)
Total
receipts
139000.00
27800.00
166800.00
166800.00
196138.00
0
39227.60
235365.60
117683.00
256880.00
0
23119.20
279999.20
139999.60
210833.00
0
42167.00
253000.00
253000.00
100000.00
0
20000.00
120000.00
120000.00
288800.00
15000.00
151200.00
440.000.00
220000.00
0
0
Detailed financial information – whole duration of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
OrganiCost
Estimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Consortium
Partici sation
Training
model
receipts
InnovationManagement
pant n° short
activities
used (whole duration of the project) related activities
activities
name
(2)
(1)
(3)
Direct costs (a)
66667.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
24
ERC
AC costs
13333.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
80000.00
Requested EC contribution
80000.00
Direct costs (a)
85928.29
6785.71
of
which
subcontracting
Eligible
TELEME
costs
Indirect costs (b)
25
FC
32571.32
2714.28
DICINE
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
118499.61
9499.99
Requested EC contribution
54499.96
9499.99
Direct costs (a)
132000.00
8000.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
26
BGU
AC costs
26400.00
1600.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
158400.00
9600.00
Requested EC contribution
158400.00
9600.00
Direct costs (a)
68900.00
6100.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
FOURIE
Indirect costs (b)
27
FCF costs
13780.00
1220.00
R
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
82680.00
7320.00
Requested EC contribution
37680.00
7320.00
Direct costs (a)
216539.67
13800.00
12000
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
PBF
29
FCF costs
40907.93
2760.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
257447.60
16560.00
Requested EC contribution
120443.60
16560.00
157
Total
(4)=(1)+(2)+
(3)
Total
receipts
66667.00
13333.00
80000.00
80000.00
92714.00
0
35285.60
127999.60
63999.95
140000.00
0
28000.00
168000.00
168000.00
75000.00
0
15000.00
90000.00
45000.00
230339.67
12000
43667.93
274007.60
137003.60
0
0
Detailed financial information – whole duration of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
OrganiTotal
Cost
Estimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Consortium
Partici sation
(4)=(1)+(2)+
Training
model
receipts
InnovationManagement
pant n° short
(3)
activities
used (whole duration of the project) related activities
activities
name
(2)
(1)
(3)
Direct costs (a)
20333.20
18733.20
1600.00
Eligible of which subcontracting
LAEIndirect costs (b)
4066.64
30
AC costs
3746.64
320.00
TSU
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
24399.84
22479.84
1920.00
Requested EC contribution
24399.84
22479.84
1920.00
Direct costs (a)
36499.80
33499.80
3000.00
of
which
subcontracting
Eligible
Indirect costs (b)
7299.96
31
SEUA
AC costs
6699.96
600.00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
43799.76
40199.76
3600.00
Requested EC contribution
43799.76
40199.76
3600.00
Detailed financial information – whole duration of the project
Eligible Costs
8028557,50
398179.40
378000.00 8804736,90
TOTAL
Requested EC contribution
4623821.22
398179.40
378000.00 5400000.62
158
Total
receipts
0
0
0
9.4 Budget for the third 18 months (M25-M42) (Form A3.3 from CPFs)
OrganiPartici sation
pant n° short
name
1
ICCS
2
ASTRIU
M
3
AVANTI
6
EUTELS
AT
7
EA
8
INSEAD
Detailed financial information – third 18 months of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
Total
Estimated eligible costs and
(4)=(1)+(2)+
Total
RTD or
Training
Consortium
Cost
receipts
(3)
receipts
Innovationactivities
Management
model
(second 18 months of the
related activities
(2)
activities
used
project)
Month 25 – Month 25 –
(1)
(3)
42
42
Month 25 – 42
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 – 42
Direct costs (a)
129297,03
81903,72
7906,77
39486,54
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
25859,40
0
AC costs
16380,74
1581,35
7897,31
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
155156,43
98284,46
9488,12
47383,85
Requested EC contribution
155156,43
98284,46
9488,12
47383,85
Direct costs (a)
293200,00
261080,00
29120,00
3000,00
34000,00
31000,00
3000,00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
239238,00
0
FC costs
204440,00
34798,00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
532438,00
465520,00
63918,00
3000,00
Requested EC contribution
299678,00
232760,00
63918,00
3000,00
Direct costs (a)
190655,61
182489,94
8165,66
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
105226,36
0
FC costs
100868,59
4357,78
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
295881,97
283358,53
12523,44
Requested EC contribution
154202,71
141679,26
12523,44
Direct costs (a)
572954,07
572954,07
of
which
subcontracting
41000,00
41000,00
Eligible
Indirect costs (b)
21952,51
0
FC costs
21952,51
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
594906,59
594906,59
Requested EC contribution
297453,29
297453,29
Direct costs (a)
237524,94
219783,64
17741,30
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
50387,44
0
FCF costs
46839,18
3548,26
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
287912,38
266622,82
21289,56
Requested EC contribution
154600,97
133311,41
21289,56
Direct costs (a)
263835,70
250049,98
13785,72
25000,00
25000,00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
46126,17
0
FC costs
43815,33
2310,84
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
309961,86
293865,30
16096,56
Requested EC contribution
163029,21
146932,65
16096,56
159
OrganiPartici sation
pant n° short
name
9
SU/IIE
10
EDEN
12
QPLAN
13
HELLAS
ASSAT
15
UoB
Detailed financial information – third 18 months of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
Total
Total
Estimated eligible costs and
(4)=(1)+(2)+
RTDor
Training
Consortium
Cost
receipts
receipts
(3)
Innovationactivities
Management
model
(second 18 months of the
related activities
(2)
activities
used
project)
Month 25 –
(1)
(3)
Month 25 - 42
42
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 - 42
Direct costs (a)
3202,30
3202,30
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
639,83
0
AC costs
639,83
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
3842,13
3842,13
Requested EC contribution
3842,13
3842,13
Direct costs (a)
15350,00
15350,00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
3070,00
0
AC costs
3070,00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
18419,99
18419,99
Requested EC contribution
18419,99
18419,99
Direct costs (a)
79252,94
19998,56
59254,38
of
which
subcontracting
Eligible
Indirect costs (b)
23857,29
0
FCF costs
12006,42
11850,88
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
103110,23
32004,98
71105,25
Requested EC contribution
87107,74
16002,49
71105,25
Direct costs (a)
195587,20
191587,20
4000,00
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
52278,70
0
FC costs
51478,70
800,00
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
247865,90
243065,90
4800,00
Requested EC contribution
126332,95
121532,95
4800,00
Direct costs (a)
76972,96
66178,63
10794,33
of
which
subcontracting
Eligible
Indirect costs (b)
15394,59
0
AC costs
13235,73
2158,87
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
92367,55
79414,36
12953,19
Requested EC contribution
92367,55
79414,36
12953,19
160
Detailed financial information – third 18 months of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
OrganiEstimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Training
Consortium
Cost
Partici sation
receipts
Innovationactivities
Management
model
pant n° short
(second 18 months of the
related activities
(2)
activities
used
name
project)
(1)
(3)
Month 25 – 42
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 - 42
Direct costs (a)
117925,48
4854,36
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
16
FORTH
FC costs
118199,51
4702,87
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
236124,99
9557,23
Requested EC contribution
118062,49
9557,23
Direct costs (a)
60800,95
11567,49
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
UPB
17
AC costs
12160,19
2313,50
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
72961,14
13880,99
Requested EC contribution
72961,14
13880,99
Direct costs (a)
78416,66
13782,13
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
18
A&O
FCF costs
17768,97
2756,43
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
96185,63
16538,56
Requested EC contribution
48092,81
16538,56
Direct costs (a)
88721,82
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
19
DBC
FC costs
7982,47
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
96704,29
Requested EC contribution
48352,15
Direct costs (a)
90875,75
17210,09
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
20
UoA
AC costs
18175,15
3442,02
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
109050,90
20652,11
Requested EC contribution
109050,90
20652,11
161
Total
(4)=(1)+(2)+
(3)
Total
receipts
Month 25 - Month 25 –
42
42
122779,84
122902,38
245682,22
127619,72
72368,44
0
14473,69
86842,13
86842,13
92198,79
0
20525,40
112724,18
64631,37
88721,82
0
7982,47
96704,29
48352,15
108085,84
0
21617,17
129703,01
129703,01
0
Detailed financial information – third 18 months of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
OrganiEstimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Training
Consortium
Cost
Partici sation
receipts
Innovationactivities
Management
model
pant n° short
(second 18 months of the
related activities
(2)
activities
used
name
project)
(1)
(3)
Month 25 – 42
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 – 42
Direct costs (a)
40928,05
1861,17
Eligible Of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
TUD
21
AC costs
8475,90
372,23
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
49403,94
2233,41
Requested EC contribution
49403,94
2233,41
Direct costs (a)
122731,72
5678,18
14100,00
Eligible Of which subcontracting
FORTHn
Indirect costs (b)
23
FC costs
57988,21
2583,43
et
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
180719,93
8261,61
Requested EC contribution
90359,97
8261,61
Direct costs (a)
38045,62
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
24
ERC
AC costs
7609,10
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
45654,72
Requested EC contribution
45654,72
Direct costs (a)
21519,98
Eligible of which subcontracting
TELEME
Indirect costs (b)
25
FC costs
6509,30
DICINE
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
28029,28
Requested EC contribution
14014,64
Direct costs (a)
70759,55
8185,27
of
which
subcontracting
Eligible
Indirect costs (b)
26
BGU
AC costs
14151,91
1637,05
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
84911,46
9822,32
Requested EC contribution
84911,46
9822,32
162
Total
(4)=(1)+(2)+
(3)
Total
receipts
Month 25 Month 25 - 42
42
42789,22
8848,13
51637,35
51637,35
128409,90
14100,00
60571,64
188981,54
98621,58
38045,62
0
7609,10
45654,72
45654,72
21519,98
0
6509,30
28029,28
14014,64
78944,82
0
15788,96
94733,78
94733,78
0
0
Detailed financial information – third 18 months of the project
Costs and EC contribution per type of activities
OrganiEstimated eligible costs and
RTD or
Training
Consortium
Cost
Partici sation
receipts
Innovationactivities
Management
model
pant n° short
(second 18 months of the
related activities
(2)
activities
used
name
project)
(1)
(3)
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 - 42
Month 25 - 42
Direct costs (a)
21098,79
2209,67
Eligible of which subcontracting
FOURIE
Indirect costs (b)
27
FCF costs
4601,52
441,93
R
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
25700,30
2651,61
Requested EC contribution
12850,15
2651,61
Direct costs (a)
93279,03
10421,03
10600,00
4376,83
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
PBF
29
FCF costs
20150,06
2084,21
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
113429,09
12505,23
Requested EC contribution
56714,55
12505,23
Direct costs (a)
15928,09
3077,76
of
which
subcontracting
Eligible
LAEIndirect costs (b)
30
AC costs
3185,62
615,55
TSU
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
19113,71
3693,32
Requested EC contribution
19113,71
3693,32
Direct costs (a)
21371,45
6711,25
Eligible of which subcontracting
Indirect costs (b)
SEUA
31
AC costs
4274,29
1342,25
Total eligible costs (a)+(b)
25645,73
8053,50
Requested EC contribution
25645,73
8053,50
TOTAL
Eligible Costs
Requested EC contribution
3562940,16
2084821,34
163
248918,77
248918,77
Total
(4)=(1)+(2)+
(3)
Total
receipts
Month 25 Month 25 - 42
42
23308,46
5043,45
28351,91
15501,76
103700,06
10600,00
22234,27
125934,33
69219,78
19005,86
0
3801,17
22807,03
22807,03
28082,69
0
5616,54
33699,23
33699,23
0
121489,10 3933348,03
121489,10 2455229,21
0
0
9.5 IP management level description of resources and budget
The Rural Wings project is a joint initiative of Satellite Communications Providers/Operators,
Software Experts, Telecommunication Companies, Experts in Distance and Life Long Learning
methods as well as a large number of Users’ communities in 12 countries from Europe (plus South
Africa). 25 partners consist the consortium of the project and in the Table 9.1 are presented the
participants per country.
