Sixth framework programme

1.2Risk assessment and related communication strategy

The hazards implied by MBRs are comparable in all aspects to conventional municipal wastewater treatment. Accordingly the project doesn’t imply any important risk neither for the people directly involved in the project nor for the society using the outcome of the project.
As for most projects, the risk of delivering wrong results due to experimental errors as well as not correctly identifying the area of validity of the obtained results, may lead to misallocation of finances or resources whenever choices on applying MBR technology are based on the results of this project. Possible cause of data misinterpretation are: i) the multiplicity of physical, chemical and biological parameters taking influence on overall MBR performance; ii) significant part of the work will be done in pilot plants run with local municipal wastewater, and accordingly the feed composition can be influenced by local constraints. This risk is being minimized by comparing the project results with independent groups, i.e. actively discussing the result internationally by participation in conferences, by publishing, by the direct contacts of the partners with full scale plant operators and by clustering European MBR projects.
A fundamental precept of the project programme is that all experiments conducted within the individual work packages can ultimately be compared through the use of (i) global, normalised parameters as listed in Table 8 (page 19), and (ii) the same key analytical techniques. Thus, the critical junctures of the programme are the identification of (a) the most appropriate normalised parameters (3 months) and analytical methods, and (b) the most appropriate range of values for these parameters (6 months). Given these terms of reference, all subsequent work and data generated can be used to inform, develop or obviate other parts of the programme in a dynamic and interactive way. Once the experimental programme is substantially complete, the normalised data can be processed to produce a cost benefit analysis encompassing all the MBR process elements of the programme. A data review and compilation milestone (30 months) is thus essential.
Risks associated with the project are thus:

• 
  failure to agree on key normalised parameters and ranges thereof
  
• 
  failure to compile sufficient data to enable a robust cost benefit analysis
  

The quite high number of partners included in EUROMBRA, brings in the advantage of gathering the knowledge of all partners (an important issue for a multifaceted task like municipal MBR application). It also increases the probability of having included partners that in the course of the project might not be able to deliver their contribution on schedule. This risk is being covered by i) careful evaluation of the internal 6 month and yearly reporting ii) focussing on this aspect during project meetings and iii) by retaining part of the budget until after result delivery.

Project management and exploitation/dissemination plans

1.3Project management

1.3.1Overview

To ensure an effective control of the project the work program has been broken down into a number of work packages (WPs) which, in turn are divided into tasks. Individual partners have been allocated responsibility for technical coordination within the respective WPs and tasks. A Project Steering Committee will be established representing all contract partners. The overall coordination and running of the project is the responsibility of the Project Coordinator. The structure and communication lines are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Project management structure and lines of communication

1.3.2Project Steering Committee (PSC)

The PSC represents the highest level of decision making in the project. It will consist of senior staff representing the partners. Each partner will have one representative. The PSC provides the overall policy, direction and management for the project. Furthermore, the PSC will approve all progress reports by the Project Manager as well as the deliverables from the respective WPs. The PSC will be responsible for all formal decisions on the project and will take decisions regarding project strategy and amendments to the Project Program. It will approve technical objectives for all subtasks and will coordinate the technical output from the proposed project, as well as being responsible for allocation of resources and conflict resolution.
The PSC will consist of a representative from each contractor with due authorization to discuss, negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their organization. The PSC members are to be appointed by each contractor and the current contractor representatives have been identified as:

Assoc.Prof. TorOve Leiknes - Project Coordinator (NTNU)	Professor Simon Judd - Chair (CU)
Mr. Thomas Wintgens (RWTH)	Professor João Crespo (IBET)
Professor Corinne Cabassud (INSA-Toulouse)	Professor Alain Grasmick (UM)
Professor Jaap van de Graaf (TU-Delft)	Dr. Adriano Joss (EAWAG)
Assoc.Prof. Gianni Andreottola (UNITN)	Professor S. Vigneswaran (UTS)
Professor Chris Buckley (UKZN)	Dr. Olivier Lorain (POLYMEM)
Dr. Klaus Vossenkaul (KMS)	Dr. Michaela Hunze (FlowConcept)
Mr. John Steven Wilkes (MILL)	Mr. Jan Willem Mulder (WHD)
Mr. Christoph Brepols (EV)	Professor Gary Amy (UNESCO-IHE)

1.3.3Project Coordinator (PC)

The prime contractor of the present project is NTNU, which will assume responsibility for the project coordination and management. The Project Coordinator will be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the Project Steering Committee and for the day-to-day management of the project. The Project Coordinator’s work will include the following:

• 
  Strategic management of the project, including negotiation with the Commission regarding contract conditions and budgetary aspects, negotiation of consortium agreement and review of resource status.
  
• 
  Technical management/coordination of the project, which includes detailed planning and monitoring of technical work and deliverables, preparation of technical progress reports and publications.
  
