|Project Full Title:||Waste Quantification Solutions to Limit Environmental Stress|
|Project Duration:||36 months (January 2023 – December 2025)|
|Deliverable Title:||D8.1 – Project Management set of Tools and Strategy|
|Due Date:||M2 (28/02/2023)|
|Submission Date:||M3 (06/03/2023)|
|Work Package (WP):||WP 8|
|Deliverable approved by the WP leader/ CO||YES|
History of changes
|4||06/03/2023||Final approval and submission to the E.C||V1.0|
The following document comprises the project management set of tools and strategy as well as sections to be followed in the execution of the WASTELESS project. It is adaptive in its nature and may be updated, if necessary, to reflect changes in the project’s rules and procedures until its conclusion in M36.
The following deliverable has eight main sections:
- Section 1: Introduction
- Section 2: Quality Management Objectives
- Section 3: Quality Management Process. The section translates the quality management plan into executable quality activities that incorporate the quality processes with WASTELESS. Specifically, it covers the quality management process, roles and responsibilities, tools and techniques and metrics to be used.
- Section 4: Tools and Techniques
- Section 5: Quality Assurance and Control Activities. Quality Assurance introduces the activities to be carried out in order to ensure that project quality objectives are met, and quality expectations are achieved. Quality Control identifies internal review and evaluation procedures that will ensure the successful project implementation. It covers the deliverables review and approval, work performance quality reviews, project quality reviews and quality control records.
- Section 6: Metrics
- Section 7: Quality Control
- Section 8: Quality Records
- Section 9: Risk Management defines the steps managing risks: identification, monitoring and control the implementation of the risk response activities while continuously monitoring the project environment for new risks. An overview of the risk control register is presented.
- Section 10: Issue Management covers the process of identifying and resolving issues. The section overviews issue identification, assessment and action recommendation, actions implementation as well as the issue log.
- Section 11: Configuration Management assists in the effective management of project artefacts effectively and to provide a single reliable reference to them. The project management files naming convention is presented as well as the rules for storage and archiving artefacts and deliverables.
- Section 12: Quality of project communication outlines the optimal information flow so that stakeholders receive the necessary information at the right time.
- The current documents outline the frequency of project communication as well as the tools used.
- Section 13: Related PM2 Plans
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of tables
Table 1. RASCI Table 12
Table 2. Artefacts frequency 13
Table 3. Reviewing Work Packages in WASTELESS 17
Table 4. Timeline for deliverables execution 17
Table 5. List of WASTELESS Deliverables 18
Table of figures
Figure 1 Phase-exit Review Checklist 10
List of Acronyms
|Abbreviation / acronym||Description|
|FLW||Food Loss and Waste|
|FSC||Food Supply Chains|
|PM T&S||Project Management set of Tools and Strategy|
|WPL||Work Package leader|
This report forms part of the deliverables from the WASTELESS project which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement ID: 101084222. The Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of the content of this publication.
WASTELESS – Waste quantification solutions to limit environmental stress is a Horizon Europe project, coordinated by the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro. It brings together a group of 29 entities from 14 countries with multidisciplinary expertise ranging from agronomy, technology, food science, food technology, biology and ecosystems.
WASTELESS goal is to (1) develop and test a mix of innovative tools and methodologies for Food Loss and Waste (FLW) measurement and monitoring, generating robust FLW data on critical and poorly understood Food Supply Chains (FSC), to (2) recommend a harmonized methodological Framework for FLW quantification, and to (3) develop a decision support systemic Toolbox targeting all food value chain stakeholders enabling the duplication of WASTELESS collection points across EU territories and different food commodities.
The fundamental aim of the project is to complement and expand current European observation tools and services, to obtain a collection of data at a much higher spatial and temporal resolution and coverage than currently available at the European scale, and to further enable and democratize the monitoring of food lost and food waste.
WASTELESS is one of two projects included in the EU´s efforts to support of the European Strategy for the Food Lost and Waste by supporting the demonstration of new and innovative technologies.
More information on the project can be found at: http://www.wastelesseu.com
The WATELESS project management set of tools and strategy (PM T&S) is a key deliverable for WP8 setting up the basis for an effective quality management and implementation of the project. The main goal of this deliverable is to provide a single point of reference on the quality assurance policies that will be applied along the WASTELESS project. This document is intended as a manual for all Consortium members to be used as a guide when a specific question needs to be answered for many day-to-day activities. As its guiding purposes, this deliverable provides a harmonized set of indication, procedures, and support documents to be used by all partners for an effective quality implementation of the project.
