1 / 6

Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods

Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods. Michael Lutz, MIG-T meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London, UK. Working procedures. Meetings Meeting frequency Proposals of discussion topics Include more discussions / exchange of good practices?

henry-pittman
Download Presentation

Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods Michael Lutz, MIG-T meeting, 30 September – 1 October 2014, London, UK

  2. Working procedures • Meetings • Meeting frequency • Proposals of discussion topics • Include more discussions / exchange of good practices? • Are physical meetings good value for money? • Discussions • Have technical discussions in the MIG-T (or only in sub-groups)? • Communication channels (e-mail, collaboration space, meetings, …) • Work programme • Process for updating the MIWP

  3. Tools • Collaboration space • Content mainly provided by JRC & EEA • Seems to be actively used by some groups • Sometimes unclear where information is / should go • Main project vs. sub-projects • Issues vs. wiki vs. documents vs. files vs. forum vs. news • How to notify others? • How to use issues? • MIWP tasks & status updates • Specific issues to be addressed inside the tasks • Meetings and sub-group ToRs • Mailing list • Tele-/web-conference facilities

  4. Active involvement of MIG-T members • Personal impressions • Much of the activity to date is driven by JRC/EEA • There is an expectation that this is the way it should be • Discussions dominated by few MS • Little feedback on proposals and deliverables • Joint work only on few activities • MIWP-5 (validation), MIWP-8 (metadata), MIWP-16 (monitoring) • How to improve the sharing of discussion topics and good practices? • How to encourage wider involvement? • What should be our level of ambition for MIG-T?

  5. Funding of MIG-related activities • MIG activities largely funded by • In-kind contributions (staff time) from MS, EC and EEA • ARE3NA ISA action (study/service contracts) • Support to JRC from DG ENV (reimbursement of experts) • JRC/EEA institutional budget (contracts, reimbursement) • Costs (examples)

  6. Communication • Does information about the MIG-T work reach the “factory floor” (and vice versa)? • Is it well understood/valued by decision makers? • How is MIG-T work being communicated within the MS? • Communication with NCP and MIG-P • Communication with technical/thematic experts • Communication channels • Collaboration space • INSPIRE web site • Social media • Others? • Communication sub-group

More Related