Table 9.1: Participants per Country
COUNTRY
GREECE
FRANCE
UNITED KINGDOM
SWEDEN
CYPRUS
SPAIN
SWITZERLAND
ARMENIA
PARTICIPANTS
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
COUNTRY
GERMANY
BELGIUM
ISRAEL
GEORGIA
POLAND
ROMANIA
ESTONIA
PARTICIPANTS
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
The partners of the consortium are divided in 8 categories/sectors that are shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: Partners per category / sector
Satellite and telecommunication Industry
Astrium
Avanti
EUTELSAT
HELLASSAT
FORTHnet
Institutions within Universities
ICCS
INSEAD
SU-IIE
SME
Q-PLAN
Alfa – Omega
DBC
TELEMEDICINE
Fourier Systems
Universities
University of Barcelona
University “Politehnica” OF Bucharest
UNIVERSITY OF AEGEAN
Technical University of Dresden
BEN GURION UNIVERSITY
State Engineering University of Armenia
Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Institutions
FORTH
Ellinogermaniki Agogi
Foundations
ERC
PBF
Networks
EDEN
In Figure 9.1 it is indicated the proportion of participants per category. The 38% of the participants
belong to the categories of Satellite Industry and SMEs.
165
Govermental
Foundations Authorities Networks
6%
9%
3%
Satcom Industry
18%
Institutions within
Universities
9%
Institutions
12%
SME
20%
Universities
23%
Figure 9.1: Participants per Category.
In Table 9.3 the core group of people who will be actively involved in the project’s activities, their role
and their expertise, is presented.
Table 9.3: Project’s resources (Human Potential).
Name
Prof. N. Uzunoglou
Dr. Rodoula Makri,
Dr Somya Joshi
Dr. M. Gargalakos
Mr. M. Chatzipanos
Partner
ICCS
Patricia INIGO
Ariane ISOARD
Greet VERELST
Gregory LEMAIRE
Melanie MONIER
Cyrille MOREAU
Trevor Barker
Orlandoi Capitanio
Gregor Siegert
Antonella Esteves
Dr Lydia GAILLARD FAGHIHY
ASTRIUM SAS
Dr. S.A. Sotiriou,
Dr. E. Chatzichristou
Dr. S. Savas,
Dr. E.Apostolakis
Albert A. Angehrn
EA
Prof. Henrik Hansson
Dr. Jared Odero
Prof. Goran Lange
Dr. ANDRAS SZUCS
Ildiko Mazar
Dr. C. Tapinos
M. Sotiriou
E. Tsiopoulos
Dr Constantinos Kassianides
(responsible)
Alexis Theodotou
SUIIE
Background / Expertise
Project Management, Satellite Communications, RF and
Wireless Communication Systems, Design, Simulation and
Development of Microwaves Systems and Components,
Antennas Design and Development (participation in many EU
FP5 and FP6 projects), Technology Enhanced Learning and
interaction services (Project Coordinator in Lab of Tomorrow
[FP5] and CONNECT [FP6] projects). Socio Economic Apporach
and holistic evaluation
Satellite telecommunication system engineers responsible for
synthesis and coordination with TWISTER program as described
in Section 3 and WP2, roadmap development and dissemination
activities, system design and analysis, especially concerning
potential improvements provided by on-board S/C processing
AVANTI
Business and Market Analysts, Generating creative ideas and
content for users, Rolling out DVB-RCS terminals, support of
satellite operators
EUTELSAT
Satellite Communications Engineers
Communications via Satellite, Innovative satellite e-solutions
Advanced systems in science education, Evaluation of the
impact of ICT at schools, Science Educational systems,
Implementation and school networking
INSEAD
EDEN
Q-PLAN
HELLASSAT
Simulations of social dynamics, peer-to peer learning, and
advanced/3D meeting environments
Distance Learning applications, ICT applications, Teachers
Training
Network for the Development and the implementation of
Distance learning
Project Management, Project Office, Market Analysis,
Development of Business and Commercial Plans
Satellite Communications Engineers
166
Andreas Laccotripes
Pefkios Photiades
Dr. Mario Barajas
Dr. Roser Boix
Prof. I. Tollis
Dr Vangelis Sakkalis
UoB
FORTH
Prof. Gabriel Dima
Alina Borcos
Laurentiu Teodorescu
Adriana Jitaru
Viive AASMA.
Kaisa ORUNUK
UPB
Caroline Arnault
Jean-François Reveillard
Prof. K. Tsolakidis
M. Fokidis
A Konstadinou
Prof. Dr. Thomas Koehler
Manolis Stratakis
Christine Assimakopoulou
Nick Gikopoulos
Antonis Miliarakis
George Makrakis
Prof. L. Bossaert
K.G. Monsieurs
Y.TH.MATSAKIS
Dr. Aaron Aviram
Nimrod Matan
Meir Gerner
DBC
Prof. A.M.J. SKULIMOWSKI
Ass. Prof. L. Porebski
Agnieszka Mistur
Prof. Ruben Aghgashyan,
Maria Mangasarova
Progress
Business
Foundation
ARMENIA
A&O
UoA
Public Relations and communications services. Coordination
educational and training projects as well as projects on raising
public awareness on innovation & research.
Video transmissions and Multimedia. Web TV channel. Internet
applications
Open and Distance Learning applications, Teachers Training
TUD
FORTHnet
Methods of Developing and implementing Distance learning
Telecommunications and Internet services
ERC
First Aid Content – Medical resources
TELEMEDICINE
BGU
Software engineering
Advanced Learning applications
FOURIER
Compact portable data logging devices and accessories for the
education market
Educational, training and socio-economic aspects.
GEORGIA
Prof. Revaz Zaridze
Dr David Kakulia
Dr. Giorgi Ghvedashvili
Research into the educational, training and socio-economic
aspects of the use of e-Learning. Rural education
Computational vision and robotics, intelligent image
management and retrieval by content, medical informatics, and
medical imaging, health telematics applications, involved in the
TWISTER project as described in Section 3 and WP2
Distance Learning applications, ICT applications, Teachers
Training
&
Microwave and Satellite Communications, RF and Wireless
Communication Systems, Design, Simulation and Development
of Microwaves Systems and Components, Antennas Design and
Development
Microwave and Satellite Communications, RF and Wireless
Communication Systems, Design, Simulation and Development
of Microwaves Systems and Components, Antennas Design and
Development
167
9.5.1 Person months
The person months effort that will be needed for the realization of the Rural Wings Project is
949 person-months for the full duration: It is planned to spend 392 pms in the third 18 months
period (M25-M42) according to the project time schedule.
The percentage of each WP person months in respect to the total person months for the full duration is
shown in the following tables 9.4 and 9.5.