The present form represents the official document submitted to the European Commission in compliance with Grant Agreement commitments. Nevertheless, this plan is adaptive in its nature and will be evolving according to project needs until its conclusion in M36.
Being an integral part of management planning, providing a common standard to be applied throughout the entire project life, the PM T&S defines a set of procedures to be followed to secure that:
- the Grant Agreement requirements and conditions have been fully applied and followed by all partners,
- EU/national regulations are considered in operational, administrative, and financial management,
- all rights and obligations defined in the Grant Agreement and the Consortium Agreement are fulfilled,
- all project activities are implemented in accordance with the Work Plan (as described in the Grant Agreement).
The objectives of this document are:
- To define the quality expectations and goals.
- To outline the quality strategy, approach, and process to be used for the project.
- To identify the roles and responsibilities related to project quality management.
- To define project standards and compliance criteria.
- To define the quality assurance and control activities and to plan them throughout the project.
- To identify a set of procedures and metrics to be used to determine performance quality levels.
- To specify the methodology, tools and techniques used to support quality management.
Once approved, the PM T&S will be used in daily and overall project management and quality control by all project partners.
- Quality Management Objectives
The PM T&S aims to ensure the achievement of high-quality project results and smooth project implementation regarding completion of the project’s tasks on time, on budget, in scope and in line with the contractual obligations with EC. Therefore, the document is intended to provide a solid ground for ensuring compliance with all relevant rules and provisions.
The main objectives of this section are:
- The project’s quality characteristics are defined, agreed, and achieved throughout the project.
- Quality assurance activities are performed as planned, including assuring compliance with EU’s rules and regulations, as well as with relevant governmental and industry rules, regulations, and legislation.
- Quality control activities are performed as planned.
- Any non-conformity (or opportunity for quality improvements) is identified and corrected (or implemented).
- Deliverables are accepted by the respective project partners based on the defined quality/acceptance criteria.
- Project documents (project final and progress report) are accepted by the respective project partners based on the defined quality/acceptance criteria.
- Quality Management Process
Quality management process aims to ensure that the current project will meet the expected results in the most efficient way and that deliverables will be accepted by the relevant stakeholders. It involves overseeing all activities needed to maintain a desired level of excellence. This includes creating and implementing quality planning and assurance, as well as quality control and quality improvement.
This project will follow the PM quality management process that comprises the activities related to the identification, planning, execution, and monitoring & control of project quality related activities.
All partners will be involved in the quality management process, though a particular quality management structure is established among project partners (described in section 5.1. Quality Management Roles and Responsibilities).
The quality management process for this project is comprised of five key steps:
- Define (Project) Quality Characteristics.
- Perform Quality Assurance.
- Perform Quality Control.
- Perform Deliverables Acceptance, and
- Perform Final (Project) Acceptance.
Step1: Define (Project) Quality Characteristics
The purpose of this step is to identify the objectives, approach, requirements, activities, and responsibilities of the project’s quality management process and how it will be implemented throughout the project. These are documented in this plan based on the project objectives, approach, deliverables, expected benefits and resources available (as defined in the Grant Agreement, Consortium Agreement, and other relevant plans).
The PM T&S includes the description of the:
- Quality objectives, approach, and requirements.
- Quality standards, guidelines, tools, and techniques, e.g., the Quality Review Checklist and the Deliverables Acceptance Checklist.
- Quality assurance activities and related responsibilities, e.g., Project Review Meetings, activities report, compliance verification, among others.
- Quality control activities for continuous improvement, e.g., project management artefacts review and quality plan reviews.
- Risk Management and Control Activities.
- Issue Management and Control Activities.
- Configuration procedure related to project artefacts and deliverables.
Any quality activities related to project artefacts and deliverables, quality assurance and control are documented in the Quality Plan.
Step 2: Perform Quality Assurance
The purpose of this step is to verify the performance and compliance of project (and project management) activities with the defined quality requirements.
Step 3: Perform Quality Control
The purpose of this step is to monitor and consolidate results from the quality assurance activities to assess compliance and performance, recommend necessary changes, and plan new or refine existing quality assurance activities. Quality monitoring & controlling is performed throughout the project by the Project Manager (PMg).
