1 Introduction
1.1 Abstract
- Conducting peer review and quality assurance for WP deliverables and activities is very essential to ensure high-quality project progress and to guarantee that the project outcomes and outputs follow the highest quality standards and measures. Hence, WP4 in MS@CPS has the responsibility of running several assurances and review mechanisms such as surveys, brainstorming and feedback sessions, quality standard compliance to ensure the correct and high-quality progress of the project. The main objective of this work package is to assess the project implementation using the following indicative measures:
- Good cooperation between the project partners and industry experts.
- Project implementation goes according to the stated work plan.
- In case of revision of the work plan over project life-cycle, the budget and activities should be done on time
This assessment will be made via monitoring and progress reports, project meetings, seminars and conferences, and the final report. D4.2 provides a report of these assessments during the first year of the project.
1.2 The purpose of this document
This document provides reports for conducting a peer-review process for various project activities and deliverables to ensure high-quality project outputs and outcomes.
1.3 Relation to other WPs deliverables and activities
As seen in Figure 1, all WPs have several activities and deliverables. The main activities are project management and stakeholders meetings, workshops, visibility activities, and seminars. Further, each WP has a predefined set of deliverables that should be revised and its quality should be assured.
1.4 Project activities review process
The project will have several activities, in which the planning, execution activities should be monitored and evaluated. In what follows, a brief description of the evaluation process for the project activities is provided.
1.4.1 Projects’ management and stakeholders meetings
In order to ensure successful project implementation, the project participants and stakeholders should have regular meetings to discuss the project progress and activities, receive feedback and consultation on the underdevelopment courses’ contents, meet with stakeholders from the industry, and meeting with students who are expected to be the beneficiaries of the master program.
o Management meetings: project participants have a set of face-to-face meetings throughout the project to discuss the project progress and work together toward achieving the project objectives. These meetings should be well organized to ensure the best utilizing of the meeting time. These meetings are normally evaluated after the meeting is finished by the participants to give feedback about the meeting quality and organization to the organizers, such that they will consider the received feedback for future meetings. Stakeholder meetings: in order to ensure that the project activities and curricula are well aligned with the industrial needs and requirements, the related industry will be involved in the project development process, which can be done by consulting them and sharing the study plan and courses and receive feedbacks from them to enhance the program. This process of industry engagement can be done by having meetings with stakeholders. The quality of these meetings should be evaluated to ensure high standards and quality. Further, during these meetings, questioner and surveys should be developed by the meeting organizer to address them to the stakeholders from the industry to receive their feedback and inputs.
o Students meetings: engagement of students is an integral action of the project development and curricula development. Hence, students are expected to be actively engaged during the project development life-cycle, which can be done by conducting meeting sessions with the students to discuss the project and listen for their feedback and opinions. It also can be done by asking them to fill a questioner that addresses the project objectives, outcomes and ask for the student’s opinion and feedback to consider it while developing the project.
1.4.2 Workshops
Project participants and stakeholders are expected to arrange a set of training workshops where they meet together and project participants (who may include students) will receive training on various topics related to the project theme (workshops related to main courses of the development Master program). These workshops should be well organized and taught by experts in the fields. The quality of the workshop participants is normally evaluated after the workshop or during it (at the end of each day) to give the organizers feedback on how it can be improved and be more successful.
1.4.3 Visibility activities
Visibility is an important aspect in any project, in which visibility actions can be organized that aim at informing the students and stakeholders (locally and globally) about the project and how they can be part of it. The quality of these visibility activities should be also monitored and evaluated.
1.4.4 Seminars
Another important project activity is having regular information seminars and sessions where the project overview and objectives are elaborated and discussed with the students and interested audience. These seminars should be highly organized and their quality should be evaluated.
1.5 WPs Deliverables:
The project is divided into six main Work Packages (WP), each of which has a set of deliverables. These deliverables should be revised and evaluated to ensure high quality and standard. To achieve that, as discussed in the Quality Plan (D4.1), a quality assurance committee has been established that has at least one member from each partner. Further, in order to arrange the deliverables review process, the set of all deliverables are listed with their review and delivering deadlines. For each deliverable, the partner responsible for reviewing and checking the deliverable quality is determined, thus the review process is distributed among all partners in a balanced way to ensure a high-quality review process.
