Resources to be committed Clause Samples

Resources to be committed. ScienceTalk’s request for funds is primarily to keep together the highly effective consortium established during the first phase of the project, which was identified as one of GridTalk’s strongest assets by the first year reviewers. GridTalk funded the employment of three full time members of staff for the two year duration of the project, one in each partner institution of the consortium. For e-ScienceTalk, while all the products are already established, and the initial effort-intensive period of starting them up has been completed, the nature of cutting edge online dissemination channels such as GridCafé, GridGuide, GridCast, the Real Time Monitor and iSGTW mean that constant redevelopment is needed to keep pace with new software, standards, applications and tools. The wide programme of work already initiated by GridTalk will be maintained during e-ScienceTalk. In the new EGI era of grid computing, a number of highly desirable extensions and expansions to this programme have been identified for e-ScienceTalk, and have been outlined in this document. In order to carry out these extensions and expansions effectively, e-ScienceTalk proposes to add an additional amount of funded effort to the original GridTalk team as detailed below.

Resources to be committed. Added description of additional contributions in the form of hardware, software and services (e.g. the PPT application used to manage the project effort) Done 21 Detail the time shifts of deliverables and milestones compared to the original proposal DNA1.4 - EMI Roadmap and DCI Collaborations, added new at PM5 MJRA1.1 - Security Workshop: new milestone at PM2 (the numbering of following deliverables is shifted by one, e.g. the old MJRA1.1 is now MJRA1.2). This milestone replaces the old MJRA1.9 – Agreement on one common security infrastructure, which was at at PM9 MJRA1.4 🡪 MJRA1.5 - Agreement on common security methods for data systems: number shifted, time shifted from PM6 to PM5 MJRA1.9 – Agreement on one common security infrastructure, removed and Done replaced by new MJRA1.1 MJRA1.8 🡪 MJRA1.9 - AAI requirements of DCIs, shifts from PM6 to PM7 22 Add mention of participation to the SIENA Standardization Roadmap Added to section B3.2 Done 23 Add clarification of cost categories Added at the top of section B2.4 as instructed Done COMBINATION OF COLLABORATIVE PROJECT & COORDINATION AND SUPPORT ACTION B1.1 CONCEPT AND PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) 11

Resources to be committed.  Other direct costs (table 3.4b) 1 - GANIL Cost (€)

Resources to be committed. The coordinator will require an academic employee and a part-time secretary (24 PM, and 18 PM, respectively) and the assistant coordinator will be supported by one part- time academic employee (18 PM). WP1 requires the appointment of a full-time Executive Manager with pertinent management experience in industry or international organizations. Budget for such an expert are is foreseen for 27 PM. This person will be supported by an academic employee (24 PM) and part-time secretary (18 PM). Costs for office and secretarial expenses (stationery, computers, communication) are also foreseen. The Associate Coordinator as well as the responsible person for global integration require support by a part-time academic employee (18 PM each). For travel costs for the coordinator, executive manager and assistants to support international cooperation, 3 journeys per month are budgeted (for one of these persons in turn). The Associate Coordinator will require a travel budget for one monthly journey as well as the partner for global integration. Several meetings have to be organized by WP1 and are budgeted according to the number of estimated participants per event. Two Governance Council meetings (60 PE each), four Steering Committee meetings (10 PE each), and two Coordination Committee meeting with 20 participants each (40 PE) are budgeted. In addition, an international conference will be organised in combination with the Stakeholder Forum meeting, to save on cost. Conference organization is budgeted and will be outsourced. Within WP1, there will be subcontracting costs for the legal advice and contracting and public relations activities to be outsourced to professional agencies. For the Chair of the Scientific and Ethical Advisory Board an academic part-time assistance (6 PM) is required. To cover travel costs for the international board members (9 persons) for two journeys (to cover the increased expenses of overseas flights) is budgeted. For the Chair of the Stakeholder Forum, part-time assistance (6 PM) and contributions to travel cost for the Stakeholder Forum (ca. 250 participants) are required. A travel budget for global integration (Coordination Board) will be required to support the necessary international contacts (travel expenses for incoming experts and for traveling to other organaisations, respectively). WP1 will keep a budget for travel, subcontracting or other cost, which is not allocated to a specific work package, in order to allow new experts or organiz...