Step 4: Perform Deliverables Acceptance
The purpose of the abovementioned steps is (i) to verify each deliverable compliance with the predefined objectives and set of criteria, and (ii) to obtain formal multilevel approval before their submission to the EC. See Section 7 for a review of the process and the roles and responsibilities.
Step 5: Perform Final (Project) Acceptance
The purpose of this step is to manage the final acceptance of the project, including the accepted deliverables and to perform the administrative closure of the project. The final acceptance is obtained from the Project Coordinator (PC), through a formal Project Acceptance Note.
The administrative closure of the project includes updating, reviewing, organizing, and archiving all project documentation and records. It also comprises the release of project resources, the final project acceptance, and the communication of project end to the relevant stakeholders. A Phase-exit Review Checklist will be used to validate the completion of project activities.
Figure 1 Phase-exit Review Checklist
- Tools and Techniques
The following techniques will be used for project quality management:
- Peer reviews.
- Acceptance testing.
- Project Review Meetings.
The following tools will be used for project quality management:
- PM2 Deliverables Acceptance Checklist.
- PM2 Project-Progress Report.
- PM2 Project-End Report.
- Deliverables Acceptance Note.
- Project Acceptance Note.
- Quality Assurance Activities
All partners are involved in the quality assurance process and are intended to follow the procedures identified in the PM S&T to ensure that deliverables will be issued within the due date and will be compliant to the already established criteria.
A responsibility assignment matrix, also known as RACI matrix, describes the participation by various roles in completing tasks or deliverables for a project or business process. RACI is an acronym derived from the four key responsibilities most typically used: responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. It is used for clarifying and defining roles and responsibilities in cross-functional or departmental projects and processes. This is an expanded version of the standard RACI, less frequently known as RASCI, breaking the responsible participation into:
R – Responsible (also recommended)
Those who do the work to complete the task. There is at least one role with a participation type of responsible, although others can be delegated to assist in the work required.
A – Accountable (also approver or final approving authority)
There must be only one accountable specified for each task or deliverable.
S – Support
Resources allocated too responsible. Unlike consulted, who may provide input to the task, support helps complete the task.
C – Consulted (sometimes consultant or counsel)
Those whose opinions are sought, typically subject-matter experts; and with whom there is two-way communication.
I – Informed (also informer)
Those who are kept up to date on progress, often only on completion of the task or deliverable; and with whom there is just one-way communication.
The following RASCI table defines the responsibilities of those involved in quality management:
Table 1. RASCI Table
|Project Management set of Tools & Strategy||C||A||I||C||R|
|Perform Quality Assurance||I||A||C||R||A|
|Perform Quality Control||A||R||C||S||S|
|Perform Deliverables Acceptance||R||A||I||C||R|
|Perform Final Project Acceptance||R||A||I||C||C|
The Project Coordinator (PC) is accountable for the supervision of the quality assurance activities.
The Project Manager (PMg) is accountable for scheduling the reviewing and acceptance activities and ensuring that they are performed according to the plan, ensuring the correct and full completion of the quality assurance activities as well as for performing quality control throughout the project.
The respective WP, task, sub-task or deliverable lead are accountable for deliverables and outputs acceptance and for ensuring the availability of resources (including people) and guidelines for acceptance testing.
The following tools and techniques will be used for project planning, management, and control: quality management:
- Work Package Status Reports.
- Work Package Progress Reports.
- Deliverable Peer Reviews.
- Deliverable Review and Acceptance Checklist.
- Project Review Meetings.
- Project Internal Reports (Status and Progress).
This section includes the quality criteria to be collected and reported during the project, for project artefacts (i.e. project management outputs). Note that the criteria related to testing of the project deliverables and their formal customer acceptance are detailed in project domain specific documents (e.g. test plans and the Deliverables Acceptance Plan):
Table 2. Artefacts frequency
|Artefacts review (per project phase)||Once||No tolerance.|
|Bi-annual timesheets reviewed and approved||Twice a year||No tolerance.|
|Status reports distributed||Monthly||One month (i.e. every two months).|
|Project Review Meetings performed||Weekly||One week. Holiday’s period, each three weeks.|
|Project Steering Committee meetings performed||Every two Months||One month (i.e. every three months).|
|Milestone reviews executed||Per milestone||No tolerance.|
|Phase-exit reviews executed||Per phase-exit||No tolerance.|
|Project and process audits performed||Yearly or once during the project||No tolerance.|
|Audits to contractors’ project quality activities performed||Yearly or once during the project||No tolerance.|
|Stakeholders’ satisfaction questionnaires sent, received and analysed||Yearly or once during the project||No tolerance.|
- Quality Control
8.1. Quality Reviews
The Project Manager (PMg) is the overall accountable of the quality assurance activities within the project. The PMg is also responsible for scheduling and initiating all project quality reviews.
