Orocos EU Proposal: results...

Dear all,

I just got the ``Evaluation Summary Report'' from Philippe Aigrain of
the EU, with the results of the evaluation of the OROCOS proposal we
submitted last January. (I copy the evalution letter literally below.)

The overall score is good, and I also spoke to Aigrain on the phone,
who told me that the remarks were minor, except for dissemination and
deliverables.

We are invited for contract negotiation early April. I'll keep you
informed.

I can already tell you that, in the meantime, my research group got
two requests from industrial partners (from the motion control areas)
to start up projects around open source development of motion control
software. I will use this as an argument to answer one of the remarks
below, i.e., the lack of industrial support. If you happen to have
similar (plans for) projects, please let me know, so that our
argumentation during the contract negotiations can be stronger.

Best regards,

Herman

(The scores mentioned below are on a maximum of 5.)

====================start of letter================================

1.  Scientific/technological quality and innovation: 4
===================================================
While the proposal does not necessarily involve new products or
software as such, it uses acknowledged needs for portability and
standardisation, linked to the open software development model, to
offer a new combination for robotics software. It will also allow for
innovation through the ability to add functionality and to test new
algorithms on the open source software platform.


2. Community added value and contribution of EC policies: 4
========================================================
There is clear added value in carrying out the work at the European
level at least, in particular to reach a critical mass. The formation
of a standard for robotics software is important, not least to enable
SMEs to benefit from the proposal.


3. Contribution to community social objectives: 3
==============================================
The impacts of the proposal are more likely to be indirect than
direct, and would, probably, affect employment prospects and
education/skills positively.


4. Economic development and S&T prospects: 3
=========================================
In the currently closed niche for robotics software, the introduction
of an open source platform may create new opportunities because of
faster transfer of technology from research to products. While the
dissemination strategy and exploitation plan permit far more insight
and access than would be the case in closed development models, the
proposal expects most of the dissemination to happen by itself, and
this, together with the lack of a plan for continued development after
release, constitutes a potential weakness.


5. Resources, partnership and management: 3
========================================
The quality of the partnership from the academic point of view is
appropriate, but would be more convincing if building partnership with
industry, and in particular with companies having industrial open
source development experience. The work plan is not very convincing,
partly because the deliverables fall due late in the project, and the
mapping of some tasks to resources not clearly specified.

Overall score: 4
=============

General comments:
================
The proposal has potentially important and exciting technical content,
and can justify its assessment as very good, despite the issues raised
in the specific comments to criteria 4 and 5.

==============================end of letter============================
-- 
[email protected]
 <http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bruyninc/>