Report on WeGovNow

  • Francisco Santa... profile
    Francisco Santa...
    24 March 2017
    Total votes: 4
Project results and potential impact: 

- The study of the state of the art about projects and papers is very good. Annex I in D2.2 (papers) and point 4.7 in D5.1 (projects). Nevertheless it is missing in the available information a clear description about how results of the project will go further this current state of the art. This is a shortcoming.

- The impact description is good. The dissemination & communication plan is well structured with individual responsibilities and with a detailed description of events and journals. However, i.-\ quantified impacts are not introduced, ii.-\ KPIs (key performance indicators) to monitor impacts have not been described, and iii.-\ a business plan of the WeGovNow project results has not been introduced. These are 3 shortcomings of the available information of the project.

- The clarity and pertinence of the objectives is good. Objectives of the WeGovNow project can be deduced from the provided information. However i.-\ they have not been clearly described in the available information of the project, ii.-\ how the achievement of these objectives will be verified is not mentioned, iii.-\ the achievement of these objectives has not been linked with impacts of the project and iv.-\the relationship of these objectives with the scope of the topic is not described in the available information. These are 4 shortcomings.
The methodology is excellently described and appropriate to achieve a new type of interactivity between citizens and administrations/government overcoming current limitations of existing digital tools for citizen reporting, e-participation and communication.

Dissemination, exploitation and re-usability: 

- The dissemination & communication plan is excellent. The work is sufficiently disseminated (see deliverables D5.1-plan, and D5.2-first report).
The description of the business and exploitation plan is fair. i.-\ An IPR (intellectual property right) management in the consortium has not been introduced. ii.-\ How this innovative solution will be brought to all levels of administrations: regional, national and European is not described in the available information, and iii.-\ how the business plan will be sustainable in the time is not mentioned. iv.-\ A turnover-cost analysis has not been carried out. This is a weakness of the available information.

- The project can be used by other researchers and projects as a case of study of the application of SCRUM and AGILE methodology, as well as ASSIST methodology, to an innovative ICT solution for the relationship between the government and citizens.
Results of the project can be used by all European and third countries administrations, but an IPR management and a business and exploitation plan of this solution should be previously stated.

Recommendations concerning on-going and future work: 

- A very good methodology review has been done in Annex 1 D2.2. However, the methodological approach adopted (D2.2, pg. 15-18 and Exhibit 1) is not justified by a technique selection method. To increase the credibility of the selected method, it would be recommendable to justify the adopted methodology through a previous study about the adequacy of the elicitation technique. (see Carrizo, D., Dieste, O. and Juristo, N., 2014. Systematizing requirements elicitation technique selection. Information and Software Technology, 56(6), pp. 644-669).

- A business plan should be deeply developed for an implementation plan after the finalization of the project.