The WASTELESS quality assurance process is structured in such a way to comprise all levels and types of project activities and to ensure high-quality project communication, deliverables delivery, issue and risk management.
The results of the quality assurance activities will be documented in the relevant quality and status reports or/and in relevant project logs. Recommendations for improvements may result from quality assurance and are processed by quality control in the form of change requests.
The quality assurance activities include the following:
- Evaluating the design of the project controls, by confirming that they are implemented, and by assessing their operational effectiveness. These activities will consider the project quality objectives along with the project risks.
- Compliance verification with EU’s policies, rules and regulations, as well as with other relevant governmental and industry rules, regulations and legislation.
- Artefact reviews and approvals (i.е., the fact that the content of an artefact (project management deliverable) should be reviewed before it is considered finalised and sent for formal or informal approval/validation);
- Monthly Work Package Status Reports
- Bi-annual Work Progress Reports
- Project Review Meetings
- Project SComm Meetings
- Milestone Reviews
- Phase-exit Reviews.
- Project Acceptance Review.
8.2. Deliverables review and approval
A total of 42 deliverables are to be submitted to the European Commission over the project implementation, 36 of which will be available to the public and will thus be accessible long after the project’s completion. Therefore, a review process is a key step in the preparation of the deliverable to guarantee that the result is up to the appropriate standard and to the quality expectations.
WASTELESS creates deliverables that are either reports or demonstrators as described in Annex I of the Grant Agreement. For deliverables that do not take the form of a written report, a written record will nevertheless be prepared to include supporting material for the output/outcome. For demonstrators, a technical report will be created, capturing the outcomes of the demonstration.
All report deliverables must be prepared in the Microsoft Word format – docx. For collaboration, partners may use other tools. To ensure consistency, a template will be constantly available on the ownCloud platform. All deliverables must use the template provided, be written in English, and proofread using spell checker. When submitting the final deliverable, it must be converted to the PDF format, before uploading it.
The content of each deliverable depends on the type of deliverable itself. It should cover all the information relevant to the activity that it results, and all the information needed by other Partners for performing their activities. The responsibility is of its author(s). Nevertheless, the deliverable should meet a set of requirements, based on the following aspects:
- Relevance. Presented information should be true to the original objectives set out in Annex I of the GA and is relevant for the achievement of the project goals and focused on the key issues.
- Accuracy. Information presented must be reliable – all claims need to be proven and/or supported by relevant references.
- Completeness. The deliverable should include all the necessary information to achieve its purpose.
- Concision. The deliverable should include only necessary and relevant information and eliminate redundancies.
The deliverables are to have a uniform appearance, structure and referencing scheme. It is therefore necessary to use document referencing and template provided in this Project Management set of Tools and Strategy and align to the following guiding principles in terms of appearance, structure and overall presentation:
- Sentences are short, engaging and grammatically correct.
- The layout and formatting of the document helps readers follow along and make sense of the content.
- Abbreviations are used only when necessary and clearly outlined at the beginning of the document.
- Ensure there is consistency between different sections, internal document references, related requirement, documents, and other deliverables.
- Ensure that all tables, figures, and charts have been properly referenced.
- Use of language
- Use specific, definite, and concrete language.
- Check your spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
- Have the deliverable proofread before sending to reviewers.
All the requirements described above have been transposed to the Deliverables Reviewing Checklists to be used by all three reviewing levels.
9.3. Other Quality Control Activities
Roles and Responsibilities
The WASTELESS project defines the following responsibilities:
- Progress on deliverables is monitored on а monthly basis by the Coordinator and the Project Manager. The status of upcoming and eventually pending deliverables should be monitored by the WP leaders within WP quarterly meetings and reported to the coordinator. Any problems or expected delays should be flagged immediately providing an explanation, any planned mitigation action, and the anticipated completion date.
