Dear Jonas and Bjoern,
thank you for preparing version 2.0 of the deliverable on the assessment methodology. I have now seen your files and prepared some feedback for you. You can find my comments in the attached file and in the following points:
Can you please format the document you prepared so that it looks more like the rest of the project papers? You can use the file “FOSS4SMES ECVET CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES” as an example.
Can you please mention some more details concerning which partner will have which extra country? We can discuss this in the next telco to give you more input.
Do you want to mention something on the duration and location of the short training activities to be organised by each partner? Do you think we should leave it open to each partner to decide on his own?
Can you please format the assessment template you developed in a way that we can use it both digitally and in print? I also wonder if its not better to prepare the template with the help of an online FOSS tool that will allow automatic summary of respondents results. Why do you prefer to develop a custom script(s) for compiling an overview of responses from the set of ODS files? Will it not be more time consuming for us to use? Maybe we can discuss this in our next telco. If we have discussed this in Dublin, sorry for not remembering what the opinions of each partner were.
Last but not least, I would like to discuss with you the presentation of three different scenarios within section 5. Have I understood your text correctly, that you recommend the project partners to promote the first scenario to their local SMEs? Why should they then start the assessment with the third scenario? Maybe we need to make this part more precise to avoid confusion of readers.
I also use the opportunity to tell you that I am working together with Brian to be able to prepare the self-diagnostic tool and other questionnaires that will be inside the learning platform and will help us asses the Learners Alignment to Learning Objectives. As soon as Brian has them ready, ATL will develop them in the platform and we will be ready to start with the O2/A4 activities. Before that, the training system is not considered as complete from my point of view.
Furthermore, similarly I am working together with Francesco to be able to prepare tools (surveys and a model for collection of case studies) that will help us measure the impact of the entire training system to the different target groups of this project. These tools must be used in parallel with the assessment tools of SKUNI. Francesco informed me, that he will be able to deliver these tools after the 21st of March. Lets discuss in our telco how can we deal with the timeline.
I suggest that we discuss these and further points in our telco on the 12th of March. After that it will be easier for you to update your files accordingly. I think that our discussion will allow us clarify all points in order everyone is on the same page and understands the steps correctly.
I thank you for your valuable contribution to this activity. I will keep you posted on any developments.
Best,
Katerina
Στις Πέμ, 28 Φεβ 2019 στις 3:14 μ.μ., ο/η Jonas Gamalielsson < jonas.gamalielsson@his.se> έγραψε:
Dear Katerina,
After consideration of review comments (in all review rounds), please find an updated version aimed for usage scenario 1 and 2 (O2-A1_Content Unit 4_v5_for_usage_scenario_1_and_2.odt) and an updated version aimed for usage scenario 3 (filename "O2-A1_Content Unit 4_v5_for_usage_scenario_3.pdf") in the following folder of the Keybase platform:
"K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Outputs\Output 2\A1 Training course contents\Peer Review - 2nd round\After Peer Review"
We also attach the files to this email.
Please advise us when we can go ahead with our conduct of assessment according to usage scenario 3 as detailed in the guidelines in the document "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools" (see K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Outputs\Output 2\A4 Assessment\O2_A4_assessment_description_v2.pdf) and in the FOSS4SMEs minutes from the telco on 19 February 2019 (K:\team\foss4smes\5. Meetings\Telcos\FOSS4SMEs_Minutes_20190219.pdf).
From past experiences and dialogues with SMEs, we find that it is very important to give them as much calender time as possible for the assessments. Therefore, we find that it is now urgent that each partner can proceed with step 1 (of the five steps) as detailed in section "5. Guidelines" in the document "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools".
Best Jonas & Björn
Jonas Gamalielsson, PhD
Software Systems Research Group Informatics Research Specialisation University of Skövde P.O. Box 408 SE-541 28 SKÖVDE SWEDEN Office: Portalen, floor 4, room 410r Tel: +46 (0)500-448375 Fax: +46 (0)500-416325 Email: jonas.gamalielsson@his.se Web: http://www.his.se/gamj
Dear Katerina (and all),
Please find some quick comments below.
On 2019-03-06 14:21, Katerina Tsinari wrote:
Dear Jonas and Bjoern,
thank you for preparing version 2.0 of the deliverable on the assessment methodology. I have now seen your files and prepared some feedback for you. You can find my comments in the attached file and in the following points:
Can you please format the document you prepared so that it looks more like the rest of the project papers? You can use the file “FOSS4SMES ECVET CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES” as an example.