TABLE 9.4
WP
WP1 Management
WP2 Feasibility study
WP3 User Needs Analysis
WP4 Scenarios Adaptation &
Development
WP5 Adaptation of Platforms
& Tools
WP6.A Pilot –
Implementation and Trials
WP7 Evaluation
WP8 Market Investigation
WP9 Dissemination
WP6.B Training of the Users
TOTAL
Full duration
MM
57.5
25
60
132
%
6
2.6
6.3
14
139
Third 18 months (M25-M42)
MM
%
16.5
4.6
48,5
12.7
14.6
42,5
10.7
262
27.6
132
34.3
101
50
71.5
51
949
10.6
5.3
7.5
5.4
56,5
27
37
32
392
13.5
7.2
9.4
7.5
TABLE 9.5
WP
WP1 Management
WP2 Feasibility study
WP3 User Needs Analysis
WP4 Scenarios Adaptation &
Development
WP5 Adaptation of Platforms
& Tools
WP6.A Pilot –
Implementation and Trials
WP7 Evaluation
WP8 Exploitation
WP9 Dissemination
WP6.B Training of the Users
Percentage
of
the
18months effort in respect
full duration effort
32
38.6
31
53
54
58
53
59
In respect to the different activities that are carried out during the project evolution the following table
9.6 can be presented:
Table 9.6: Project’s MM per Activity
ACTIVITY
Total
Percentage
Total MMs
168
Percentage
% MM for
MMs for
full
duration
RTD
Demonstration
Training
Management
TOTAL
840.5
88.5
51
57.5
949
5.4
6
for the
third 18
months
(M25-M42)
343,50
32
16.5
392
third period /
full duration
88
42
3
4.6
59
32
42.4
From the above tables it is seen that the largest portion of the project effort both for the third 18
months period and the full duration is allocated to RTD activities while there will be no demonstration
activities through the project evolution. The comparison between the MMs allocated to the third 18
months in respect to those of the full project duration verifies the time schedule and cycles of activities
that take place in these two periods of the project evolution. WP2 and WP3 finish during the second
18 months period of the project and this is essential in order the basic technical background (WP2)
and the users profile (WP3) to act as guidelines for the evolution of the other WPs (WP5 and WP7).
The rest of the RTD WPs (i.e. WP4, WP5, WP7, WP6.A) continue in the next project duration and
follow the three main cycles – three main runs - of the implementation procedure (test run, final run
phase A, final run phase B). After each of these runs, a cycle of




scenarios and content adaptations / integrations (WP4),
technological modifications and adaptations (satellite equipment and systems, hardware and
software) concerning the integration of the end to end satellite communication applications
(WP5),
evaluation procedures (WP7) and
users training (WP6.B)
will take place.
In the first cycle of the test runs a larger effort in respect to the above WPs took place since this was
the first attempts to provide an integrated system that is operational in principle (testing of all the tools)
while in the next two cycles only adaptations and modifications or redesigns in case of possible
malfunctions will take place. This issue justifies the effort allocated to these WPs in the third 18
months reference to the corresponding effort for the full duration of the project.
Finally, the MMs allocated to WP8 (Exploitation) and WP9 (Dissemination) follow a reasonable
distribution of effort for the third project period while significant efforts are allocated for the
management issues in order to administrate properly and conduct the above different and extended
activities.
In general for the full duration,
 around 18% of the work will be allocated to the technological component of the Rural Wings
project (WP2, WP5)
 around 33% in the implementation and training component of the project (WP6.A, WP6.B)
 around 29% will be allocated to pedagogical and evaluation aspects (WP3, WP4, WP7) while
 around 20% will be allocated to the market research, management and dissemination
activities.
169
9.5.2 Budget Issues
The total budget of the project is estimated to 8.826.737 EURO. The requested funding is
5.400.000 EURO (about 61% of the budget).
The total budget will be allocated to personnel costs (plus overheads), travel and other costs mainly
while a large amount will be allocated to infrastructure i.e. equipment for the pilot sites.
Specifically the budget and the requested EC contribution for the third 18 months as well as for the
overall project’s duration is presented in Tables 9.7-9.10 per each activity.
Table 9.7: Project’s Budget per Activity
Total
Percentage
Requested
ACTIVITY
EC
contribution
4623821.22
RTD
85.5
Demonstration
Training
398179.40
7.5
Management
378000
7
TOTAL
5400000
100
Percentage
EC/Contribution
/ Budget
8050557.50
91.2
57.5
398179.40
378000
8826737
4.5
4.3
100
100
100
61
Percentage
EC/Contribution
/ Budget
Total
Budget
Table 9.8
ACTIVITY
RTD
Demonstration
Training
Management
TOTAL
Requested
EC
contribution
third
18
months
2068754.29
Percentage
85
3552806.04
90.6
58
210420.10
156591.18
2435765.57
8.6
6.4
100
210420.10
156591.18
3919817.32
5.4
4
100
100
100
62
Budget for
the
third
18 months
Table 9.9
Total
Requested EC
contribution
Requested
contribution
18 months
4623821.22
2068754.29
EC
contribution
for the third 18
months
/
EC
contribution
for
the full duration
44.7
398179.40
378000
5400000
210420.10
156591.18
2435765.57
53
41.4
45
ACTIVITY
Total Budget
Budget for the
third 18 months
RTD
Demonstration
Training
Management
TOTAL
8050557.50
3552806.04
Budget for the
third 18 months /
Budget for the full
duration
44
398179.40
378000
8826737
210420.10
156591.18
3919817.32
53
41.4
44.4
ACTIVITY
RTD
Demonstration
Training
Management
TOTAL
EC
third
Table 9.10
170
From the above table it is obvious that the budget expenditure follow the same rules with the person
months allocation in the various activities. 14 of the 25 partners are under the FC or FCF cost model
and thus contribute resources to the project evolution mainly in the RTD activities. There are no large
scale demonstrations activities inside Rural Wings project; on the other hand local demonstration
activities (presentation of the Learning Hub of the pilot sites to the local users) are not prevented
throughout the project evolution especially during the implementation phases but a) are strongly
connected to the training activities as it can be derived from the relevant WP6.B and b) in the case
where local scale demonstration activities should take place this will be done mainly by the
corresponding partner’s own resources.
Management Activities
The cost of the Management activities of the Rural Wings project is divided into the following partners:



ICCS (scientific coordination and project management)
ASTRIUM (technical coordination of the pilot sites)
QPLAN (administrative assistance to the project management)
According to the tasks specified in Section 8.1.4 for each of the above parties.
The cost breakdown for the management activities of the above partners for the full duration of the
project is shown below:
Table 9.11
MANAGEMENT
MMs
Rate
Personnel
Travel
Equipment
Other
Total Direct Costs
Overhead
Total (Funding)
ICCS
17
4300
73100
2333
ASTRIUM
6
12231.8
73390.8
24000
75433
15087
90520
97390.8
12728.98
110120
QPLAN
26
3800
98800
28000
9000
12000
147800
29560
177360
378000
Notes:
a) The management activities apart from the personnel costs include also travel costs for the proper
administration and management of the project. These travel costs correspond to certain trips of the
management team in order to investigate and arrange administrative issues among the partners.
ASTRIUM as technical coordinator of the pilot sites will use these travel costs to administrate the
proper establishment of the pilot sites in different countries while for the ICCS and QPLAN the
purpose of these costs is evident.
b) Since ICCS is under AC cost model, will combine management trips with trips for RTD purpose or
may use its own resources to make all the additional management travels were needed.
c) Regarding QPLAN’s budget the following clarifications are shown regarding specific cost
categories:
In the QPLAN’s Equipment category, hardware equipment (PCs) for the project management is
included. The monitoring of the activities and the schedule will be electronically and web based. Also
Q-Plan is going to use and modify Access based software so to have the overall monitoring and
control of the effort as well as the budget usage to all the partners. Finally, in this category exclusively
equipment for the support of the project meetings is also included.
In the Other Costs category, QPLAN budget includes the costs related to many official or unofficial
publications concerning Proceedings, Reports and Reviews to all the stakeholders and Quality
Reports to all the partners and the EC for the organisation and support of the plenary meetings and
the Creation of Communication Channels (Internal and External) including the organization of
clustering meetings or workshops with other relevant projects. Furthermore, since Q-Plan is
responsible to organize all these meetings, QPLAN will have expenses about the organization of them
(arrangements of venues, production of folders with presentations, arrangements for the breaks etc.).
171
Training activities
The costs for the training activities for each partner were calculated based on the following:
a) number of MMs for training activities for each partner
b) rate of personnel for each partner
c) total travels costs for training activities were set as a maximum flat number of 2000 Euros for
each partner
d) total maximum costs of training material (presentations, text, trainer’s handout notes etc):
2000 Euros for each partner
For the partners that have more MMs for the training activities or train larger number of users the
amounts allocated were 3000 Euros for travel costs and 3000 Euros for the training materials costs.
These partners are ICCS and EA.
Own Personnel resources for AC model partners
In addition to the effort explicitly mentioned in the project description the partners adopting additional
cost model (AC) will contribute with their permanent research and technical staff for the project
activities. This contribution is estimated as follows:
Table 9.12
ID
1
9
15
17
20
21
24
26
30
31
TOTAL
PART
NER
ICCS
SU/IIE
UoB
UPB
UoA
TUD
ERC
BGU
LAETSU
SEUA
PERSONNEL
No of
resear
chers
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
MMs
Cost
14
8
5
8
10
14
3
22
1
63028
28088
19700
21944
26680
63000
12000
70884
1000
1
17
1
86
1200
307524
EQUIP
MENT
CONSUMABLES
and OTHER
INSTALLATION
COSTS
10000
10000
1000
2000
5000
3000
1000
4000
32000
13500
1000
500
2000
6000
TOTAL
77028
38088
21700
24444
33680
72000
13000
70884
1000
1200
353024
Who pays what in Rural Wings
It should be made clear that the end users addressed in the Rural Wings project pay nothing for the
offered service in total or the equipment needed. All the equipment and services are provided to the
end users of the pilot sites from the consortium within the 4 years of duration of the Rural Wings
project. Specifically:
a) the satellite service (capacity, bandwidth and DVB/RCS terminals along with installation costs) are
provided from the Rural Wings satellite providers (EUTELSAT, HELLASSAT, AVANTI) respective
budget within the Rural Wings
b) the rest of the equipment needed to support any pilot site (WiFi networks, peripherals, PCs,
cameras, installation costs etc) are provided basically by the National Coordinators for their respective
pilot sites in their countries or other consortium partners as described in detail in Section 8.1.1 and
especially in the Tables 8.3 – 8.15.