- Each task leader is responsible for the deliverables of their task. They are supported in its elaboration by all partners involved in the respective related task/s. It should be used the template “Deliverable Template” in WASTELESS’ ownCloud.
- The Work Package Leader is responsible for checking that the deliverable will be done on time by the task leader and report to the Project Coordinator and Project Manager if any delay is foreseen.
- The deliverable passes an internal review by a Review Team 1 consisting of the Project Coordinator and the WP Leader who approves the structure of the deliverable.
- As a second reviewing step the first complete draft of the deliverable must pass cross- work package review by a peer work package – Review Team 2.
- The finalized deliverable is then sent back to Review Team 1 for final acceptance. If not accepted, it is returned for alterations to the deliverable’s lead.
- Deliverables must be delivered by the Coordinator to the EC Portal at the end of the official delivery month given in Annex 1, Part A. To allow sufficient delivery time, the first complete version of the deliverable is to be ready 30 days before the deadline when it is distributed to the review team 2 (WP) for final comments and amendments.
- Finally accepted deliverables are transmitted to the EC by the project coordinator.
- In case of the delay of a deliverable the WP leader is responsible for updating the list of deliverables with the new expected delivery date and a comment on the reasons for delay.
Note: The deliverable lead can add an additional reviewer at their own discretion based on the specifics of their respective deliverable.
Peer review of Work Packages
WASTELESS deliverables are reviewed twice before submission to the EC. The first review is by the project coordinator and the WP leader. The second review is by a peer work package. Peer Review of work packages is assigned in Table 3. Work package leaders are responsible to assign the reviewing task to personnel within their work package.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive suggestions for improvement. Written comments may be provided directly in the document, always using “Track Changes”, and reviewing comments. Therefore, if changes are made to the document, they should be clearly visible to the deliverable leading partner. After receiving review comments, the authoring team shall address them and if necessary, communicate with the reviewing team.
Table 3. Reviewing Work Packages in WASTELESS
|Work Package being reviewed||WP1||WP2||WP3||WP4||WP5||WP6||WP7|
|Reviewing Work Package||WP4||WP3||WP2||WP7||WP6||WP5||WP1|
The WASTELESS project will follow the following timeline to assure timely quality delivery and approval of the deliverables:
Table 4. Timeline for deliverables execution
|75 days before the deadline||An official reminder will be sent by the project manager to Lead Author(s) and WP Leader responsible for the Deliverable.|
|60 days before the deadline||High level skeleton, incl. design of prototypes and expected length must be submitted to review team 1: coordinator and the respective WP Leader.|
|50 days before the deadline||The review team 1 responds, approving and/or giving explicit and tangible guidance for improvements/changes.|
|30 days before the deadline||Once the first complete version of the deliverable is ready the deliverable is distributed to the review team 2 (WP) for final comments and amendments.|
|20 days before the deadline||The review team and partners involved respond with potential additional requests for revisions.|
|1 day before the deadline||The final deliverable is submitted to review team 1. If no further comments the project coordinator gives final approval and submits.|
|Following the submission||The submitted deliverable may receive comments or request for improvement from the EC. The corrective actions will be implemented immediately. The responsibility for improvements is with task leader, but can be delegated to a specific partner, covering the topic in question.|
Table 5. List of WASTELESS Deliverables
|N.º||Deliverable title||WP no.||Lead beneficiary short name||Type||Dissemination level||Due date (month)|
|D1.1||White book for FLW reduction, measurement, and monitoring practices||1||SDU||Report||Public||May 2023|
|D1.2||Report on improved framework for FLW measurement & monitoring||1||SDU||Report||Public||December 2023|
|D1.3||Framework for activities criteria||1||WIISE||Report||Public||August 2024|
