Methodology Adopted. In order to verify the compliance of the FIBRE-BR requirements with the CMFs evaluated, each specific requirement was analyzed for each CMF and one spreadsheet was elaborated in order to identify requirement gaps for each CMF. For each requirement, the methodology consists in labelling the CMF support the functionality as follows: • Yes • No • Partially • Do not apply • Planned The requirements are grouped by “type of requirement”. Colours are used to represent conformance or not and other information in relation to the analysed CMF as follows: “Yes” (green), “No” (red), “Partially” (yellow), “Do not apply” (grey), “Planned“(blue); This color code is similar to the regular traffic lights. In addition, we color the “ Do not apply” as Grey, in the sense that for the evaluator of the CMF this shouldn’t matter, and we color the “Planned” as Blue, corresponding to blueprints for the requirements. We start by presenting the colortable, presenting the results for every requirement number in a certain type of requirement (the rows) – the numbers are the same from D2.1, and the evaluations done by each partner (the columns). The I&M (Instrumentation and Monitoring) evaluation was done only in relation to certain requirements specifically related to I&M. Comments to explain conformance, gaps or additional comments are also eventually included.
Methodology Adopted. 2.1 The process of capturing user requirements for ISP-1, ISP-2, ISP-3
1. Get an overview of key success factors for collaboration and decision-making
2. Get an overview of processes that are in the focus of decision and collaboration support
3. Identify activities in these processes, decisions and data streams/documents & support used for these decisions
4. Get insight in current practices, tools and techniques used for collaboration and decision- making, and challenges involved. To support the workshop a group support system was used and in addition SMARTboards for collaborative modeling of the requirements. The group support system helped the team to capture the requirements that were discussed in the meeting. Furthermore, working with the group support system and SMARTboards for collaborative modeling gave the participants insights in different innovative tools and opportunities for collaboration support. The group first brainstormed on the success factors for collaboration and decision-making both from an academic and from a business perspective. This helped the team to see differences in perspectives on successful collaboration and decision-making within the product life cycle. A key success factor from an academic perspective is shared understanding among engineers to improve rational decision making, and process and tool support to improve effectiveness of collaboration. From an industry perspective ease of use and accessibility and structuration of information were critical success factors. This shows an interesting difference in focus on tacit versus explicit forms of information sharing, interaction and consensus. Next, an overview of activities and decisions was created, that could benefit from collaboration support and the needs for collaboration and decision support in these activities. Also an overview of existing collaboration and decision tools was established to avoid duplicate work by re-inventing the wheel. Based on this brainstorm, four focus scenarios for collaboration and decision support needs were established:
1. Acting on (live) data streams, supporting decision making about these data streams or simulations
2. General engineer to engineer collaboration support and interaction support
3. Problem solving or crisis management, acting on „alarms‟ an also acting proactive, seeing trends, forecasting
4. User involvement, capturing knowledge, using user feedback in design and decision making, learning from unspecified use, adoptions, ne...
Methodology Adopted. The user requirements analysis for the PATHS system forms part of an overall user-centred approach to system design, and uses a mixed methods approach, with input from potential end users at every stage of the development process. Starting from a knowledge base derived from the research literature, we have designed a mixed methods approach which includes desk research, quantitative and qualitative survey methods, and controlled experiments with end users of the system. Desk research includes the analysis of relevant secondary data to provide context for the user environment (e.g. approaches to user requirements in digital cultural heritage, and existing paths and path-creation tools) and key issues in the current research agenda (e.g. personalisation, recommendation and adaptive user profiles), and supplements the work done for deliverable D1.2 State-of-the-Art. Quantitative (online questionnaire) and qualitative (in-depth user interviews) survey methods providing detailed analyses of user personal and lifestyle characteristics, information behaviours and details of tasks relating to path creation, along with exploration of their views on the „pathway‟ metaphor around which the system is to be developed. These surveys are complementary in that they cover different aspects of users‟ activities, and also enable triangulation of results on the critical area of user information behaviour and tasks, as the qualitative work investigates findings from the online survey in much greater depth. Experiments add an empirical dimension to the user requirements, introducing hands-on tasks as a means of understanding how users will interact with the system in practice. In the absence of a working system, at this stage of the project, this latter experiment-based work is somewhat hypothetical, and uses low- and medium-fidelity methods to implement a series of path-creation tasks to test the findings from the survey methods, particularly those relating to path-creation. For PATHS, we have identified the heritage, education and professional domains as being the main sources of „expert‟ users (e.g. museum curators and archivists, teachers and lecturers, heritage sector education officers, academic researchers, and publishing and tourism professionals) whom we envisage will become the most regular and prolific users of the core path-creation aspect of the system, whilst the education, heritage and general user domains will provide the main groups of „non-expert‟ or casual use...
Methodology Adopted. Post project monitoring will be carried out as per conditions stipulated in environmental clearance letter issued by MOEF&CC, consent issued by SPCB as well as according to CPCB guidelines. The project site is considered as core zone and the area lying within 10 km radius from the mine site is considered as buffer zone, where some impacts may be observed on physical and biological environment. In the buffer zone, slight impact may be observed and that too is occasional, table below showing the details of Post Project Monitoring programme:
A. Air Environment
