Versions Compared

Version Old Version 1 New Version Current
Changes made by

Rachael Akinyede

Rachael Akinyede

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

lead: Rachael Akinyede RA

...

See Jira Metadata here: https://itmsgermany.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/IK/boards/5?selectedIssue=IK-37

Summary:

This deliverable follows up on the first progress report and the conceptual design of a traceability matrix to track the progress of the ITMS project. It is aimed to consolidate (unify or reinforce) our plans for the traceability matrix based on discussions made at the ITMS Benchmarking Meeting on the 21st of Feb 2024 and follow-up discussions between the modules. These consolidated plans will be applied in the upcoming “Applied Traceability Matrix and updates at GMs deliverable” D-K3.2 part 2. In addition to this, it informs on the status of the yearly interim report to the funding agency, BMBF.

  1. Second progress report:
    All individual partners submitted the second interim progress report (for the year 2023) to the funding agency, BMBF on schedule.

  2. First consolidated Traceability Matrix:
    As reported in /wiki/spaces/ITMS/pages/48562177, the two levels of traceability identified will be adopted: This includes one that tracks progress according to the schedule given by deliverables and milestones, otherwise known as the structural traceability matrix and one that evaluates progress according to the ITMS project aims measured by specific metrics, the so-called “performance-oriented” traceability matrix. A preliminary application of both matrices has been reported in /wiki/spaces/ITMS/pages/53706757.

    1. Report on consolidated Structural Traceability Matrix:
      Consolidating the structural traceability matrix involves bringing together up-to-date information on the project schedule as provided by the project management infrastructure: Confluence and Jira as facilitated by the ITMS K-working group coordinators and are continuously being applied. Since the conceptual design of the structural traceability matrix, the pre-defined requirements for providing such reports are still in effect and have involved answering the following questions:

      • Was a deliverable/milestone submitted or reached?

      • Was it submitted/reached on time?

      • Was it reached as planned or with limitations/concessions?

      • What are current pending tasks and risky issues within the project?

      In addition to the above-mentioned, we planned to improve information accessibility in a single Confluence place for everyone within the project. The following was thus established:

      • Extended visualization of the status of deliverables and tasks to all principal investigators of all project partners via Jira Kanban boards ("todo", "ongoing", "done") including “red flagging” of tasks as a traffic light system in case of issues.

      • In events of severe issues, reporting on such “red flagging” to all project members via each Confluence Module space.

      • Submission of deliverables via Confluence pages.

      • Implementation of a 4-eye check as a review process for all deliverables submitted. The K-Working-group coordinators will be responsible for this, ensuring that all submitted deliverables and accompanying metadata are complete, accessible, fit for purpose, and understandable, amongst other criteria as decided by the reviewer or person performing the 4-eye check.

      Since all Jira information is still not yet easily accessible in a single place to all members of the project, we further aim to establish:

      • Extended visualization of the status of deliverables and tasks to all project members via Jira Kanban boards as described above.

    2. Report on consolidated Performance-oriented Traceability Matrix
      In developing a traceability matrix that evaluates the status of a greenhouse gas monitoring capability developed within ITMS, the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) was suggested. As a rule, each KPIs should be selected based on the following pre-defined requirements as previously reported:

      • Precision: Is the metric clearly defined, and is the success tested in a way that identifies and facilitates progress in the project?

      • Applicability: Can the metric be straightforwardly implemented?

      • Objectivity: Could someone else apply the measure and obtain the same result?

      • Communication: Can others understand it?()

      Here, we have consolidated all quantifiable KPIs applicable to the individual modules, including possible scoring metrics. These KPIs have been selected to benefit not just the planning of phase 2 but the entire envisioned phases of the project:

...

  • D-K.2.3: Third interim report including deliverable status updated traceability matrix [month: 36/o-39] (DWD).

  • D-K.2.4: Final report including deliverable status and updated traceability matrix [month: 48/o-51] (MPI-BGC)

Go back to ITMS Module K or ITMS Evaluation Report_Home