|D1.4||CoP and replication at MS level||1||IFA||Other||Sensitive||December 2025|
|D1.5||5 Policy briefs for experts and policy makers||1||IFA||Other||Public||December 2025|
|D2.1||Electronic registry – optimised set of tools and methodologies||2||WIISE||Other||Public||July 2024|
|D2.2||Image analysis – optimised set of tools and methodologies||2||HACETTEPE||Other||Public||February 2025|
|D2.3||AI model – optimised set of tools and methodologies||2||AITOWN||Other||Public||February 2025|
|D2.4||Surplus Tool – optimised set of tools and methodologies||2||Fazla Gida||Other||Public||May 2024|
|D2.5||Automatic system – optimised set of toolsand methodologies||2||JSI||Other||Public||February 2025|
|D2.6||Technical files on innovative tools||2||UVMB||Report||Public||August 2024|
|D3.1||Technical report of the tools and guidelines for vertical CS, incl. partial reports from each subtask||3||UTAD||Report||Sensitive||December 2024|
|D3.2||Technical report of the tools and guidelines for horizontal CS, incl. partial reports fromeach subtask||3||CTIC CITA||Report||Sensitive||December 2024|
|D3.3||Assessment reports by experts – first round||3||WIISE||Report||Sensitive||June 2024|
|D3.4||Assessment reports by experts – second round||3||WIISE||Report||Sensitive||March 2025|
|D4.1||WASTELESS data collection, interoperability, and governance plan||4||EUROFIR||Report||Public||December 2023|
|D4.2||Comparative note||4||JSI||Report||Public||December 2024|
|D4.3||Comparative report||4||JSI||Report||Public||June 2024|
|D4.4||Report on different data collected and their potential comparability-first round||4||SDU||Report||Public||December 2024|
|D4.5||Report on different data collected and their potential comparability – second round||4||SDU||Report||Public||June 2024|
|D4.6||Conversion of data collected into coefficient usable by JRC model and FAO model||4||SDU||DATA||Public||December 2025|
|D5.1||Guidelines for recycling actions from unavoidable FLW||5||UTAD||Other||Public||October 2025|
|D5.2||Determination of shelf-life extension of food products packaged with films/ activecoatings||5||UTAD||Other||Public||October 2025|
|D5.3||Launch of updated FoodWasteEXplorerportal||5||UTAD||Other||Public||December 2025|
|D6.1||Report on the impact assessed for each casestudies||6||SDU||Report||Public||October 2025|
|D6.2||Practice Abstracts – batch 1 – early phase||6||JSI||Other||Public||June 2024|
|D6.3||Practice Abstracts -batch 2– advanced phase||6||JSI||Other||Public||August 2025|
|D6.4||Decision support toolbox||6||JSI||Other||Public||September 2025|
|D6.5||Roadmap for data collection hub replication||6||UTAD||DATA||Public||December 2025|
|D7.1||Knowledge sharing platforms for food systems||7||IFA||Other||Public||June 2024|
|D7.2||DEC Plan||7||VIMOSZ||Report||Public||June 2023|
|D7.3||DEC Plan – update||7||VIMOSZ||Report||Public||June 2024|
|D7.4||DEC final report||7||VIMOSZ||Report||Public||December 2025|
|D7.5||Report of learning outcomes||7||IFA||Report||Public||October 2025|
|D7.6||Exploitation and IPR strategy||7||JSI||Report||Public||December 2025|
|D7.7||Website and social media||7||VIMOSZ||DEC||Public||March 2023|
|D8.1||PM set of tools and strategy||8||UTAD||Report||Public||February 2023|
|D8.2||Data Management Plan||8||UTAD||DMP||Public||June 2023|
|D8.3||Data Management Plan – update||8||UTAD||DMP||Public||June 2024|
|D8.4||Data Management Plan – final||8||UTAD||DMP||Public||December 2025|
|D8.5||Еquity issues report||8||UTAD||Report||Public||June 2025|
|D9.1||AI – H – NEC – POPD – Requirement No. 1||9||UTAD||ETHICS||Sensitive||June 2024|
- Quality Records
The quality records (evidence that quality management activities have been performed) are archived in the project repository, under the “Monitor & Control” folder. The different versions of the project artefacts (created at each artefact update) will provide evidence of the performance of these activities.
- Risk Management
The risk management procedure described in this section aims to facilitate the identification and documentation of risks and opportunities that can impact the achievement of project’s objectives.
Risk identification and description
In the preparation phase, the Consortium has created an initial risk list, which can be updated whenever new risks have been identified. The preliminary list of potential project risks and mitigating actions is included in the GA, Annex 1, Part A – List of Critical Risks (page 39).
For each risk from the initial risk list, the consortium made a first analysis identifying:
- The associated WP.
