INFSO-RI-223782

The ETICS Sustainability

Introduction to a day-long exercise

2

INFSO-RI-223782

Objectives of the day

•To share knowledge and sensibilities

•To identify ETICS selling points

•To select and agree on a sustainability strategy

•To answer to Recommendations

3

INFSO-RI-223782

Overview of the day

• Introduction (this presentation)

•Partners Exploitation Plans

•Analysis of Competitors

•Analysis of feedback from potential users

•Proposed Business Models

•Open Discussion on Unique Selling Point

•ETICS sustainability

•Answers to Recommendations

4

INFSO-RI-223782

Introduction

5

INFSO-RI-223782

A market validation period

ETICS has been asked to enter its “market validation” phase. This means that the following actions/elements must be in place by now:

1. it should be clear what needs to be validated. Important: illustrate USP (as from Recommendation 3)

2. all elements of the service/product must be in place, (as from Recommendation 5)

1. for example: target customer groups, charging, service/product, third party resources, etc.

3. there should be a sound prototype of the service to be offered

During the validation process, the partners will engage themselves in concrete exploitation activities (NOT A NEW STRATEGY)

• these will be presented at M23 in DNA2.9 (see Recommendation 3)

6

INFSO-RI-223782

Exploitation vs Sustainability

• Exploitation means• Please justify reasons for your bit of investment• All partners need to have such reasons because of the

investments• Exploitable items are:

• Know-how• Prototypes• Knowledge

• Sustainability is• Demonstration on how to gain money to sustain the

product/service• Profit/no-for-profit• Open to any partners

7

INFSO-RI-223782

Partners Exploitation Plans

<All must have one>

8

INFSO-RI-223782

Analysis of Competitors

<Isabel Matranga>

9

INFSO-RI-223782

Analysis of Feedback

10

INFSO-RI-223782

Strategy adopted

ETICS 1° phase-Targeting Research projects (as mandatory from TA).-Wide dissemination of results (eg. AQCM from Brasil to China)

ETICS 2° phase-Research projects and other (as mandatory from TA)-Focus on users to improve the system

ETICS market validation phase-No research projects/users ??? (as per Review Report

11

INFSO-RI-223782

details

Demo and discussion with

-Computational scientist (academics), about technical and theoretical barriers for automatic execution, quality measures, etc-Big to small Enterprises, to gather feedback and competitors suggestions, to collect further requirements or commercial perspectives-Research Centers, Hubs, Incubators, Scientific parks, for value chain analysis and sustainability perspectives

12

INFSO-RI-223782

Contacts (ako CRM)

Computational scientist &QA (academics),

- Di Cosmo (Paris 7-FR) (first approach/demo– possible coop on configuration management and deployment)

- Denis Caromel (INRIA-FR) (first approach – potential user with Proactive/regression testing)

- Morasca (Insubria-IT), Sillitti (UniBozen -IT) – potential coop on QA compliance

-Big to small Enterprises, to gather feedback and competitors suggestions, to collect further requirements

or commercial perspectives

- Damien Hubaux (CETIC-B) (first approach – potential user with R&D code/quality assurance)

- Stefano Bigi (CBT-IT) (demo – potential user with Commercial code/some issues)

- Francesco Rufino (Nice – IT) (first approach – potential user with commercia code/some issues

- ESOC (by VEGA)

- Finmeccanica group (by VEGA)

-Research Centers, Hubs, Incubators, Scientific parks, for value chain analysis and sustainability

perspectives

- Steve Brewer (OMII – UK) (first approach – interested in establish an ETICS site – strategy/sustainability needed)

- Jorge Sanchez (Corallia-HTCI – GR) (first contact – organising first meeting/demo)

- Avner Algom (Grid.org.il – IL) (to be contacted – organising first demo – strategy/sustainability needed)

- BOINC communities (by SZTAKI)

13

INFSO-RI-223782

Open Issues - FAQ

How ETICS do testing? What type of testing?- Because it’s presented as a Build and test tool

-How the grid is exploited for build&test? Distributed vs.parallel jobs/processes?

- Because they want to know the gain in performance using grids/clouds

-Who’s using ETICS?-Who’s maintaining ETICS? -What’are the costs and licenses policies?-What’s the differences with…

- Hudson, Hudson+Maven, Hudson+Maven+Sonar, Bamboo, and commercial tools

-What’s from the Research Partners?- P-Grade. On long-term maintenance concern if not OSS

14

INFSO-RI-223782

Open Issues – missing items

•Clear statement on what ETICS does •Clear understanding on testing features•Clear statement on benefits/performance/data privacy/security of shared environment (also from VEGA) and switching costs•Commercialisation strategy (what, who, how-much)•Sustainability after the end of ETICS 2 (who will maintain the software – including Metronome ) (from VEGA)•Capability to control the evolution flow•Integration/-ability with other developers tools (e.g. eclipse) or management tools (e.g. productivity tools for PMs)•GUI difficult for developers – needed a manual (by 4Dsoft)•Installability on customers’machine (by 4Dsoft) + simple version of ETICS for simple users (by 4Dsoft)