A further analysis of each cost item is given in the Section below.
172
Equipment, Software and Other Costs
In this paragraph all the components related to the equipment, infrastructure, software development
and other costs will be described in detail along with the relevant costs of each component. The
responsibilities of each partner, reference to what type of the above equipment related categories
should be purchased by whom or be conducted by whom are shown in the tables of Section 8.1.1. In
this paragraph a more detailed description of these equipment categories will take place referring also
the current or foreseen related costs and expenses.
It should be noted that According to the 1st Technical Annex (M1-M18) two satellite providers were
mentioned EUTELSAT and HELLASAT and a distribution of the pilot sites in these two satellite’s
providers coverage was provided. HELLASAT was covering the pilot sites in Greece, Cyprus and
Turkey while EUTELSAT covered all the other European countries and South Africa. Since, the
Turkish partner withdrew and two partners from Georgia and Armenia were inserted these partners
could only be covered by EUTELSAT in terms of the provision of satellite services in these countries.
On the other hand, middle of Autumn 2006, the Coordinator was informed officially from AVANTI that
the company had recently been able to offer satellite services (coverage, satellite time etc) itself
through specific Satellite that the company AVANTI SCREENMEDIA owned. This would affect neither
AVANTI’s budget nor the whole RURAL WINGS project budget since the corresponding costs would
be covered by AVANTI’s own resources. By this way, the 16 pilot sites in UK would be covered by
AVANTI and not EUTELSAT.
Thus, 3 satellite providers are currently within the RURAL WINGS project as partners. In terms of the
pilot sites offered services and coverage the following consequences occur:
 HELLASAT has 4 pilot sites less to cover (since the Turkish pilot sites are not
present). In order a compensation to be made, HELLASAT will cover and install
DVB/RCS terminals in 2 more pilot sites in Cyprus where HELLASAT is NC. Thus, the
total pilot sites for Cyprus for the full duration of the project will be 8 instead of 6
originally foreseen.
 EUTELSAT has +5 new sites (from Georgia and Armenia) and -16 pilot sites from the
UK; total 11 pilot sites less to cover
 AVANTI will cover the 16 UK pilot sites from its own budget.
Thus, since the budget of EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT remains the same while they have less
number of pilot sites to cover it was decided by the Management team to use the budget left to
offer more satellite time and bandwidth in the pilot sites they will cover for compensation.
Thus, better satellite services will be provided for longer periods for the RURAL WINGS pilot
sites of their coverage. To this respect, the following take place as described in Section 8.1.1:
EUTELSAT will deliver bandwidth the enable a "continuous" provision all over the project, with gradual
and smooth upgrades of the total available bandwidth. This is done at constant budget. EUTELSAT
already provides satellite bandwidth since February 2007 since this was a requirement to be able to
commission and activate the DVB/RCS terminals installed. The "continuous" provision of bandwidth is
also the only way to enable a good preparation for the sites participating to test runs, no interference
with the installations and commissioning and a better acceptation for the sites that will start usage.
From the R&D point of view, this is also the only way for EUTELSAT to better assess what are the
actual usages and perform a continuous tuning of the services characteristics and conditions,
including, towards the end of the project, conclude on the issue of sustainability and prices. For the
periods of the Test Runs and the two periods of the Final Runs, EUTELSAT will provide the satellite
service as this is described in the next Table 8.2.
In a similar way, HELLASAT will deliver bandwidth and service provision to the sites in order to enable
a "continuous" provision of service to the sites. In order to do that HELLASAT has to decrease the
available Bandwidth in the periods that this was not supposed to be provided i.e. the periods between
the Runs as appeared in the initial Technical Annex, as well as to reschedule the Bandwidth allocation
to the sites in the Test and Final Runs. This will be done in constant budget and will need a continuous
monitoring and tuning of the Bandwidth allocated to the pilot sites. HELLASAT already provides
satellite services to the pilot sites where DVB/RCS have been installed. There are 10 pilot sites that
173
are planned for the Test Runs and HELLASAT provides the service to these sites since the beginning
of 2007 i.e. since the installation of the DVB/RCS terminals in 8 sites in Greece and in 2 in Cyprus in
order to check that the terminals were activated. The use of the bandwidth in the framework of the
project from each user will enable HELLASAT towards the end of the project to conclude on the issue
of sustainability and prices. For the periods of the Test Runs and the two periods of the Final Runs,
HELLASAT will provide the satellite service as this is described in the next Table 8.2.
AVANTI provides full services for the pilot sites in UK for which is responsible.
Satellite service provision (Other Costs category)
The provision of the satellite services in terms of bandwidth, capacity and connection to the internet
world wide backbone is made by AVANTI, EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT as described in Section
8.1.1.
The AVANTI’s responsibilities in satellite service cover only the 16 pilot sites of United
Kingdom and are in as follows:
AVANTI
 Provision of 16 DVB/RCS terminals with antennas and possible necessary
accessories to the users for 2,5 years.
 Provision of satellite capacity according to the following timeline:
 4 pilot sites for 4 months (test run period: start M17)
 12 pilot sites for 12 months (implementation periods: phase A and phase B)
Responsibilities for AVANTI service provider for 4 sites in the Test Runs and for 16 pilot sites
of the UK for the two Final Runs:
 IP access with 2Mbps downlink and 512 Kbps uplink capability for each terminal (Bi-directional
satellite internet access similar to DSL type of service, contended according to Avanti
standard terms and conditions.
 DVB/RCS Terminal and antenna installation (site survey)
 Networking monitoring and full maintenance of sites for all the implementation periods
 Internet access to DVB/RCS Hubs
 Licenses by governmental authorities for provision of DVB/RCS services to all the pilot sites
 Provision for the interconnection between the DVB/RCS Hubs of both providers
 Close cooperation with the National Coordinators for the installation, technical support and deinstallation of the DVB/RCS equipment
The above responsibilities of AVANTI for the 16 UK sites will be covered by AVANTI’s budget
within RURAL WINGS and by its own resources without causing any alteration in the project’s
overall budget.
To this respect the section that follows determines the responsibilities of EUTELSAT and
HELLASAT separately:
The above two satellite providers offer the corresponding use of their existing DVB/RCS hubs to the
Rural Wings project for the connection to their satellites. All related technical support costs and other
functional costs along with the satellite service itself (provision of satellite bandwidth) lie to the
EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT budget in the framework of the Rural Wings. In other words, EUTELSAT
and HELLASSAT provide from their budget inside Rural Wings satellite bandwidth service to all the
pilot sites that will be deployed in the project framework. Since, the provision of a bandwidth service
has a specific cost, it is clear that this cost is not paid by the users (the Rural Wings pilot sites) but
from the EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT budget inside Rural Wings (EU funding and their own
resources).
This satellite service provision lies in the Other Costs category of the Rural Wings expenses and can
be calculated for the total number of sites that each provider covers for the full project duration (see
Section 8.1.1) according to the following table:
174
Table 9.13
Providers
EUTELSAT
HELLASSAT
TOTAL
VALUES
Number
of
sites covered
Total expenses
satellite services
77
35
112
EU
funding
315290
134250
449540
for
Total
budget
630580
268500
899080
Average cost of satellite services
for the implementation duration of
(minimum) 16 months
per pilot site
Per month
6780
8136
7135
424
508
446
It should be noted that the foreseen total budget of EUTELSAT and HELLASAT for the satellite
services remains the same even if the number of pilot sites is reduced due to the transfer of
the UK pilot sites to AVANTI. The remaining amount will used to offer more satellite time
(capacity) and bandwidth to the pilot sites in the countries they cover for compensation as
described in Section 8.1.1.
As shown in the above table and following the relevant WP6A the total duration of the implementation
phase is minimum 16 months distributed in the following cycles:
Table 9.14
Start-end
Test Runs
Final Runs Phase A
Final Runs Phase B
M17-M20
M27-M32
M37-M42
Total Duration
(minimum)
4 months
6 months
6 months
Number of sites
deployed
32
96
Number of sites
operate
32
128
128
Based on the above table, the first 32 pilot sites that will be deployed in the first test runs period of
implementation will operate for 16 months (minimum) in total, while the rest 96 sites will operate for 12
months (minimum) in total since they will be deployed before the commencement of Final Runs Phase
A.
Reference to the above time schedule each one of the satellite providers will:
a) EUTELSAT will provide:

For the first period of the test runs: Dedicated shared bandwidth for EUTELSAT’s 22 sites at 1
Mbps downlink and 512 uplink for a duration of minimum 4 months, with IP backbone access
at 1 Mbps, and 13 Public addresses per terminal (this means that up to 13 PCs behind the
terminal could be connected without having to use an additional router).

For the second period of the two final runs (Phase A and Phase B): Dedicated shared
bandwidth for the 77 sites at 4 Mbps downlink and 2 Mbps uplink for a duration of minimum 12
months, with IP backbone access at 4 mbps, and 13 public addresses per terminal.
b) HELLASSAT will provide:

For the first period of the test runs: Dedicated shared bandwidth for Dedicated shared
bandwidth for HELLASSAT’s 10 sites at 1 Mbps downlink and 512 uplink for a duration of
minimum 4 months, with IP backbone access at 1 Mbps, and 13 Public addresses per terminal
(this means that up to 13 PCs behind the terminal could be connected without having to use
an additional router).