We do not consider the the document describing "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools" which contains the guidelines as a deliverable and to avoid creating confusion concerning this we deliberately did not use the template.
Can you please mention some more details concerning which partner will have which extra country?
We are unsure what is referred to. We find that relevance in specific country contexts are essential. For this reason, we find that it is essential that each partner contact representatives for SMEs in their own country. Since all partners will have personal contact with the representative for each SME it is also unproblematic to obtain some responses from some other country, provided that the responses are relevant for the specific country of each partner. Hence, it is important that most responses are collected from each partner's own country.
We can discuss this in the next telco to give you more
input.
Yes.
Do you want to mention something on the duration and location of the short training activities to be organised by each partner?
Understanding and relevance of the learning content for individuals engaged in specific SME contexts are key to the success of the FOSS4SME project. Given that different partners and different SMEs may have very different time schedules we think it would be very unwise to centrally suggest some timing. We find that it must be the responsibility for each partner to agree the detailed planning with their own contacts at the different SMEs. Our understanding is that this was agreed upon in Dublin.
Do you think we should
leave it open to each partner to decide on his own?
Yes.
Can you please format the assessment template you developed in a way that we can use it both digitally and in print? I also wonder if its not better to prepare the template with the help of an online FOSS tool that will allow automatic summary of respondents results.
We find that this would be very unwise for a number of reasons we already discussed at the Dublin meeting. For example, for usage scenario 1 and 2 all data collection will be done locally. We see that it is very important that each partner can maintain trust in the collaboration with the SMEs in their own country. As stated in the minutes from the Dublin meeting, we find it essential to have "Direct contact to gain trust". Why do you prefer to
develop a custom script(s) for compiling an overview of responses from the set of ODS files?
We must consider all three usage scenarios and account for all preferences amongst SMEs. From our dialogues with Swedish SMEs (during the autumn) we already know that several SMEs will only consider usage scenario 2 and usage scenario 3. We understand that other SMEs may prefer usage scenario 1, but the process for compiling an overview of responses we have outlined account for all these cases. We know that representatives of many SMEs are very sensitive to these issues.
Will it not be more time consuming for us to use? No. If some partner so prefer, Jonas can also volunteer run the scripts (since it it very clear that data concerning the three usage scenarios cannot be handled by use of an online tools). Maybe
we can discuss this in our next telco. If we have discussed this in Dublin, sorry for not remembering what the opinions of each partner were.
Yes, we have discussed this, but we are happy to discuss this again.
Last but not least, I would like to discuss with you the presentation of three different scenarios within section 5. Have I understood your text correctly, that you recommend the project partners to promote the first scenario to their local SMEs?
Usage scenario 1 will (most likely) be easier to deal with for SMEs (especially for those not so experienced with IT), compared to usage scenario 2. However, since we know that usage scenario 1 is not an option for many SMEs (at least in Sweden) it is critical that the process for locally installing the system will be easy for the SMEs. At the same time, usage scenario 3 is the option that we know (based on informal feedback from some representatives for SMEs in Sweden during the autumn) will be seen as most valuable (i.e. it is the learning content itself that they see most value in, not the learning system). Of course, we acknowledge that different SMEs may have very different preferences.
Why should they then start the assessment
with the third scenario?
As discussed at the Dublin meeting, we find that this usage scenario will allow companies a longer time-window to assess the content (before the end of the FOSS4SME project) and we anticipate that the files for usage scenario 3 would be the ready first. We are very concerned by the delay in the project and we know from past experience that SMEs must be provided a very long time-window for the various activities. After Easter (i.e. late April) companies have lots of other commitments before the summer vacation so May and June are very bad from the perspective of Swedish SMEs. However, we are still hopeful that SMEs will be able to use the learning content and benefit from all 3 usage scenarios before the final conference in September.
Maybe we need to make this part more precise to
avoid confusion of readers.
I also use the opportunity to tell you that I am working together with Brian to be able to prepare the self-diagnostic tool and other questionnaires that will be inside the learning platform and will help us asses the Learners Alignment to Learning Objectives. As soon as Brian has them ready, ATL will develop them in the platform and we will be ready to start with the O2/A4 activities. Before that, the training system is not considered as complete from my point of view.
Furthermore, similarly I am working together with Francesco to be able to prepare tools (surveys and a model for collection of case studies) that will help us measure the impact of the entire training system to the different target groups of this project. These tools must be used in parallel with the assessment tools of SKUNI. Francesco informed me, that he will be able to deliver these tools after the 21st of March. Lets discuss in our telco how can we deal with the timeline.