Resources to be committed. The substantial resources requested overall for EURO4M reflect the ambitious scope of the project. Even with a budget of this magnitude, partner institutions will need to contribute significant additional resources. More importantly, EURO4M needs to use to the largest extent possible existing capacities. The expertise and experience of the beneficiaries in each WP, together with the degree of European and international co- operation, make the work feasible within the level of resources available. The total grant requested from the EU is 4 million Euros (M€), broken down as shown in Table B.2.4a. WP Name K€ 1 Regional observation datasets 1482 2 Regional reanalysis 1820 3 User-oriented information and climate change products 550 4 Project management, coordination and sustainability 232 Most of the budget is used to hire personnel; a small fraction is for computing and travel. From the total budget of almost 4 M€ roughly 80% will be spent on science to make available high quality ECV datasets in WP1 and WP2. The other 20% will be spent on integrated products (at the required level of aggregation and processing) and management. We believe this breakdown is justified, because European climate change monitoring requires a firm scientific basis. Focusing on existing datasets and systems only, would result in products and services that are far from the forefront of scientific developments. About 7% of the overall budget is dedicated to management. This small amount implies that a large part of the support needed will come from either the Coordinators home institute (e.g. for hosting the EURO4M website) and from the home institutes of the WP-leaders. Justification of resources by WP WP1: Regional observation datasets The range of activities to be undertaken in WP1 has close linkages and co-operation with ongoing European and international initiatives and infrastructures. We rely on a large number of facilities, instruments and services owned and operated at national, regional and international levels inside and outside the EU. The work in this WP is designed in a way that recognizes that the in situ infrastructure is developed and maintained by Member States and should remain their responsibility (EC, 2008). The funding is used for pan-European integration, which contributes to globally co-ordinated data collection and exchange. The range of expertise in WP1 embraces both long experience in climate monitoring and dataset development of specific ECVs and ongoing in...

Resources to be committed. The budget of the project has been built for every WP individually and on a task-by-task basis allowing for a better estimation of the needs in terms of personnel, travel, other (including events and specific activities such as policy mix reviews, twinning, etc) and subcontracting costs. Such detailed budget calculation goes beyond the requirements of the Commission and is certainly tentative, i.e. the consortium is fully aware that the real cost will be slightly different. However, it gives confidence for the ability to achieve the described actions and responsibility to every partner for the budget he has to spend in connection to the actions to implement. Every cost item has been estimated with the maximum possible accuracy, drawing on the experience from the implementation of the IncoNet EECA and IncoNet CA/SC projects, and therefore keeping vague assumptions or gross estimations to a minimum: - For personnel costs the average rate of each participating institution (provided by them) has been taken into consideration, while at the same time person-months per beneficiary and per task have been calculated. - For travel costs (including airfare, accommodation, and daily allowance for up to two days mission) a single amount of 1500 Euros has been used in the calculation, which provides an average estimation. Intra-regional travels can cost less; while inter- regional can be more expensive. Beneficiaries 1-ZSI, 2-CeRISS, 4-DLR, 5-CIP, 7- IPPT-PAN, 9-NAS-RA, 10-CNRS, 12-ETAg, 13-SRNSF, 14-KT, 15-SPI, 17-UNU, 18-APRE will use the real costs as the method of reimbursement for accommodation and subsistence costs. Beneficiaries 3-NIP, 6-BelISA, 8-TUBITAK, 11-ANAS, 16- RCISD, 19-ICBSS will use the flat rate as their method. - For event costs accurate estimations have been made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the number of participants, duration, and type of expenses covered. It should be noted that in principle calculations were made for 2-day events, where airfare, accommodation, and subsistence are covered for the participants. However, in some cases of events with particular characteristics (e.g. InfoDays-task 4.3, EaP sessions-tasks 4.4, 5.1, 6.2) this principle was not followed in order to provide an even more accurate estimation. - In the case of specific activities such as the twinning process (task 1.2), the policy mix reviews (task 2.4), and the grant scheme (task 4.4) accurate estimation of costs were made based on previous experience ...