For the second period of the two final runs (Phase A and Phase B): Dedicated shared
bandwidth for the 35 sites at 1 Mbps downlink and 512 uplink for a duration of minimum 12
months with IP backbone access at 1 Mbps, and 13 Public addresses per terminal
(HELLASSAT will examine the possibility of upgrading its capacity respectively)
Connection to the Internet backbone is guaranteed by the two satellite providers, since both DVB/RCS
HUBs are connected to the Internet backbone. Despite the fact that there seems no necessity to have
175
an interconnection between the 2 HUBs of EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT, discussions can be held
during the first period of the project (esp. in the framework of WP2) in order to examine if there would
be sufficient reasons to investigate such a solution.
DVB/RCS Terminals (Equipment Costs category)
The DVB/RCS Terminals correspond to those components that perform the connection between the
terrestrial networks and equipment with the satellites. Each pilot site will be equipped with one
DVB/RCS terminal. Additionally, each pilot site through its corresponding terrestrial network (that will
be described in the following paragraph) will act a “Learning Hub” for all the users connected to its
terrestrial network since each pilot site will be the node for providing tele-education applications to its
network of users.
The DVB/RCS terminal consists of the basic terminal (mainly a satellite transceiver fully compatible
with the DVB/RCS International Standard) and the satellite antenna. Reference to that each satellite
operator will provide the terminals as follows:
EUTELSAT will use the D-STAR service fully compatible with DVB/RCS Standard. D-STAR services
are provided through Viasat HUB and Linkstar terminals. D-STAR services cover all the corresponding
countries (according to Section 8.1.1). The equipment configuration can vary from one region to
another from 0.96 m to 1.2 m antenna. While in major countries a 96cm antenna is sufficient, in some
countries bigger antenna (1.2 m) may be needed. In some specific parts, 1.8 m antenna could be
needed, for example Canary islands if the Spanish coordinator plans to have pilot sites there. The
exact type of the equipment configuration depends also on the site locations in order a more accurate
budget per terminal to be defined. A bi-directional satellite internet access similar to DSL type of
service will be provided.
HELLASSAT on the other hand will provide the same equipment configuration as EUTELSAT using
DVB/RCS terminals.
Cables and all necessary assemblies for the installation accompany the above mentioned transceivers
and will be provided by the satellite operators respectively. The access to DVB-RCS Hub and Satellite
Transponders is also included.
EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT will undertake also all networking and monitoring and full maintenance
of pilot sites in terms of satellite services and terminals.
Concerning the installation and local maintenance costs.
HELLASSAT includes these costs in its DVB/RCS terminals leasing schedule and installation and
maintenance will be performed by HELLASSAT itself.
For EUTELSAT these costs are anticipated through sub-contracting (as it will be shown in the relevant
chapter) and include costs for:
1.transport of the antenna to sites;
2.installation costs
3.local maintenance costs (for local trouble shooting and onsite intervention in case of hardware
failure)
DVB/RCS terminals costs table
These DVB/RCS terminals costs can be calculated for the total number of sites that each provider
covers for the full project duration (see Section 8.1.1) according to the following table:
Table 9.15
Providers
Number
of
sites covered
Total expenses for
DVB/RCS terminals
EU
Total
funding
budget
176
Average cost of
terminals per site
per pilot site
DVB/RCS
EUTELSAT
77
39588.5
79177
HELLASSAT
35
24650
49300
TOTAL
VALUES
112
64238.5
128477
850 (not including installation and
maintenance)
(*) 2170 (including installation
and maintenance calculating also
subcontracting costs)
1494 (including installation and
maintenance)
1020 (average)
It should be noted that the foreseen total budget of EUTELSAT and HELLASAT for the satellite
terminals equipment remains the same even if the number of pilot sites is reduced due to the
transfer of the UK pilot sites to AVANTI. The remaining amount will used to offer more satellite
time (capacity) and bandwidth to the pilot sites in the countries they cover for compensation.
General Notes for the equipment costs for both satellite providers
The DVB/RCS terminals costs lie also in the Satellite providers (EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT) budget
(EU funding and own resources) with the same way as the satellite service provision and they are not
purchased by the pilot sites or any other partner. The DVB/RCS terminals costs are included in the
equipment category. The manner that this equipment is provided to the users (pilot sites) resembles
the time-leasing type.
The satellite operators provide the DVB/RCS terminals to the pilot sites for the whole project duration
according to the time schedule defined in the implementation plan. “Renting” of full 128 (in total) DVBRCS terminals (Satcom Antenna, cables, transceiver and all necessary assemblies) and provision of
services according to the Timeline indicated. In fact, this is not a renting but a provision of equipment
to the users for a certain period of time. In general the equipment costs consist of the costs for the
depreciation of the terminals allocated to the project.
It is assumed that 128 terminals (for both providers) will be used from M12 to M42 (total 2,5 years
including installation, desinstallation and testing periods. The “months” indication is used here in order
to estimate the period of the depreciation and concerns only the DVB/RCS terminals equipment (not
the satellite service) due to the fact that is an important capital investment for them. Also it must be
noted that it is assumed that the satellite providers purchase the DVB/RCS terminals from their
vendors long time before their actual installation to the pilot sites for testing purposes and for exploiting
the mass ordering, so that better prices can be achieved. For this reason and explicitly for
EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT the whole equipment budget foreseen for DVB/RCS terminals is
provided to them in the first 18 months period of the project.
At the end of the pilot runs, specific conditions could be foreseen in case the users want to keep the
terminal to continue on operational and self-sustainable activities. In this case, the consortium could
examine the possibility the end-users to buy the terminals at very low prices since, that equipment will
have no significant value at the end of the project, and for which desinstallation procedure would not
be worthy. The investment would be minor for the users (much less than 800 € per terminal) and it
would really help them to feel more committed to the trials. Having the possibility to purchased this
equipment at very low prices in the end of the project, is a real incentive to participate more actively in
the pilot activities. In case the users would not want to continue the activity after the pilot, Eutelsat and
HELLASSAT could be entitled to take back the equipment. In that case, the consortium could also
examine the de-installation costs to be foreseen as eligible costs within the EC funding. The exact
decisions regarding the above issues will be made by the RURAL WINGS Consortium during the last
year of the project’s evolution.
In the beginning of the RURAL WINGS project and in order to be able to define all the above related
issues in due time, the satellite providers (EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT) will present a detailed and
clear depreciation scheme based on their country legislation and on the DVB/RCS terminals costs in
order, in cooperation with the RURAL WINGS Coordinator, to decide the exact amount that will be
charged to the RURAL WINGS project and the exact procedure (financial and legislative) of how the
terminals will be provided to the pilot sites. The EC will be informed regarding these decisions as early
as possible and the above scheme will be included officially in a specific dedicated chapter in the
177
Annual Management Report of the 1st project’s reporting period. This will be done in order to reassure
that all the relevant actions will be accounted in accordance with legal obligations and following the EC
Financial Guidelines. This depreciation basis will be used in order to be able to calculate in the end of
the project any remaining value of the equipment and to enable the consortium to decide regarding the
use of the equipment (terminals) after the end of the project with full transparency on which route will
be followed.
Terrestrial pilot site networks
The terrestrial pilot site networks include the deployment of the several kinds of wired or wireless
networks in order to achieve an adequate number of end-users to pilot sites. The users will be the final
recipients of the tele-education applications through the Rural Wings project. The end-users could be:
schools, SMEs, public information centres, town halls, medical bodies, individuals at their home,
farmers etc. Each end-user should be connected to its corresponding pilot site through the relevant
terrestrial pilot site network.
These terrestrial networks can be LANs or WLANs through WiFi networks or by any other mean of
connection (simple terminal that can be connected to the DVB/RCS terminal by a simple cable). The
above configurations depend greatly on the selection of the pilot sites itself, the selection of the
applications for each pilot site, the classification of the user’s profiles and the general satcom solution
scenarios that will be implemented for each case. It is clear that all the above will be the outcome of
WP2 and WP5 (especially tasks 2.3, 5.1, 5,2 and 5.3) and WP3 and will also follow the general
guidelines for each pilot site’s equipment as defined in Section 8.1.1.
In this sense general estimations regarding the terrestrial network budget will take place in this
paragraph.
For all solutions different than WLANs the equipment needed for these networks would consist of the
following:
 Purchase of PC terminals to be connected to the DVB/RCS terminals
 Purchase of monitors, and peripherals etc
 Any kind of relevant consumables
The purchase of the above equipment will be done by each National Coordinator (or specific other
partner of the consortium) as defined in the relevant tables of Section 8.1.1.
WLAN solutions
These solutions incorporate mainly the deployment of WiFi networks to establish the proper
connection of the DVB/RCS terminals of a pilot site to its remote end-users. Various types of WiFi
equipment can be found in a market search with different performance and prices. In any case, the
number of WiFis that will be deployed in the framework of Rural Wings is rather limited in comparison
to the total number of pilot sites, while the desired location of the WiFi networks is defined in the tables
of Section 8.1.1
Based on the current market search and prices calculations (end of 2004) the following WiFi
equipment would be used in the framework of the Rural Wings project.