• 
  Preparation of a quality assurance program for approval by the Project Steering Committee based on working programs and reports review and periodic meetings.
  
• 
  Administrative support functions such as arranging meetings, provision of minutes, coordination of cost statements and transfer of funds from the Commission to partners, maintenance of the project schedule, maintenance of project procedures, etc.
  

1.3.4Management of work packages (WPs)

A Work Package Committee (WPC) will be established for each on-going WP. Individual partners have been allocated responsibility for technical coordination within the respective WPs. These partners will appoint a competent and experienced member of staff to perform the role of WP leader. The WP leader will be the chair for the WPC. Each WPC is responsible for reporting all actions taken within the WP to the PSC and the Project Coordinator.
The WP leaders, in cooperation with the Project Coordinator, will plan, coordinate and supervise in detail the technical work in the respective WP and will ensure adequate communication and interfacing with other WPs and the PSC. The WPC meetings will be organized as needed and preferably in parallel to the PSC meetings.

1.3.5Project communication strategy

Transparent and continuous communication will ensure that partners will be kept fully informed about any development during the project. All information will be originally sent to the Project Coordinator, who will then channel it to all members of the consortium. An important communication channel will be the project web site. E-mail, file sharing services and an organized format for word-processing files will be used for effective communication between partners. Administrative project procedures including a document numbering system will be used to keep track of the project information. WP leaders who are not PSC members by default will attend the PSC meetings when appropriate. Meetings between WP leaders will be organized to coordinate activities.

1.3.6Monitoring project progress, meetings and reporting

The PSC meetings will be held every 6 months in order to review the overall project progress and outline the objectives and contents of the work for the future. The PSC will also decide on corrective actions necessary to the work plan to ensure the overall success of the project.
A number of technical meetings will be held between WP leaders and other technical personnel in order to coordinate the detailed work of the different partners. The tasks within each work package shall be coordinated through the Work Package Committees (WPC) which will be held as needed and preferably in parallel to the PSC meetings. Joint WPC meetings between WPs will be help when appropriate. The outcome of these meetings shall be reported back to the PC and PSC.
In addition to the regular reporting identified in article 7 of the contract, the consortium shall submit intermediate 6 monthly Interim Activity Reports to the Commission. The layout and contents of the intermediate management reports shall conform to the instructions and guidance notes established by the Commission. The time period for submission and approval of the management report shall be as given in articles II.7.1 and II.8.2, respectively.
The language of all deliverables and reports shall be in English.
The following reporting plan will be followed by the EUROMBRA project:
Table 3 Reporting plan

Report period	Report type / description	Responsible	Distribution
Every 3 months	WP-Progress Report: - summary of tasks, WP work plans	WP leader Contribution: WP partners	WP partners, PC
Every 6 months	WP-Activity Report: - summary of tasks conducted in the last 6 months, outcomes, problems, plans for next actions. Minutes of WPC meetings	WP leader Contribution: WP partners	PSC Project partners
Every 6 months	Interim Activity Report: - brief report defining progress of work; tasks completed, outcomes and plans for next period	PC Contribution: WP leaders and project partners	EC, PSC Project partners
Every year	Periodic Activity Report: - technical and financial reports for each annual reporting period	PC Contribution: WP leaders and project partners	EC, PSC Project partners
Month 18	Mid-term Report: - for mid-term assessment, evaluation and description of remaining work	PC Contribution: WP leaders and project partners	EC, PSC Project partners
Project end	Final Report: - technical and financial reports on the entire project	PC Contribution: WP leaders and project partners	EC, PSC Project partners

The coordinator shall notify the Commission of all meetings of project partners. The notifications shall be given well in advance of the meetings to enable the Commission to be represented.

The coordinator will take part in meeting(s) that the Commission may eventually organise with co-ordinators of complementary EU-funded RTD activities, in order to consider the possibilities for integrating the work of these projects within a cluster.

1.3.7Consensus finding and conflict resolution

The Project Coordinator will carry out the day-to-day management in collaboration with the WP leaders. The Participants, with the intervention of the Project Coordinator, will settle conflicts at this level, if necessary. Should this not lead to a consensus, the matter will be resolved by the Project Steering Committee.
Decisions in the Project Steering Committee will be made by following the rules laid down by the European Commission.

1.3.8Clustering activities with related EU projects

The 018328 – AMEDEUS project has been identified as a parallel project under the same research programme which has complementary activity, A closer collaboration between AMEDEUS and EUROMBRA is foreseen an added benefit with the potential of synergy effects between the two projects where the collaboration. A common platform to assist in the cooperation is defined as specific tasks in the work packages, however, management of the clustering activities will be undertaken on different levels. The Project Manager will carry a regular contact and information exchange with the coordinator of the AMEDEUS project and be instrumental in establishing and promoting and managing activities of lesion groups between the two projects where this is found to be beneficial and agreed upon by the respective project steering committees.