15

INFSO-RI-223782

Benefits seen by customers

-Unique framework to gather project related info (ENG/directors)-Reduction of HW/personnel usage/cost (ENG/PM)- Ability to manage internal pool of machines (WN) (VEGA)-Improvement of performance of build/tests through parallelism/distribution (ENG/Developers)-Reduction of day-by-day activities in run build/testing by automation on external pool of heterogeneous resources (Julich)-Tools registration and plug-in mechanism (4DSOFT)-As in P-grade – customisation to specific needs (SZTAKI)

16

INFSO-RI-223782

Unique Selling Point

17

INFSO-RI-223782

Unique selling point

Based on target customers:-Directors (who pay for – measure benefits)-PM (who exploit it – read data)-Developers (who use it – feed data)

Basic Features to be covered, while Advanced should be addressed in some way.

Uniqueness:-Platform/tools/language independence-Third party library tools-Structured quality model

18

INFSO-RI-223782

Proposed Business Models

<Claudia Cosoli, Francesco S.Nucci>

19

INFSO-RI-223782

ETICS business model/1

To extract a business model from open source software is not always easy

• especially if your users expect to pay nothing

Two different customer groups for ETICS• research institutions/OS projects• commercial organisations

Target customers• large organisations• thematic research centres• large technology clusters• Incubators, business innovation centres

20

INFSO-RI-223782

ETICS business model/2

The business model for ETICS:

A CLUSTER GROUP OF LARGE ORGANISATIONS (full-payers)

SUSTAINS THE MAJORITY OF USERS (reduced fees to SMEs, spin-off, etc.)

Large organisations will encourage the adoption of ETICS and will have a “flywheel effect” on the innovation related to ETICS

21

INFSO-RI-223782

Product vs. Service

Product• Some to do for having a software that the users can download,

install and use in-house – • as in the case of other OS products, such as LINUX, APACHE,

etc.• Installability, simplification for simple users, manuals, complexity

of interface

Service• The nature of ETICS is that of OS software than can be run

using third parties machines and does not require to be run in-house

• ETICS gives the users the opportunity to run the tools by using third parties machines/infrastructures.

• Very good exploitation opportunities are expected for the Partners by offering ETICS as a service

22

INFSO-RI-223782

Open Issues

We need a long term agreement on maintain the sw. Either by:-Run an open source community (each partner is responsible to its own investment)-Run another EU-funded project-Run internal (to the consortium) development (each partner is responsible to its own investment)

23

INFSO-RI-223782

Sustainability approach

<exercise>

24

INFSO-RI-223782

Service start-up costs/1

Personnel costs• 1 service manager + 1 SW developer (12 months full-time) 1JR

x 60.000€/year (Italian costs) + 1 SR x 120.000€/year = TOTAL 180.000 €/year

• Personnel cost for intensive start-up (6 months): 100.000 euro

Infrastructure costs• Currently, UMW is home for ETICS - at the end of the project

each partner intending to exploit ETICS will need to find a new home for ETICS

• Hosting (Housing + hardware costs + network costs) quotation of PSM (Italy) hosting: 150.000 for 3 years, OR

• 4 servers (40.000€) + network (1.000€/month) + housing (1.000€/month)

• Average costs for infrastructure/year: 40-50.000€

Other costs• Helpdesk 1° level 10.000€ (1.000 tickets/year): 10.000€/year• Help desk 2° level: included in personnel costs

25

INFSO-RI-223782

Service start-up costs/2

Infrastructure costs occur essentially in the form of a lump sum at year 1Personnel costs and other costs add up over the yearsIn the first 6 months after the end of the project extra 100.000€ of personnel costs are foreseen for intensive start-upTotal investment for start-up:

• M6 245.000€ • M12+6 435.000€• M24+6 625.000€• M36 720.000€

26

INFSO-RI-223782

Service start-up costs/3

Start-up costs

START-UP COSTS (in €) costs/year M6 M12+6 M24+6 M36personnel 180.000 90.000 270.000 450.000 540.000intensive start-up (first 6 months) 0 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000infrastructure (lump sum) 0 50.000 50.000 50.000 50.000other costs (helpdesk) 10.000 5.000 15.000 25.000 30.000TOTAL 245.000 435.000 625.000 720.000

27

INFSO-RI-223782

Service charging

• 20.000€/year for ETICS service • (hosting of the service, no product licence – • full access to features for internal use)• Extra-charging needed to work on external parties (see

below)

• 3.000€ charging to sub-contractors of full-payers • (e.g. SME, spin-off companies, member of clusters)• To cooperate with full payers in an homogeneous

environment (usually as part of a contract)