Standard equipment
WiFi Hot Spots with a WiFi antenna and interface card driver with maximum 5 users per site i.e.:
 Central Wifi Equipment from Unipop & Antenna from YDI cost around 1000 EUR
 Linksys WET-11 80211.b client devices cost 100 Euros per user
This would result in a total cost for 5 users: 1500 Euros per site
On the other hand extended number of users leads to the use of Bandwidth Shapers for these
terrestrial networks. Current (end of 2004) market search provides many manufacturers for Bandwidth
Shapers:
178
(most well-known from Netenforcer
(http://www.axial.co.uk/packeteer)
(http://www.allot.com/pages/products_index),
Packeteer
Bandwidth Shapers are hardware devices through which the RCS traffic flows in both directions. They
are used to monitor and control the use of the bandwidth. By setting up rules one can allocate specific
amounts of bandwidth to different users, IP addresses, protocols etc. Graphs also can be obtained
showing who has used which bandwidth. It can be very useful, to diagnose network problems when a
device was flooding the network. Devices are available that can handle from 2Mbps but up to large
ISPs with very large throughput.
Advanced equipment
The advance equipment is meant for a large number of end-users and high quality of service and
includes:
 Central WiFi Equipment for 11 residential user terminal, with outdoor antenna: costs appr.
3500 Euros
 Traffic shaper and gateway (without very sophisticated bandwidth and quality management
equipment): costs approx. 3500 Euros
 Radio backbone including base station equipment, omni antenna, cabinet, etc: costs approx.
5000 Euros
This would result in a total cost: 12000 Euros per site
It must be stated that the examination of which exact of the above solutions would be suitable for each
pilot site, is the subject of WP2, WP3 and WP5 as stated previously.
ASTRIUM will purchase and handle 2 advanced WiFi equipment in selected pilot sites in France.
ASTRIUM will also install 2 more WiFis in Spain (as defined in Section 8.1.1); these WiFis will be
purchased by the Spanish NC who will decide which of the above solutions are appropriate based on
his resources.
For the rest of the pilot sites where WiFi networks will be deployed, the National Coordinators (or
specific partner as defined in Section 8.1.1) will purchase the above-described equipment for their pilot
site end-users
On the other hand, ASTRIUM will make all the necessary simulation testing of any kind of WiFi setting
(purchased by the rest NCs) through the simulation test bench available in ASTRIUM premises, in
order to examine the compatibility with the whole system network architecture of the WiFis equipment
that will be used in the framework of Rural Wings. This lies in ASTRIUM’s involvement in the WP5
(task leader in task 5.1 and 5.3).
General Notes for the terrestrial pilot sites networks
There will inevitably be differences in costs of equipment used by different partners. This is probably
particularly true with WiFi equipment. The WiFi market changes so rapidly that, it might be possible not
to be able to use the same equipment from the same manufacturer throughout the whole period of
Rural Wings project (since product specs change regularly). The Rural Wings consortium will try to
use cheap devices as possible without jeopardising the whole system performance, taking the view
that a site needing very expensive equipment is unlikely to be commercially viable. This does however
cause limitations on the range of the WiFi equipment.
Other technical components of the equipment and consumables categories
Apart from the partners already mentioned in the previous equipment categories, almost all the rest of
partners that participate in the Rural Wings consortium will have equipment costs that are strongly
related to the fulfilment of their activities and responsibilities throughout the project evolution.
These equipment costs are strongly related to the following:
179
For the platform providers (EA, INSEAD, FORTH and ERC, DBC, FORTHnet, TELEMEDICINE,
FOURIER):
All equipment costs related to the additional developments and adaptations of their platforms and etools that will be used to establish the Tele-education applications of the Rural Wings project as this is
defined in Section 8.1.1. In this category the cost of servers to support the uploading of any kind
of e-platforms and e-tools to the Rural Wings satellite network and the relevant maintenance
lies within the budget of the platform providers.
This equipment is strongly related to specific hardware and software dedicated to the adaptations of
the applications along with the use of the related consumables. In Section 8.1.1 this equipment is
mentioned for each platform provider respectively. Additionally to that it must be noted that:
a) FORTHnet along with the necessary equipment needed for its own platform application will
provide all the necessary adaptations of the FORTH and ERC common platform; this is the
reason why FORTH claims no equipment costs.
b) TELEMEDICINE will provide the MEDSKY platform already compatible with the Eutelsat’s
DVB/RCS platform standard without claiming any equipment costs from the Rural Wings
budget.
For the National Coordinators:
All equipment costs related to the proper and sufficient operation of the pilot sites of each National
Coordinator’s country. These equipment costs consist of the following:
a) purchase of PCs for the pilot sites (where needed depending on the location and type of the
pilot site)
b) purchase of all peripherals (scanners, printers etc), assemblies, cables and consumables
needed to guarantee the adequate operation of each pilot site (where needed)
c) purchase of the necessary low cost hardware or software for each pilot site to conduct the
proper performance of the tele-education applications in the pilot sites. This category includes
also the purchase of low-cost web cameras for the realization of the video lessons in schools.
These webcams cost approximately 100 Euros each while several types and prices can be
found on the market. A high quality video system with high-quality camera could cost up to
5000 Euros. One full high quality video system with the relevant camera will be provided by
TELEMEDICINE to the project but the National Coordinators are free to decide if they can
afford to purchase high-quality cameras for some of their pilot sites.
In any case the exact equipment to be purchased by the National Coordinators (since many of them
possess no Technical expertise) is also subject of the WP2, WP5 and WP3, which will define the exact
demands and applications for each pilot site along with the general system and network architecture
with the assistance of the WP6A for the implementation phases.
For the rest of the partners:
Any other additional equipment needed for each partner to assist each partners activities throughout
the project and the adequate flow of work (PCs, printers, additional software etc).
In general, in order to minimise this cost a common procurement scheme will be launched e based on
the following principles:
 the ability of the partners to invest the financial resources corresponding to the non-funded cost
 the prospects of using effectively the equipment beyond the period of duration of the project as
part of their demonstration facilities
 the ability of the National Coordinators to persuade local communities and authorities to invest
their own funds in order to exploit as much as possible the capabilities of the offered integrated
satellite services (purchase of more PCs, webcams or high quality cameras, deploy more WiFis
etc)
180
Travel
The calculation of the Rural Wings travel costs is mainly based on the specific categories of the
various types of travels that are needed throughout the project evolution in order to fulfill the Rural
Wings system goals. These categories along with the corresponding budget are shown in the
following:
a) Costs of Annual Plenary Board meetings
Table 9.16
meetings
per year
1
Total for 4
years
6
Expenses for 3 days
including air ticket
1200
Minimum
participants
24
no
of
Sub-total
travel costs
180000
of
The Annual Plenary Board meetings are meetings where at least one representative of the partners
participating in the Rural Wings should be present. The Annual Plenary Board meetings are meetings
where the whole consortium will be informed for all the activities carried out in the various WPs
through presentations of each working group and where major decisions will take place that affect the
work progress of each partner. For that reason the duration of this meetings is extended; by this way
traveling costs such as air ticket is rather reduced according to the air carriers policies.
Efforts will be made so that other Rural Wings meetings (Steering Committee meetings, WP meetings
etc) to be combined with the Annual Plenary Board meetings in order to reduce additional expenses. It
is already scheduled for the 1st and the 2nd year of the project to include in the framework of the
Annual Plenary Board meetings the organization of the two workshops as these were described in
Section 6.3.
b) Costs of Steering Committee meetings
Table 9.17
meetings Total for 4
per year years
3
12
Expenses for 1 days
including air ticket
900
Minimum
participants
8
no
of
Sub-total
travel costs
86400
of
These meetings are meetings of the consortium members that form the Steering Committee the
number of which is defined by the Rural Wings Consortium Agreement. The Steering Committee is a
management body inside Rural Wings established to ensure the sufficient flow of information between
the consortium and the project administration along with the quick and flexible decision-making. Since
1 day trip is requested, the travel expenses are rather reduced while in order to achieve adequate
project administration, 3 Steering Committee meetings per year are adequate. Efforts will be made in
order the Steering Committee meetings to be held in combination with other meetings.
c) Costs of other meetings (WP meetings or joint-WP meetings)
Table 9.18
meetings Total for 4
per year years
2
8
Expenses for 2 days
including air ticket
1200
Maximum
participants
8
no
of
Sub-total
travel costs
76800
of
Due to the large number of participants and in order each WP leader to be able to manage his WP
properly, separate WP meetings or even joint-WP meetings are foreseen. These meetings can be
arranged by the WP leader(s) based on their knowledge regarding the work progress in each WP. The
figures that are shown in the above Table 9.18 represent average values and will be adjusted
181
depending on the needs and demands of the WPs individually and especially the Work progress of
Rural Wings.
d) Costs of trips to Pilot sites from National Coordinators
Table 9.19
No
of Total for all
trips per sites
site
2
250
Average
Expenses
for 2 days
Average no of travelers
Sub-total
travel costs
400
2
200000
of
These trips are absolutely necessary in order the pilot sites to be setup properly and to function
properly. The main responsible for these trips are the National Coordinators of each country since
each one is responsible for the needs of the respective pilot sites as these are defined in Section
8.1.1. The average cost for each trip is around 500 Euros since these trips are of local type; there are
trips inside each country’s pilot sites and very few cases needing air transfer will take place. It is
assumed that average two trips per site will be adequate but this number is not limited in order to
achieve the proper performance of the pilot sites towards all the different activities of the Rural Wings
project. In this sense, this travel category is hierarchically higher than he other travel categories in
terms of its purpose and the expenses that will be made.
e) Costs of trips for Dissemination activities (conferences, workshops, exhibitions etc)
Table 9.20
Average No of
trips per partner
3
Average no of
travelers
1
Average Expenses
for 2 days
1200
Total trips for
all partners
72
Sub-total
travel costs
86400
of
These costs represent the expenses needed for all types of dissemination activities that will be carried
out through the project duration. The figures shown in the above table 9.20 represent average values
while each partner may adjust the expenses for this kind of travel costs based more or less in the
above guidelines.
f)
Additional traveling costs
The sum of the above tables represents the total travel costs of the Rural Wings project up to 622400
Euros. In order to be able to guarantee adequate amount for travelling expenses an additional amount
for approximately 6600 Euros has been distributed among the partners. This additional amount covers
any possible travel expenses that has not foreseen in the previous tables (review meetings etc) along
with a portion of the travelling costs needed for training activities.