Resources to be committed. The financial plan of the project is carefully adjusted to the planned management and support activities. It includes mainly the personnel costs of consortium members (described in The Summary of Staff Effort Tables), and moderate amount of travel costs, consumables, and equipment that are necessary for the successful completion of the project. Concerning self- contributions; a significant amount of resources (a part of the IT infrastructure of connected Desktop Grids) complementing the EC contribution are to be committed by partners above their compulsory self-contributions. Additionally, based on the surveys (see Section on Impact a very large number of volunteer donors (students, citizens, and companies) are also expected who will offer their spare Computing capacities. The distribution of the budget plan among the cost categories based on the total project cost: Personnel 75.1% Travel 7.6% Equipment 0,2% Consumables 0,4% Overhead 16,7% The total project cost is 974 096 EUR (as it is shown in the following table), which – considering the workload (136 PMs) undertaken, the deliverables provided and added value of the project generated – can be considered a low budget. The consortium requests 0.86 million EUR financial contribution from the European Commission to the project, which is the 88% of the total project costs. MTA SZTAKI 177,450 21,281 39,746 238,477 212,642 AlmereGrid 122,450 14,870 27,464 164,784 146,932 UoW 112,500 12,085 24,917 149,502 133,306 LU 72,000 7,200 15,840 95040 76,175 SONY 80,825 8,164 17,798 106,787 95,218 CE 58,427 5,843 12,854 77,124 68,769 IDGF 108,000 10,652 23,730 142,382 126,958 974 096 860 000 The details of the project budget per participant and per cost category and work package are depicted in the following table. MTA SZTAKI 50,400 50,400 21,000 34,650 21,000 6,044 6,044 2,518 4,155 2,518 11,289 11,289 4,704 7,761 4,704 AlmereGrid 0 6,200 74,400 0 41,850 0 753 9,035 0 5,082 0 1,391 16,687 0 9,386 UoW 0 13,500 13,500 72,000 13,500 0 1,450 1,450 7,734 1,450 0 2,990 2,990 15,947 2,990 LU 0 24,000 36,000 12,000 0 0 2,400 3,600 1,200 0 0 5,280 7,920 2,640 0 SONY 0 0 35,056 0 23,371 0 0 3,506 0 2,337 0 0 7,712 0 5,142 CE 0 6,625 0 10,600 63,600 0 669 0 1,071 6,424 0 1,459 0 2,334 14,005 IDGF 0 21,000 33,000 33,000 21,000 0 2,071 3,255 3,255 2,071 0 4,614 7,251 7,251 4,614 Total 50,400 121,725 212,956 162,250 184,321 6,044 13,388 23,364 17,415 19,883 11,289 27,023 47,264 35,933 40,841 The management cost in WP1 is 6% of the to...

Resources to be committed. Most of the resources committed in the workplan are internal resources of the partners, as a consequence of the nature of best practice network of the project, which gets its value precisely from networking partners’ expertise and resources. The consortium is highly representative of the players involved both as potential users and as data and technical providers of the system. Additional organisations support the project, providing additional resources that will not be financially reported in the project but will nevertheless contribute towards it achieving its objectives. Because of this characteristic of the project, subcontracting is very focused. In Latvia , following a model that is already in place regulating the relation between the association and its members, the Latvian Book Guild will subcontract to one or more of its members part of the work, in particular for what concerns the definition of requirements for the BIP. A further subcontracting budget has been allocated within the IFRRO and FEP budget, to allow these two partners to reimburse costs that their members (when these are not themselves members of the Arrow Plus consortium) would sustain in joining the system, for example in making RRO databases ONIX-for-RRO compliant. There will be an extensive promotion of the system within these communities, and – depending on the evolution of the demand for “Arrow like” services – RROs or PAs may be willing to join. In these cases, IFRRO or FEP will sign subcontracting agreements with their members, on the basis of covering the costs encountered by their members. A specific subcontracting is related to the aim of Arrow Plus to create new registries for BiPs and RROs databases, ensuring interoperability among them and with the Arrow system. For this purpose, CINECA will subcontract the company Medra (Multilingual European DOI Registration’Agency) to complement the internal technical staff with specific expertise in designing, developing and managing bibliographic databases based on standards for the publishing sector. Medra’s experience in integration of standards and in implementation of services supporting interoperability for data exchange in the book trade for the publishing sector allowed to build an exclusive know how in the field. In addition to its activity as DOI Registration Agency managing back office services of other Registration’s Agencies such as OPOCE and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Book Data, Medra has expertise particularly relevant for the project: -...

Resources to be committed. B 2.4.1: personnel and general information