1.6 Deliverables Quality Check Schedule
To ensure timely and high-quality deliverables to the Work Packages outcomes. Table 1 represents the project deliverables, the main responsible partner to conduct the quality monitoring and checking process, the initial deadline to submit the deliverable, the quality checking process deadline, and the final deadline for submitting the deliverables after taking into consideration the Quality Assurance Committee feedback and notes.
| No. | Deliverable WP | Quality check responsibility | Initial Deliverable deadline | Quality revision deadline | Deliverable Final deadline | WP Leading |
| 1 | 1.1 | GJU, TTU | 1/4/2019 | 7/4/2019 | 14/4/2019 | AQU |
| 2 | 1.2 | GJU, TTU | 1/7/2019 | 7/7/2019 | 14/07/2019 | AQU |
| 3 | 1.3 | GJU, TTU | 1/10/2019 | 7/10/2019 | 14/10/2019 | AQU |
| 4 | 1.4 | GJU, TTU | 1/1/2020 | 7/1/2020 | 14/1/2020 | AQU |
| 5 | 1.5 | GJU, TTU | 1/1/2020 | 7/1/2020 | 14/1/2020 | AQU |
| 6 | 2.1 | USF, KTH | 1/2/2020 | 7/2/2020 | 14/2/2020 | USI |
| 7 | 2.2 | USF, KTH | 1/5/2020 | 7/5/2020 | 14/05/2020 | USI |
| 8 | 2.3 | USF, KTH | 1/8/2020 | 7/8/2020 | 14/08/2020 | USI |
| 9 | 2.4 | USF, KTH | 1/11/2020 | 7/11/2020 | 14/11/2020 | USI |
| 10 | 2.5 | USF, KTH | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | USI |
| 11 | 2.6 | USF, KTH | 1/7/2019 | 7/7/2019 | 14/07/2019 | USI |
| 12 | 2.7 | USF, KTH | 1/9/2020 | 7/9/2020 | 14/09/2020 | USI |
| 13 | 2.8 | USF, KTH | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | USI |
| 14 | 2.9 | USF, KTH | 1/7/2020 | 7/7/2020 | 14/07/2020 | USI |
| 15 | 2.1 | PTC,USF | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | USI |
| 16 | 2.11 | PTC, USF | 1/6/2021 | 7/6/2021 | 14/06/2021 | USI |
| 17 | 2.12 | PTC, USF | 28/12/2020 | 3/1/2021 | 10/01/2021 | USI |
| 18 | 2.13 | PTC, TTU | 1/7/2021 | 7/7/2021 | 14/07/2021 | USI |
| 19 | 2.14 | PTC, TTU | 18/12/2021 | 25/12/2021 | 01/01/2022 | USI |
| 20 | 3.1 | PTC, TTU | 1/9/2020 | 7/9/2020 | 14/09/2020 | KTH |
| 21 | 3.2 | PTC, TTU | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | KTH |
| 22 | 3.3 | GJU, TTU | 1/3/2020 | 7/3/2020 | 14/03/2020 | KTH |
| 23 | 3.4 | GJU, TTU | 1/7/2020 | 8/7/2020 | 15/07/2020 | KTH |
| 24 | 4.1 report 1 | AQU, USI | 1/1/2020 | 7/1/2020 | 14/1/2020 | GJU |
| 25 | 4.1 report 2 | AQU, CU | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | GJU |
| 26 | 4.1 report 3 | AQU, CU | 1/1/2022 | 7/1/2022 | 14/1/2022 | GJU |
| 27 | 4.2 report 1 | AQU, USI | 1/1/2020 | 7/1/2020 | 14/1/2020 | GJU |
| 28 | 4.2 report 2 | AQU, CU | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | GJU |
| 29 | 4.2 report 3 | AQU, USI | 1/1/2022 | 7/1/2022 | 14/1/2022 | GJU |
| 30 | 4.3 | AQU, CU | 1/7/2021 | 7/7/2021 | 14/07/2021 | GJU |
| 31 | 5.1 | CU, KTH | 1/7/2019 | 7/7/2019 | 14/07/2019 | PTC |
| 32 | 5.2 | CU, KTH | 1/7/2020 | 7/7/2020 | 14/07/2020 | PTC |
| 33 | 5.3 | USI, CU | 1/9/2020 | 7/9/2020 | 14/09/2020 | PTC |
| 34 | 5.4 | USI, CU | 1/7/2020 | 7/7/2020 | 14/07/2020 | PTC |
| 35 | 5.5 | USI, CU | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | PTC |
| 36 | 5.6 report 1 | USI, CU | 1/1/2020 | 7/1/2020 | 14/1/2020 | PTC |
| 37 | 5.6 report 2 | USI, CU | 1/1/2021 | 7/1/2021 | 14/1/2021 | PTC |
| 38 | 5.6 report 3 | USI, CU | 1/1/2022 | 7/1/2022 | 14/1/2022 | PTC |
| 39 | 5.7 | USI, CU | 18/12/2021 | 25/12/2021 | 01/01/2022 | PTC |
| 40 | 6.1 | PTC, GJU | 1/1/2019 | 8/1/2019 | 15/1/2019 | USI |
| 41 | 6.2 | PTC, GJU | 1/11/2019 | 8/11/2019 | 15/11/2019 | USI |
| 42 | 6.3 | PTC, GJU | 1/7/2020 | 7/7/2020 | 14/07/2020 | USI |
| 43 | 6.4 | PTC, GJU | 1/1/2022 | 7/1/2022 | 14/1/2022 | USI |