DL 1.

1 Quality Plan

ECP 2006 DILI 510049

ENRICH

Quality Plan

Deliverable number D 1.1

Dissemination level Public

Delivery date 29/05/2008

Status Draft

Jakub Heller, CCP

Author(s)
Adolf Knoll, NKP

eContentplus

This project is funded under the eContentplus programme1,

a multiannual Community programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable.

1 OJ L 79, 24.3.2005, p. 1.
1/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

Document Version Control

Version Date Change Made (and if appropriate Initials of
reason for change) Commentator(s) or
Author(s)
0.0 30/1/2008 Initial Version of Quality Plan JH, CCP
Updated according discussion at 3
0.1 10/03/3008 JH, CCP
month meeting
Amended according to requests of the
1.0 10/05/2008 project officer, technical quality JH, CCP
aspects added

Document Review
Reviewer Institution Date and result of the review
15/02/2008
Zdeněk Uhlíř NKP
Document approved for submission to EC.
03/03/2008, amendments according to the
Jakub Heller CCP
discussion held in Copenhagen
20/05/2008 Updated version approved by the
Tomáš Psohlavec AIP
Technical Coordinator

Approved By (signature) Date

Accepted by at European Commission Date

(signature)

2/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

1 Executive Summary
ENRICH Quality Plan defines the project management structure, procedures, organisation
and the methodology that consortium partners will use during the project to support quality
management.

3/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

CONTENT
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 3

2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE QUALITY PLAN .......................................................................................................... 6
2.2 CONTEXT DOMAIN ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 USE DOMAINS....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 ENRICH QUALITY PLAN EVOLUTION PROCEDURE ............................................................................... 7
2.6 LACK OF ADHERENCE TO THE QUALITY PLAN....................................................................................... 7
2.7 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 7
3 QUALITY OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 QUALITY SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 QUALITY ORGANISATION ...................................................................................................................... 9
4 ASSURANCE OF TECHNICAL QUALITY, ITS MONITORING AND EVALUATION............... 10

5 PROJECT PRESENTATION.................................................................................................................. 13
5.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND DESCRIPTION OF WORK ................................................................ 13
5.2 CONSORTIUM ORGANISATION ............................................................................................................. 13
5.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE................................................................................................... 14
6 PROJECT MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES ............................................................................. 17
6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 17
6.2 PROJECT PLANNING AND MILESTONES ............................................................................................... 17
6.3 EC PROJECT DELIVERABLES ............................................................................................................... 17
7 PROJECT MONITORING AND REPORTING ................................................................................... 20
7.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 20
7.2 REPORTING ......................................................................................................................................... 20
8 MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT RECORDS........................................................................................ 21
8.1 DATA, RESEARCH, AND OTHER NON-FINANCIAL RECORDS................................................................ 21
8.2 FINANCIAL RECORDS .......................................................................................................................... 21
8.3 WEBSITE ............................................................................................................................................. 21
9 HUMAN SUBJECTS AND DATA PROTECTION............................................................................... 22
9.1 HUMAN SUBJECTS .............................................................................................................................. 22
9.2 DATA PROTECTION ............................................................................................................................. 22
10 RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 23

11 AUTHORSHIP GUIDELINES & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................ 24

11.1 AUTHORSHIP ....................................................................................................................................... 24
11.2 AUTHORSHIP NOTES ........................................................................................................................... 24
11.3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, CONTRIBUTOR STATEMENT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST .................................... 25
12 DOCUMENTATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 26
12.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 26
12.2 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 26
12.3 DOCUMENTS PUBLICATION RULES ...................................................................................................... 26
12.4 DISSEMINATION LEVEL ....................................................................................................................... 29
12.5 DOCUMENT STATUS............................................................................................................................ 29
12.6 DELIVERABLE DOCUMENT STATUS ..................................................................................................... 29
12.7 DOCUMENT APPROVAL AND DISTRIBUTION ......................................................................................... 29
4/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

12.8 DOCUMENT VALIDATION .................................................................................................................... 29

