End User Requirements

Hi

Looks like we have a great topic for discussion  group – I think this threads highlights the need for the criticality and customer journey to viewed.

In the case of QMS for networks the implementation of VO QMS implies liability on the VO as a collective since the approach in UK terms creates a joint and severale as a  group

This would impact contract law by nation, tax and VAT and importantly insurance.

The closest to this VO QMS is OEM approving its suppliers to its specification either material/process and basic quality system audit – however the OEM will in all case neither take liability for its supply or guarantee its supply by underwriting its performance or lack off. OEM’s will however liquidate damages wherever possible as in automotive the supplier is charge for late delivery/line stoppages, but these have limited scope.

Thus from QMS for VOs its impact is on tax/vat/insurance etc hence I believe a good discussion is needed around the implications of stating COIN services which may be seen as high risk by any SME end user.

Kind regards

Andrew

Andrew  Faughy

Technical Director

VEN Group

From: Patrick Sitek [mailto:sit@biba.uni-bremen.de]
Sent: 03 November 2008 15:04
To: Andrew Faughy; Novica Zarvic; coin-sp6-users@coin-ip.eu
Cc: Claudia Guglielmina; sergio.gusmeroli@txtgroup.it; Hong-Linh Truong
Subject: AW: Ranking of innovative services for EC and EI

Hi Andrew,

thanks for your mail. One remark regarding your Quality Management concerns. You are absolutely right, that a QM system is a prerequisite of joining a VO. This is true for each single network member.

Nevertheless, what we try to work on in COIN is a QM for a network. We are defining innovative services for networks NOT single members. This is due to the fact that none of the existing QM approach today covers the inter-organisational communication flows and interdependences in networks. Further on none of them take the evolutionary and temporary character of a network into account (please correct me if I am wrong). Each of todays QM approaches is intra-organisational oriented to improve quality in long-term, standardized process. It is proven by literature, that dynamic, short-term inter-organisational aspects in networks influence the final outcome of a network and thus the final quality.

Today we are able to guarantee the quality of each network partner’s single contribution but we are not able to guarantee the quality of the final network product as a sum. Finally the end user / consumer is not asking for a set of single contributions but the final product as a whole system. The additional innovative QM will never replace existing QM approaches (ISO, TQM 6sigma etc.) but will close an existing inter-organisational quality gap in dynamic networks.

Cheers, Patrick

Von: Andrew Faughy [mailto:andrew.faughy@vengroup.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 3. November 2008 15:42
An: Novica Zarvic; coin-sp6-users@coin-ip.eu
Cc: Claudia Guglielmina; sergio.gusmeroli@txtgroup.it; Hong-Linh Truong
Betreff: RE: Ranking of innovative services for EC and EI
Wichtigkeit: Hoch

Hi

Many thanks for your document ranking the end user requirements; I note with the spread of scoring that the mean scores are pretty close.

I suspect this reflects the original process by which the end user requirements were derived.

Could I suggest that one approach building upon this work would be to look at this from the point of view of the ‘Customer Journey’ in this way the end user requirement could be aggregated into groups each reflecting the journey on offer, each journey reflects the  lifecycle then two decisions are needed:

1.       What is the entry level requirement for the customer – in defining this attribute some requirements become entry level i.e. All customers are required to have a Quality Management system in place – as such the Quality system requirement is perquisite of joining. – Not COIN

2.       The criticality of the requirement and its dependency upon other requirements  - this needs mapping to identify the common bottle necks. The scoring reflects the desire to use the service and this may not reflect the criticality of the service to support end-users.

As such the focus would be upon the demonstration and take up of Customer centred journeys – since the end users are in the main looking for start-up (incubation of VOs) networks this could be focus of the platform development activities.

I also believe that once selected there needs to be a greater level of detail of these end-user requirements defined – esp around topics such as Human Interaction, without creating lots of new requirements – this may also define the innovation content.

Just some thoughts

Kind regards

Andrew

Andrew  Faughy

Technical Director

VEN Group

T:  +44 (0)114 201 5730 (Office)

T:  +44 (0)114 201 5728 (Direct Line)

E:  andrew.faughy@vengroup.com

W: www.vengroup.com

From: Novica Zarvic [mailto:zar@biba.uni-bremen.de]
Sent: 03 November 2008 13:34
To: coin-sp6-users@coin-ip.eu
Cc: Claudia Guglielmina; sergio.gusmeroli@txtgroup.it
Subject: Ranking of innovative services for EC and EI

Dear all,

after we agreed in Madrid that a ranking of requirements and innovative services respectively should next to a quantitative prioritization (counting the appearance of services in the business use cases) also be enriched by a more qualitative prioritization (grading and ranking of each service) in order to ease the selection process, I have prepared a document that addresses this issue.

You can find it on the BSCW server at http://www.ami-communities.eu/bscw/bscw.cgi/d400061/Ranking%20of%20innovative%20services%20for%20EC%20and%20EI.doc

I hope that this document is helpful for those who have to decide which service to specify and implement later on.

Kind regards,

Novica