I suggest that we discuss these and further points in our telco on the 12th of March. After that it will be easier for you to update your files accordingly. I think that our discussion will allow us clarify all points in order everyone is on the same page and understands the steps correctly.
I thank you for your valuable contribution to this activity. I will keep you posted on any developments.
Best,
Katerina
Kind regards, --Björn & Jonas
Στις Πέμ, 28 Φεβ 2019 στις 3:14 μ.μ., ο/η Jonas Gamalielsson < jonas.gamalielsson@his.se> έγραψε:
Dear Katerina,
After consideration of review comments (in all review rounds), please find an updated version aimed for usage scenario 1 and 2 (O2-A1_Content Unit 4_v5_for_usage_scenario_1_and_2.odt) and an updated version aimed for usage scenario 3 (filename "O2-A1_Content Unit 4_v5_for_usage_scenario_3.pdf") in the following folder of the Keybase platform:
"K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Outputs\Output 2\A1 Training course contents\Peer Review - 2nd round\After Peer Review"
We also attach the files to this email.
Please advise us when we can go ahead with our conduct of assessment according to usage scenario 3 as detailed in the guidelines in the document "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools" (see K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Outputs\Output 2\A4 Assessment\O2_A4_assessment_description_v2.pdf) and in the FOSS4SMEs minutes from the telco on 19 February 2019 (K:\team\foss4smes\5. Meetings\Telcos\FOSS4SMEs_Minutes_20190219.pdf).
From past experiences and dialogues with SMEs, we find that it is very important to give them as much calender time as possible for the assessments. Therefore, we find that it is now urgent that each partner can proceed with step 1 (of the five steps) as detailed in section "5. Guidelines" in the document "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools".
Best Jonas & Björn
Jonas Gamalielsson, PhD
Software Systems Research Group Informatics Research Specialisation University of Skövde P.O. Box 408 SE-541 28 SKÖVDE SWEDEN Office: Portalen, floor 4, room 410r Tel: +46 (0)500-448375 Fax: +46 (0)500-416325 Email: jonas.gamalielsson@his.se Web: http://www.his.se/gamj
Dear Katerina,
Thanks for your email.
Concerning the difference between the two files containing content for the three different usage scenarios, the difference is that the file for usage scenario 3 must be self contained and possible to distribute to the SMEs. Hence, it does not contain answers to quizzes and also no images or references to images.
During the autumn we have taken several steps to ensure that the material in Unit 4 will be relevant to SMEs in Sweden as part of our activities when developing the process (that we presented in Dublin) concerning the assessment. After having considered the review comments (provided by TUD) we have had an informal discussions with Swedish SMEs concerning the suggested process for the assessment and as part of this we illustrated it by showing the draft of unit 4 (i.e. the revised version of unit 4 after having considering the review comments from TUD). As part of that we already know that they find this useful for the companies we target in FOSS4SME (as discussed and agreed in the initial meeting when we started the project).
Concerning relevance for VET providers, we have some experience from the Swedish context when a course concerning open source was closed down by KY-myndigheten (i.e. the Swedish governmental agency responsible for VET courses, today this agency is called Myndigheten för yrkeshögskolan) due to quality issues. This was back in 2008 and Björn was contacted about this by the agency at the time. Hence, this was essentially learning content corresponding to what we are developing in this project.
We have considered the review comments from the second review and made relevant changes. There are some changes between the different versions and we have considered all review comments. The fact that we disagree with several comments does not mean that we have not considered the comments. As we have discussed from the start of the project, we find that the grounding in the existing (contemporary) body of knowledge is key to the success of the FOSS4SME project. For this reason we have considered all review comments received and prepared the content in unit 4 so that it should be relevant to SMEs (and also in light of our previous experience with the Swedish agency).
When we last checked (a few minutes ago), there are currently only one file prepared for use in all three usage scenarios (unit 4) on the Keybase platform. There are three other files (related to unit 1, 2 and 5) prepared for usage scenarios 1 and 2. However, from a quick check we note that the content in the files (and the folder with uploaded images) for unit 1, unit 2 and unit 5 cannot be used due to lack of information that clarifies that all necessary rights have been obtained for several copyrighted images related to each unit.