12.9 DOCUMENT MODIFICATION ................................................................................................................. 29
13 METHODOLOGY, TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS ............................................................................... 31
13.1 DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT TOOLS ...................................................................................................... 31
13.2 WEBSITE ............................................................................................................................................. 31
14 DELIVERY PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................... 32
14.1 PRESENTATION TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION ....................................................................................... 32
15 QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................................................................................. 33
15.1 PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................................................................... 33
15.2 APPROACH .......................................................................................................................................... 33
15.3 THE QUALITY CONTROL STAGES ........................................................................................................ 33
16 EXTERNAL EVALUATION................................................................................................................... 35

5/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

2 Introduction

2.1 Purpose of the Quality Plan

The Quality Plan defines the processes and the methodologies that all the partners shall apply
throughout the realization of ENRICH project funded under eContent+ programme of the
European Union. It forms a common standard for the entire project lifecycle. All partners are
involved in quality assurance activities.
The Quality Plan is a project deliverable D 1.1.
Its purpose is to identify processes that will be applied to assure quality, define roles and
responsibilities to ensure a successful project and deliverables, provide ENRICH management
boards and quality engineers with indicators to allow them to take appropriate decisions, and
to track and report on project progress, describe the document and entity management
practices to be used by ENRICH (e.g. procedures, rules).

2.2 Context Domain

The ENRICH Quality Plan is designed to be used in conjunction with:
- ENRICH, Annex 1 ‘Description of Work’
- The Contract
- The Consortium Agreement

2.3 Use Domains

The Quality Plan shall be used by all Consortium Partners. It covers all protocols related to
- Deliverables due to the European Commission, and
- Internal Project Outputs, and
- Exchange of all documents and entities between consortium members.
Consortium Partners should monitor, check, and validate the work performed by their own
staff in accordance with the ENRICH Quality Management Plan.

6/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

2.4 Applicable documents

[A1] ECP 2006 DILI 510049 ENRICH , Annex 1 ‘Description of Work’
[A2] The Contract
[A3] The Consortium Agreement

2.5 ENRICH Quality Plan evolution procedure

This is a living document. It will be reviewed during the Management Board meetings and
may be revised to reflect, such factors as:
• Changes in the context/environment of the Project
• Changes the available skill set of staff
• Changes in the available technologies.
Amendments may be requested by any consortium partner but each amendment must be
analysed by the Coordinator and Technical Coordinator and then approved by the ENRICH
Management Board.

2.6 Lack of adherence to the Quality Plan

If there is a conflict between a Consortium Partner’s internal Quality Management procedures
and those defined in this document, this should be brought to the attention of the ENRICH
Management Board. Normally, greater weight will be given to the ENRICH Quality
Management Plan.
On demand of the of members of the consortium the Coordinator may arrange for the work of
any of the participating Consortium Partners to be reviewed. The lead reviewer must not be a
member of staff of the Consortium Partner being reviewed. Partners will be given one months
notice of the intention to perform a review.
Where problems are identified during a quality audit, corrective actions shall be agreed
between the auditor, the respective WP Leader(s) and the quality representative. The reviewer
shall ensure that the agreed corrective action is effectively implemented within the set time-
scale and the auditor shall verify the implementation.

2.7 Abbreviations
[Ax] Applicable Document
ENRICH European Networking Resources and Information concerning
Cultural Heritage
DoW Description of Work
EC European Commission
WP Work Package
WPL Work Package Leader
PM Project Manager
TGC Technological Group Committee
WPC Work Package Management Committee
MB ENRICH Management Board

7/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

3 Quality objectives
The ENRICH quality objectives are to set quality measures, to provide support to consortium
partners to achieve these and monitor adherence to the Quality Plan throughout the project’s
lifecycle. The Quality Plan is designed to provide for the assurance of quality, according to
the main ENRICH Project characteristics.

3.1 Project characteristics

The objective of the ENRICH project is creating a base for the European digital library of
cultural heritage (manuscript, incunabula, early printed books, archival papers etc) by
integration of existing but scattered electronic content within the actual Manuscriptorium
digital library through the way of the metadata enrichment and coordination between
heterogeneous metadata and data standards as well.