- The proposed mitigation measures.
Risks will continue to emerge during the lifetime of the project so project risk management processes will be conducted iteratively (continuously identified throughout the project lifecycle).
- Configuration Management
The purpose of the project configuration management process is to help project stakeholders to manage project artefacts effectively and to provide a single reliable reference to them, ensuring that the correct versions are available to the relevant parties. Additionally, it helps the Project Manager to identify the latest state of project artefacts and be able to gather all sources, documents, and other information for the project, prevent unauthorised changes, guarantee artefacts traceability, and return to previous versions (fall-back procedure).
The project configuration management procedure comprises the identification of project configuration items (CIs), their attributes and status codes, the establishment of baselines, the definition of roles and responsibilities for authorised changes to CIs, and the maintenance and control of a project repository.
The project configuration management covers:
- Definition of project CIs;
- File and email naming conventions;
- Versioning and tracking of project documents;
- Control of the release of project artefacts and deliverables and changes to them.
- Periodic reviews to CIs records, to see if the configuration procedure is being undertaken and if records match the actual status;
- Storage and archiving of project management artefacts, including folder structure and naming conventions;
- Security of the CIs, i.e., CIs access management, CIs copies / backups, fall-back procedures, and retention period.
The periodic review of CI records will verify if all CIs are correctly identified, related changes are registered, approved, tracked and correctly implemented. For this purpose, a configuration registry will be used. The fields of the configuration registry are:
- Project identifier.
- Item identifier.
- Date of last status change.
- Item attributes.
- Reference to location.
- Details of the relationship between items.
- History of changes to CI (this information can be referenced to the Change Log).
The location of the configuration registry is found in the Appendix 1.
PM2 project management files naming convention
This project follows PM2 methodology and uses the following naming convention:
- XX (two numerical characters) is the number of the document according to all PM2 templates. Other documents not included in the PM2 templates can be named by following the numerical sequence of documents. This number is unique within project artefacts.
- x.x is referring to the version of the document. If it begins with a “0.x” it means that the document hasn’t yet been approved; minor changes can be reflected in the decimal (revisions number) and major changes (formal reviews) in the number.
When creating a project document, the Project Manager (PM) will include:
- The title of the document
- The document type (e.g. plan, check list, log, guide, template, study, report)
- The version number
- The issue date
- The document control information, document approver(s) and reviewers and document history and location
- The confidentiality classification of the document.
- Quality of project communication
Controlling project communications ensures optimal information flow so that stakeholders receive the necessary information at the right time. Communications must be controlled throughout the project life cycle. Some information will require more frequent communication and will be driven by stakeholder needs.
The WASTELESS project has determined a set of guidelines with regards to the quantity and quality of the project communication, both internal and external.
The following initial internal meeting frequency has been set during the project’s Kick off Meeting to serve as the initial structure for the project communication:
- Weekly between the Project Coordinator and the Project Manager;
- Bi-monthly (depending on the intensity of the work) WP/set of WPs meetings in ongoing work packages:
- Initiated and chaired by the respective WP leader/s.
- Follow the project dynamics.
- External Advisory Board Meetings
- Chaired by the Project Coordinator.
- Project progress review and high-level direction.
- General Assembly meetings (twice a year)
- Other, ad-hoc meetings
- E.g., technical teams
Email represents a primary means of communication within WASTELESS. All partner representatives contact information is available on ownCloud and shared among all partners. Several communication levels have been identified during the project preparation phase and the grant agreement preparation. Those include:
- Intra-WP: mostly between two or three partners; specific issues, technical communication, ad-hoc.
- Inter-WP: addressing the issues between different WPs, interfacing, dependencies. The communication is organized by the relevant WP leads.
- General Assembly: The communications are organized by the project coordinator.
- Online Meetings and Web Conferencing Tools
Modern communication tools enable collaborative work and may greatly improve cooperation between different partners. Project teleconferences will be conducted within WASTELESS when required, each based on its own schedule (e.g., WP meetings, task-specific meetings). The chairperson of each teleconference shall decide the appropriate tool and invite all the relevant attendees.
Deliverables Acceptance Ckecklist
The location of this artefact is found in the Appendix 1.
The location of this artefact is referred in the Appendix 1.
The location of this artefact is referred in the Appendix 1.
Appendix 1: References and Related Documents