On Wednesday 13 March we will have a meeting with several representatives of Swedish SMEs active with open source (including several individuals that we plan to contact related to the assessment) and it would have been very timely if it would have been possible to, at least, bring files for usage scenario 3 to the meeting. If we will be able to bring at least some files, for use in usage scenario 3 to the SMEs very soon, we find that there is still hope for completing the assessment before the summer vacation period. After Easter, Swedish SMEs are very busy before the summer break.
Kind regards, --Björn & Jonas
On 2019-03-06 14:21, Katerina Tsinari wrote:
Dear Jonas and Bjoern,
thank you for preparing version 2.0 of the deliverable on the assessment methodology. I have now seen your files and prepared some feedback for you. You can find my comments in the attached file and in the following points:
Can you please format the document you prepared so that it looks more like the rest of the project papers? You can use the file “FOSS4SMES ECVET CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES” as an example.
Can you please mention some more details concerning which partner will have which extra country? We can discuss this in the next telco to give you more input.
Do you want to mention something on the duration and location of the short training activities to be organised by each partner? Do you think we should leave it open to each partner to decide on his own?
Can you please format the assessment template you developed in a way that we can use it both digitally and in print? I also wonder if its not better to prepare the template with the help of an online FOSS tool that will allow automatic summary of respondents results. Why do you prefer to develop a custom script(s) for compiling an overview of responses from the set of ODS files? Will it not be more time consuming for us to use? Maybe we can discuss this in our next telco. If we have discussed this in Dublin, sorry for not remembering what the opinions of each partner were.
Last but not least, I would like to discuss with you the presentation of three different scenarios within section 5. Have I understood your text correctly, that you recommend the project partners to promote the first scenario to their local SMEs? Why should they then start the assessment with the third scenario? Maybe we need to make this part more precise to avoid confusion of readers.
I also use the opportunity to tell you that I am working together with Brian to be able to prepare the self-diagnostic tool and other questionnaires that will be inside the learning platform and will help us asses the Learners Alignment to Learning Objectives. As soon as Brian has them ready, ATL will develop them in the platform and we will be ready to start with the O2/A4 activities. Before that, the training system is not considered as complete from my point of view.
Furthermore, similarly I am working together with Francesco to be able to prepare tools (surveys and a model for collection of case studies) that will help us measure the impact of the entire training system to the different target groups of this project. These tools must be used in parallel with the assessment tools of SKUNI. Francesco informed me, that he will be able to deliver these tools after the 21st of March. Lets discuss in our telco how can we deal with the timeline.
I suggest that we discuss these and further points in our telco on the 12th of March. After that it will be easier for you to update your files accordingly. I think that our discussion will allow us clarify all points in order everyone is on the same page and understands the steps correctly.
I thank you for your valuable contribution to this activity. I will keep you posted on any developments.
Best,
Katerina
Στις Πέμ, 28 Φεβ 2019 στις 3:14 μ.μ., ο/η Jonas Gamalielsson < jonas.gamalielsson@his.se> έγραψε:
Dear Katerina,
After consideration of review comments (in all review rounds), please find an updated version aimed for usage scenario 1 and 2 (O2-A1_Content Unit 4_v5_for_usage_scenario_1_and_2.odt) and an updated version aimed for usage scenario 3 (filename "O2-A1_Content Unit 4_v5_for_usage_scenario_3.pdf") in the following folder of the Keybase platform:
"K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Outputs\Output 2\A1 Training course contents\Peer Review - 2nd round\After Peer Review"
We also attach the files to this email.
Please advise us when we can go ahead with our conduct of assessment according to usage scenario 3 as detailed in the guidelines in the document "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools" (see K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Outputs\Output 2\A4 Assessment\O2_A4_assessment_description_v2.pdf) and in the FOSS4SMEs minutes from the telco on 19 February 2019 (K:\team\foss4smes\5. Meetings\Telcos\FOSS4SMEs_Minutes_20190219.pdf).
From past experiences and dialogues with SMEs, we find that it is very important to give them as much calender time as possible for the assessments. Therefore, we find that it is now urgent that each partner can proceed with step 1 (of the five steps) as detailed in section "5. Guidelines" in the document "O2/A4 assessment methodology and tools".
Best Jonas & Björn
Jonas Gamalielsson, PhD
Software Systems Research Group Informatics Research Specialisation University of Skövde P.O. Box 408 SE-541 28 SKÖVDE SWEDEN Office: Portalen, floor 4, room 410r Tel: +46 (0)500-448375 Fax: +46 (0)500-416325 Email: jonas.gamalielsson@his.se Web: http://www.his.se/gamj