The objectives of ENRICH are:

• creation of European digital library research environment for specific historical
cultural heritage consisting of manuscripts, incunabula, early printed books, historical
archival materials, maps, etc.
• adaptation of existing Manuscriptorium platform for accessing, use, re-use and data
harvesting of digitized manuscripts held by libraries, museums and archives in EU
Member States, Associated States, Candidate Countries, and other European countries
which will enable interoperability between digitized objects and collections
• adaptation of existing Manuscriptorium platform enabling interoperability of existing
partner systems for authorizing the use of the digital content
• implementation of multilingual ontologies enabling search in local languages, retrieval
of data in source languages, enabling personalized indexing and creation of personal
collections and presentations

The key results of ENRICH will be:

• A functioning platform based on Manuscriptorium incorporating:
o Single interface for accessing manuscripts and related metadata from a single
access portal integrated to TEL
o Viewing source digital documents from its original location
o Conversion of data in variable formats into XML format
o Use of “connector” tool in cases where the conversion of existing information
is problematical (in cases when data is stored within a system which prevents
direct access to it, the attachment of the data must be carried out ad hoc by
means of the so-called connector, ensuring the conversion of data and
metadata to a form which can be attached to Manuscriptorium)
o Broad range of data storage methods
o M-tool available for download and free use - enables the creation of basic
metadata with links to image data stored at freely accessible http addresses.
o Creation of personal collections
o Transliteration of digitized document to full text (OCR plus subsequent human
correction)
• A networked repository of data and metadata from 12 partner “content owner”
organizations and 6 associated partner organizations providing access to more than
150 000 document descriptions

8/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

• Multilingual search and translation of metadata based on VICODI project

developments covering search and translation of metadata from/into Czech, Polish,
Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, English, French, Danish, Hungarian,
Italian and Russian.
• A Europe-wide dissemination and take-up strategy among all EU Member States,
Associated States and Candidate Countries through wide-ranging dissemination
activities. Dissemination and validation workshops will take place in all the
participating countries, i.e. a minimum of 11 events.
• An exploitation plan developed in conjunction with appropriate national policy
makers, which will support convincingly the roll-out of the ENRICH platform and
services across Europe.

3.2 Quality System

The quality system applied on the project is described in the present Quality Plan and
subsequent revisions to it.

3.3 Quality organisation

In order to provide a distributed quality organisation and a strong co-ordination, the following
quality organisation is to be set-up:
• Clear guidance on the preparation of documents
• A Quality Management Review cycle for all deliverables, activities, and services
The Project Manager and the Workpackage Leaders are responsible for establishing the
project quality system and assuring project quality.

In assuring quality, the main role of the Project Manager and the Work package Leaders will
consist of regular monitoring of the application of the Quality Plan through actions such as:
verification of documents, participation in reviews and audits, follow-up of corrective actions
and analysis of quality indicators. These roles will be performed throughout the project
lifecycle.

9/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

4 Assurance of technical quality, its monitoring and evaluation

All the technical work that has to be done in order to reach the Projects overall goals will be
based on analyses preceding or newly evolved in the frame of the ENRICH project. The
contents of the work is described in the Description of work.

In order to ensure the overall high quality of the technical work within the ENRICH project
the technical work is split into relatively small, discrete yet related Tasks grouped into
particular thematic Workpackages. Such an allocation of particular work tasks with defined
inputs, outputs, relations and interdependencies enables the Task Leaders to focus on their
part of technical work and to fully optimise their results to dedicated Task objectives without
their work being over affected by the approaches, tools, methodics and generally way of work
applied in the other Tasks and Workpackages by the other Leaders and participants.

Due to the significant diversity of various tasks that have to be fulfilled within the ENRICH
project such approach of independent Task solution and mutual „tolerance“ between the
Tasks is necessary in order to provide high quality results.

The Workpackage Leaders will have to ensure that the work will respect the common
requisities to any technical work: the analyses produced will respect the preceding user
demands and need surveys (where these will be performed), the subsequent realization will
correspond to the analysis and finally the feedback provided by evaluation of the outcomes
will reveal possible deviations or mistakes and will serve as a base for correcting the
outcomes of the project in order to fully adapt the outcomes to the most actual user needs.

In such a net of various different tasks the very important information for the Task and WP
Leaders will be created in frame of the WP7. Basically this whole workpackage is dedicated
to technical aspect of quality of ENRICH project outcomes. It will provide continuous
feedback by evaluating the Tasks (and even particular logical subtask - in order to provide as
much accurate information as possible) and their outcomes as described within the
Description of Work.

Correct usage and timed implementation of the provided feedback from WP7 by the all WP
and Task Leaders will ensure that the diverse Tasks will finally produce desired homogenous
outcomes as they are described in the DoW.