It must be noted also that a large portion of the travel costs for the training activities lies within the
travel categories shown in the above tables and especially categories a) reference to the workshops
and d) where the National Coordinators or other partners could train the target users to the new
equipment or the new learning scenarios. This last issue can be applied to the rest of the partners
(and not only the National Coordinators) who will perform training activities according to their MMs and
where it is proved to be necessary in order the ultimate goal to be fulfilled which is the proper and
adequate performance of the pilot sites in terms of every related activity within Rural Wings.
Reference to the above the total travel costs of Rural Wings are shown below as:
TOTAL TRAVEL COSTS OF RURAL WINGS:
636204 Euros
representing about 7% of the total project budget which is justified taking into account the number of
the partners.
182
The costs claimed will reflect the actual expenses incurred by the contractors and the overall
framework presented above. The need for more frequent meetings will be documented through the
usual project management mechanisms. The attendance of scientific conferences and relevant
international events is only considered eligible if the representatives of the project are playing an
active role (presentation of a paper, invited speaker in a workshop, etc.). A copy of the paper should
be provided and if possible made available in the project web site.
It must be also noted that in order to reduce travel costs or to anticipate additional travels that during
the evolution of the project might be proven necessary, the consortium will utilize video and phoneconferencing as much as possible especially for project coordination purposes and for other meetings
like WP or joint WP meetings. This will also apply to partners that have relatively low budget and
cannot afford many trips abroad. Despite that fact attempts will be made by the management teams to
assist those partners that appear to have lack of the relevant equipment. The use of video and phone
conferencing will be strongly encouraged by the management team while the consortium will be
continuously notified to use such means; to this respect the use of video or phone conferencing will be
also an object of the internal Rural Wings monitoring mechanism. It should be also noted that the
Rural Wings system itself will be used for e-meetings between the consortium (especially from the
middle of the project and afterwards where the system will have been tested and operational) apart
from the e-learning activities that will support; the DVB/RCS platform for video-conferencing and emeetings between the partners will be used from the early stages of the project (test runs) where the
first prototypes of the Rural Wings system will be available providing by this way an additional mean to
test the functionality of the system along with the facilitation of the partners.
To this end, the above figures indicated for the travel expenses should be considered as an upper limit
for the travel costs since adequate portion of these travel and meeting categories will be covered by
electronic means. Of course, it can be stated that only for the travel category d) costs for trips to pilot
sites for national coordinators, the electronic means will have limited usage since these trips are
absolutely necessary for the system and equipment setup. By this way the above electronic means will
be exploited in order also to focus on having adequate travel budget for the needs of the pilot sites
that may occur after their proper setup and during the whole framework of the project activities.
Sub-contracting
In the framework of the RURAL WINGS project it was decided to sub-contract some services needed
to accomplish the project objectives but corresponding to non-core activities of the partners. All
subcontracts will follow the rules of the Contract and its Annexes, the Rules for the participation and
the Financial Guidelines. In general the subcontracting of all foreseen and future subcontracts in the
project will be done accordingly to the rules for subcontracting which are stated in the Contract Article
II.6, in the Financial Guidelines. According to the EC Rules, subcontracts, the costs of which are to be
claimed as eligible costs, must be awarded to the bid offering the best value for money. Especially as
stated in Article II.6.2: "Any subcontract, the costs of which are to be claimed as an eligible cost, must
be awarded following a competitive tender to the subcontractor offering the best value for money
under conditions of transparency and equal treatment." Even if a formal tender is not followed, an
equivalent competitive comparison procedure will be followed according to the above rules, where
applicable and following also the native legislation, and the plans for it needs will be explained and
justified.
The RURAL WINGS Consortium will take all specific provisions and necessary actions in order the
selection criteria used and decision mechanisms applied within the RURAL WINGS project will be
reported with the respective subcontracting costs in the Annual Management Report as part of cost
justifications. It is also made clear that all consortium partners will definitely apply their national rules
regarding subcontracts (e.g. to avoid splitting a subcontract in to several contracts etc). When, during
the project and at the proper milestone, the exact nature of the subcontract emerges, the relevant
actions will be reported in a transparent and consistent way in order to make clear the recipients of the
subcontracting amounts, the relevant tasks related to the subcontracting and how subcontracting
regulations have been followed.
Based on the above it should be stated herein that the subcontracts that are described in the following
by no way constitute core elements of the project and cannot be realized by the contractors
183
themselves. The reasons for the subcontracting services for each of the relevant contractors are
described in detail in the following and comply with the above rule.
In general it can be stated that the subcontracting services foreseen herein are either too small in
amount or consist of a complementary services to the contractors but in no way correspond to their
core competencies. Additionally, in some cases as it will be seen in the following, due to the nature of
these subcontracting services themselves and also due to the nature of the RURAL WINGS project
itself, the subcontractors are already defined. This can happen since these subcontractors possess
qualities that can not be implemented by other potential ones. In any case, the consortium would like
to declare herein that all possible efforts will be held in order to follow the Commission Rules and to
perform competitive tenders of any type (bids, quotes, tenders on preselected vendors etc). Wherever
a competitive tender is not necessary or not possible efforts will be paid to ensure and justify
adequately the transparency and equal treatment and above all the best value for money allocation of
the subcontracting services.
In the following the subcontracting activities of each relevant contractor are described, reference to the
corresponding WP and to the selection procedure, applicable for each case.
These subcontracting activities include the following:
EUTELSAT
As mentioned in the paragraph explaining the equipment costs, Eutelsat’s subcontracting will include
the following activities.
1.transport of the antenna to sites;
2.installation costs
3.local maintenance costs (for local trouble shooting and onsite intervention in case of hardware
failure)
For quality of service, it is mandatory for EUTELSAT to use a local distributor for the installation and
maintenance of the end-users sites in each country. Eutelsat cannot itself send staff from its premises;
it is neither cost effective nor quality effective. It is thus important to have the adequate corresponding
budget available for sub-contracting. Since the number of countries and the pilot sites is rather large
the use of EUTELSAT’s local agents in these countries corresponds to a total sum of 111997 Euros
for subcontracting for the full project duration. Since in the 1st implementation phase period Eutelsat
will cover 22 pilot sites the subcontracting for the installation of the DVB/RCS terminals for these sites
corresponds to 33226 Euros approximately for this period. The above subcontracting activities will be
held mainly in the framework of WP 6.A (“Pilots – Implementation and Trials”) which starts at Month 7
and reference to all of the relevant WP tasks. EUTELSAT will start this procedure and use the above
subcontracting services early enough (during the first 18-months period) in order to be able to
adequately equip the corresponding pilot sites and to secure that the implementation phases (Test
Runs and Final Runs in the next project periods) will be conducted properly and without technical or
installation problems. The selection for the subcontracting services will follow the relevant EC
Financial Guidelines depending on the needs of the pilot sites per country which will define also the
subcontracting cost for each local distributor.
According to the Financial Guidelines “costs for equipment can include all those costs necessary to
bring the asset to working condition for its intended use. This could include not only its original
purchase price but also costs of site preparation, delivery and handling, installation, related
professional fees for architects and engineers, if these are necessary for the project and can be
justified”. According to the above, the EUTELSAT’s subcontracting activities refer to all the costs
needed for site preparation, delivery and handling and installation of the corresponding equipment for
the pilot sites (as this was described in a previous section) and hence the subcontracting of
EUTELSAT is fully justified.
184
EA
Ellinogermaniki Agogi SA‘s subcontracting budget is 41000 Euros and includes the following (as
mentioned in Section 8.1.2):
 in the framework of the adaptations of the D-space web tool, EA will subcontract the relevant
authority, which is responsible for the use of the telescope in order to pay the requested time of
use of the telescope. This subcontracting will be up to 13000 Euros.
 In the framework of the AGROWEB web tool, EA will subcontract EPINOIA SA (the company
which has develop the tool) in order to make the appropriate modifications and adoptions for its
use for the Rural Wings schools. This subcontracting will be up to 13000 Euros.
 In the framework of the ZEUS e-learning tool, EA will subcontract AIT (Athens Information
Technology) for upgrading the existing tool in order to be used for the Rural Wings users. This
subcontracting will be up to 10000 Euros.
 5000 Euros will be allocated to subcontracting for translations of the content
The above subcontracting activities (D-space, AGROWEB and ZEUS e-learning tools) will be done in
the framework of WP 5 (“Adaptation of platforms and tools”) and especially in the framework of Tasks
5.2 and 5.3. The 5000 Euros for translation of the content will be done in the framework of WP 4
(“Scenarios Adaptation and Development”) and especially in the Task 4.3. It should be noted the
following: first of all the amount allocated for each of the e-learning tools subcontractors is significantly
low and corresponds exactly to the needed adaptations of the selected e-learning platforms. EA has
not the necessary infrastructure or development resources to perform the necessary adaptations by
itself; thus the corresponding subcontractors are absolutely needed especially since they are also the
authorities that initially developed or are responsible for the use of the specific e-learning platforms
and tools. To this end, a competitive call is not foreseen for the above subcontractors since there is no
point as it was explained above. Regarding the 5000 Euros allocated for subcontracting it should be
noted that the amount is too low and the native legislation enables in such cases the provision of this
service without prior competitive call but just a direct delegation of the above subcontracting.