28

INFSO-RI-223782

Expected revenues/1

Target no. of sub-contracts/large contractor/year: 10 Expected total revenues/large contractor/year: 20.000€ + 30.000€ = 50.000€

Target no. of large contracts:• Year 1 (M12+6): 4 (ENG, ESOC, CERN, HTC for example)

200.000€ • Year 2 (M24+6): 4+6 500.000€• Year 3 (M36): 4+6+6 800.000€

Expected total revenues after 3 years 800.000€

Expected break-even at Year 3

29

INFSO-RI-223782

Expected revenues/2

Service revenues

REVENUES (in €) unit price M6 M12+6 M24+6 M36from large contracts 20.000total no of large contracts 0 4 10 16TOTAL 0 80.000 200.000 320.000

REVENUES (in €) unit price M12+6 M24+6 M36from sub-contracts 3.000total no of sub-contracts 0 40 100 160TOTAL 0 120.000 300.000 480.000

REVENUES (in €) M12+6 M24+6 M36from all contractsTOTAL 0 200.000 500.000 800.000

30

INFSO-RI-223782

Summary of

Yesterday discussion

31

INFSO-RI-223782

What we have discussed

•Exploitation vs. sustainability• Useful to be clarified the terms (in the next version of D2.6)

•Exploitation plans for each partner• A chapter will be dedicated within the D2.6• All partners must provide one, concerning:

• Exploitable items from the project• Exploitation path/approaches

•Analysis of competitors and feedback from potential customers• A chapter in the D2.6 (some refinements in the items of the

table)• The conclusion is the USP for ETICS

•Sustainability for the ETICS system• A business model proposed (the fews pay for the majority)• Charging model• ROI

32

INFSO-RI-223782

What we have decided

• Urgent to prepare a demo and a presentation highlighting the best of ETICS

• ACTION for ENG+CERN+VEGA?• Deadline?

• To provide a comprehensive prioritised list of “commercial requirements”

• ACTION for ENG+VEGA+4Dsoft• Deadline?

33

INFSO-RI-223782

What is really still missing

-Maintenance of code. - Which are the partners want to be engaged?- Activity outside of project?- Best effort- Needed a formal statement for long term maintenance

(e.g. new development of core components, franchising of logo, roles and decision procedures… ako ETICSafterETICS “company”

-Agreed on a business model?- Product vs. Services- Who’s providing the services/sell the product?- Relations with other partners (ako Consortium Agreement)

and other processing mechanisms

34

INFSO-RI-223782

Next steps/1

By end of July• To be completed an official demo/presentation• To be completed the D2.6 including:

• Exploitation plans of each partners• Market analysis• Competition and feedback analysis• Business model• Sustainability aspects (charging, ROI, SLA, etc)

By the end of August• To be completed the multinode testing• To be completed the Role-based access, privacy, user-

id/pwd

35

INFSO-RI-223782

Next steps/2

By end of September• To be completed the extra features• To serve at EGEE’09• To have an almost formal commitments from:

• ESOC (Vega)• EGI (CERN/INFN)• NETA (ENG)

• Organise and participate to EGEE ‘09By the end of october

• Further demos for commercial companies• Training at QA&Test

•By the end of November• ETICS in at least one Eng-R&D projects

36

INFSO-RI-223782

Answer to Recommendations

37

INFSO-RI-223782

Recommendation n.3on next-months approach

• Partially fitting with initial plans• Some reduced emphasis due to lack of full featured

system

• USP it’s a challenge (today will have it)• As elevator’s speech• To clearly state against competitors• To highlight benefits (numbers needed!)

• Customers segmented and approached. Commitment may come ofter development will finish.

• A market validation phase (six-months to one year) would be needed (see eTEN approach)

38

INFSO-RI-223782

Recommendation n.4 on approaching Industries

Feedback from Industries are encouraging, but: - lack of privacy/security is a concern - lack of an agreed selling strategy is a concern - lack of a public strategy toward completion of the system features is a concernThey need to know who:- who are the current users- which is the supporting open source community – if any – and how much is active/contribute-Who is the re-seller/provider of ETICS (i.e. the contact point

CONCERN: To address all potential industries is time/resource consuming: An opportunistic approach would reduce costs but increase risks

39

INFSO-RI-223782

Recommendation n.5+9 on commercialisation aspects

Answer will be clear after this long-day of discussion…

40

INFSO-RI-223782

Recommendation n.7 on AQCM

See document sent to PMB…

Main messages: - to become a standard is not feasible nor interesting - project time-life is too short - Is any company interested in this? (not ENG).

Proposed approach (since the TA) - AQCM need to be compliant with standards (CMMI – ISO) - AQCM should be seen as a concrete approach/tool in a CMMI/ISO organisations to follow procedures and standards constraints - This approach is already in place and is contractually part of prof. J.Boegh contract

INFSO-RI-223782

41

Thanks!

http://www.eticsproject.eu