Finally, it should be also noted that IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) of the EC contract partner EA is
not affected negatively by the placing of its subcontracts.
INSEAD
The subcontracting costs for INSEAD will be used mainly to support personnel costs incurred at the
pilot sites in Sweden since INSEAD is also the National Coordinator for the Swedish pilot sites of the
SMEs network.
There is no framework contract between INSEAD and the Swedish Trade Council (STC). At certain
times, there has been collaboration on projects. Each collaboration between STC and INSEAD has
been based, project by project, on the mutual agreement to cover the costs involved in the specific
research projects (documentation of user/SME needs, platform features development and testing,
required customization work, collection of users feedback).
Since cooperation (on research projects) is already established between INSEAD and the Swedish
Trade Council, INSEAD’s subcontracting costs will cover all necessary expenses to ensure that this
cooperation works effectively. These expenses will cover: efforts made by the Swedish Trade Council
and the Swedish SMEs network, translations of content, as well as the full set-up of INSEAD’s SMEs
platform tool for the proper operation of the relevant applications of the Swedish SMEs network in the
framework of the Rural Wings project. For the full duration of the project the subcontracting costs of
INSEAD are estimated at 26000 Euros while for the 1st implementation phase these costs are
estimated at 8000 Euros since only part of the SMEs network will be deployed.
The above subcontracting activities will be held mainly in the framework of the following WPs: WP4
(“Scenario adaptation and Development”) and especially Task 4.3 for the adaptations and translations
of content, WP5 (“Adaptation of Platforms and Tools”) and especially Tasks 5.2 and 5.3 for the full setup of INSEAD’s SMEs platform tool for the applications in the Swedish SMEs and partly in WP6.A
185
(“pilots – Implementation and Trials”) and especially Task 6A.1 in order to ensure cooperation between
INSEAD and the Swedish Trade Council and the SMEs network.
The choice of the Swedish Trade Council (STC) as the main contact point for the Swedish SMEs has
been guided by: (i) the unique possibility offered by STC to have access to a large number of pilot
users validating the key features of web-based virtual learning platforms, and providing up-to-date
information about the needs and specificities of SMEs in the area of learning and networking, (ii) the
long experience (since 1998) of fruitful collaboration between INSEAD and STC on research projects
where STC is providing an active test-bed for projects related to the design and assessment of the
value of web-based virtual learning platforms to support learning and competencies development in
SMEs networks.
We consider that both the reasons cited above will guarantee the success of the implementation of the
Rural Wings system in Sweden.
A contract determining the formal relationship between INSEAD and STC in the context of the Rural
Wings project will be established at the start of the project, determining the costs incurred at STC to
select and involve SME managers, coordinate specifications gathering, and the execution of pilot runs.
For the 1st implementation phase of the project, these costs have been estimated at 8000 Euros.
FORTHnet
The aim of the AgroTeleDiagnosis scenario is not only to develop a high quality web conference
platform, but also to provide a very useful interactive service, which will cover the existing
communication needs, but will also create new communication applications for the sector of
agriculture where the digital divide is a critical issue. For this purpose, some external assistance is
required, from expert agriculturalists, farmers and agricultural unions or federations who will work in
close collaboration with the scenario development team, in order to specify the user needs analysis,
provide educational content and test the platform during the development and validation activities.
This is the main purpose of the activities that will be covered by FORTHnet’s subcontracting costs
which go up to 15000 Euros for the full duration of the project, while in the first 18 months period a
significant portion of that amount will be used (10000 Euros) due to the fact that most related work will
be undertaken in this first period. The above subcontracting activities will be done in the framework of
WP 4 (“Scenarios Adaptation and Development”) and WP 5 (“Adaptation of platforms and Tools”)
especially to what is concerned with the anticipation of the specific target group. In that case, the total
amount (15000 Euros) of subcontracting that is foreseen will be allocated to the corresponding
subcontractor to undertake the total work load covering all the relevant needs as described above.
Following the EC Financial Guidelines and since the amount is rather small and the objective is rather
collateral, FORTHNET being a private company will not conduct a competitive bid but will require
(minimum three) quotes from/or not preselected candidates according to the native legislation
ensuring conditions of transparency and equal treatment and selecting the best value for money case.
PBF
Based on PBF’s earlier cooperation experience with partners in Polish rural areas, it is indispensable
to provide exhaustive information about the project scope and goals in Polish. The relevant portion of
this information will be translated to Polish by a qualified translator, then it will be distributed as leaflets
and on the web site, which all will incur subcontracting expenses (nb. the Polish web site will not
contain a complete translation of the project's web site to be maintained by the coordinator; the
information, which is relevant for Polish sites will be supplemented by a link to the main site).
According to a recent change in the policy of the Polish Bill on Public Procurement an upper limit for
subcontracting has been set which is 15000 Euros and follows the general and specific rules that are
mentioned in the relevant paragraph below. Furthermore, the new Polish legislation on subcontracting
does not require part time experts work to be regarded as subcontracting, therefore the relevant
content regarding external employees, stated in the previous Technical Annex, is no longer valid.
186
For all the above reasons the PBF’s subcontracting amount covering the above mentioned expenses
is up to 12000 Euros for the full duration of the project while it will be spent step by step each year due
to the step by step implementation of the above mentioned activities. The above subcontracting
activities will be held mainly in the framework of: WP4 (“Scenarios Adaptation and Development”) and
partly in WP6.B (“Training of the users”) in order the proper translation and adaptation of content to be
carried out and the Polish users to be properly trained and informed.
Regarding the subcontracting procedure the following should be noted: PBF has translated experts
from their subcontracting policy, which has already been made consistent with the 6thFP and other EC
programmes. They read as follows:
General rules:
1. Polish Bill on Public Procurement applies to all contacts financed from Polish public funds. It is
assured by the Accession Treaty that this law conforms to the EU rules.
2. Specific Community prescription regarding specific programmes will be observed if it is required by
the contract, irrespectively whether it is signed with the Commission directly or with the Coordinator
of the project's consortium.
Specific rules:
1. No special procedure is necessary for subcontracts valued under 1000 EUR.
2. For supplies' subcontracts valued above 1000 EUR but under 6000 EUR (excluding VAT) a
comparison of at least two offers will be used.
3. For qualified expert services, the experts/lecturers selection procedure will be used according to
the 'expert selection rules' or 'lecturer selection rules', respectively, which are an essential part of
the Foundation's 'Book of Quality', which conforms to the ISO 9001 standards.
4. For subcontracts valued above 6000 EUR, a call for expressions or interests or a call for tenders
will be placed on the Foundation's (PBF) web page www.pbf.pl and send out by e-mail to
preselected candidates. The Commission, consisting of the Board of Directors of the Foundation,
or person(s) authorised by them will make the choice taking into account the price and the quality
of the services proposed.
Other expenses
Apart from the satellite costs (provision of bandwidth) of EUTELSAT and HELLASSAT which was
described in detail in previous paragraphs and are claimed as other costs, in this budget category the
rest of the consortium partners of Rural Wings have claimed also other various expenses. For most of
the contractors these expenses correspond to consumable costs. For some of the contractors part of
these expenses correspond to the costs for the organization of the workshops and the seminars. Also
it can refer to costs for equipment that will be provided to the final end-users in some cases (i.e.
FORTHnet will provide a limited number of PDAs and corresponding WiFi cards to the farmers for the
AgroTeleDiagnosis Application). Finally a small part of these costs can be regarded as costs for the
protection of knowledge, computing, audit costs etc.
Other expenses represent approximately 12.5% of the total project’s budget (1126805 Euro) including
satellite costs. If the satellite costs are not including then the other costs budget for the rest of the
contractors needs is 227725 Euros for the full duration of the project corresponding to 2,6% of the total
project budget.
BUDGET BREAKDOWN OF THE RURAL WINGS PROJECT
The budget breakdown of the Rural Wings project for both the full duration of the project and the first
18 months period is shown in the following excel sheets. It must be specifically noted that this budget
is indicative in the sense that it by no way will reduce or question the flexibilities provided to the
consortium by the 6th Framework Programme guidelines.
187
The budget shown provides the general guidelines of how each partner could allocate the budget to
the specific budget categories; in other words the budgets followed set more or less the “limits”
between categories and provide the average budget that could be allocated in each of them. The
ultimate goal is to exploit the Rural Wings funding and partners own resources in order to ensure and
guarantee the proper and adequate setup and operation of the pilot sites throughout the project. To
this respect the budget allocated to “equipment” and “other costs” categories is of major importance. It
must be noted that if the partners could ensure the proper operation of all pilot sites with less of the
amounts shown in the excel sheets for equipment or other costs then they are free to reallocate the
remaining budget to other categories. If the budget already allocated to equipment and other costs
categories proves to be not enough (and this will be evident in the first 18 months period) then this is a
subject for the re-planning of the next project period.
Reference to the above and based on the already allocated costs in the various categories the
following table showing the percentages of costs is derived:
Table 9.21
Budget
Breakdown
Categories
Personnel
Travel
Equipment
Other Costs
Subcontracting
Total direct
Overhead
TOTAL
Budget for
the
full
duration
4537791
629004
654317
1126805
225097
7173014
1653723
8826737
10. Ethical issues
There are no ethical issues related to RURAL WINGS project.
11. Other issues (optional)
There are no other issues related to RURAL WINGS project.
188
Percentage
51.41
7.13
7.41
12.77
2.55
81.26
18.74
100
189