The Deliverable D7.1 (Methodology for Testing and Validation of e-Applications) will be the
first step of WP7 in order to ensure the above mentioned and will provide basic guidelines for
the evaluation of the technical works results that will be subsequently concretized as the
ENRICH project goes further.

The D7.1 and the designed evaluation principles and criteria will respect the preceding results
of European and worldwide projects and their outcomes published and verified during the last
years which also will ensure that the quality of technical work will be based and evaluated on
the most actual experiences and perspective approaches and methodologies. The combination
and diversity of Tasks that have to be resolved during the ENRICH project will require to
combine the available outcomes and knowledge into a brand new set of evaluation criteria
adapted to the Projects needs.

10/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

The D7.1 will be supplied by most concrete documentation on evaluation of each particular
evaluated (sub)Task later during the Project (including particular evaluation steps, metrics,
surveys, etc..). The concrete content/items for evaluation, related to the Tasks, formulated
inside the WPs, will be created within the WP7 will be updated as the ENRICH Project
advances. The particular contents will be based on the initial user surveys and analyses and
often of course can not be concretized without the knowledge of results of the preceding
Tasks.

From the technical point of view, the project will develop 5 main results or outputs in frame
of WP3, WP4, WP5 and WP6. Each of these results will be separately tested and evaluatd
using pre-defined set of standardized criteria. These 5 main results are:

ƒ Migration Tool developed in WP 3;

ƒ Tools for creation of virtual documents by researchers developed in WP 4;
ƒ Possibilities for sharing of large data sets investigated and developed in WP 5;
ƒ Personalized Translation Interface developed in WP 6 evaluated and validated;
ƒ The usability of the collaborative environment in the ENRICH project.

The basic principles and evaluation criteria used within WP7 will be based on the study of
evaluation methodologies used worldwide for testing and evaluation of e-Applications. The
selected approach deals with the set of criteria assigned to each sub-task/sub-result to be
evaluated, organized in a form of the matrix. The methodology is more specifically described
in D 7.1, including the list of all sub-tasks/sub-results for evaluation and n respective
criteria/sub-criteria.
The set of quality criteria was proposed (but it can be later changed according to actual needs.
Most of the tools have not been developed yet and it is even not clear which technology will
they be based on, therefore it can not be fixed at the moment which sub-criteria should be
used for their evaluation.
The possible set of criteria at the moment was formulated as follows:

ƒ Interoperability -
ƒ Adaptability
ƒ Usability
ƒ Security
ƒ Multilinguality and localisation
Each one of those criteria was related to the concrete sub-tasks formulated in WP3, WP4,
WP5, WP6 and the sub-criteria (sub-tasks) will be rated using the range defined as:

0 – Failed or feature does not exist.

1 – Has poor support and/or it can be done but with significant effort.
2 – Fair support but needs modification to reach the desired level of support.
3 – Good support and needs a minimal amount of effort.
4 – Excellent support and meets the criteria out of the box, minimal effort.

The results of such evaluation will be then statistically processed, grouped and graphically
presented, together with the written recommendations to the Task/WP leaders. The results of
the evaluation will be also provided to all partners involved in the respective WP.

11/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

Only a very brief overview of the technical evaluation of the project results is presented here
in D 1:1 in order to avoid overlapping with D 7.1 because these two deliverables are very
closely related.
In case that the findings of the testing and evaluation of e-Applications will be below the
minimum acceptable rating/score or some other fatal insufficiencies will be found, the
respective Task/WP leaders will be given 2 weeks after receipt of such evaluation from WP7
leader for preparation of corrective actions and their presentation to the Technological Group
Committee (see the chapter 5.3.1 dealing with project management). This proposal of
correction actions shall include the time frame of its implementation, because the most of the
evaluation works are foreseen to be carried out in the final stage of the project and it is
assumed that there can be relatively short period for the implementation of correction actions.
The proposal of corrective actions shall also include the responsibilities of the partners
participating on the Task and proposed corrective actions. The Technological Group
Committee will decide within one week whether the proposed measures are sufficient and
confirm their agreement with the implementation of this corrective plan.

12/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

5 Project presentation

5.1 Project objectives, goals and Description of Work

The overall objectives, goals and description of work of the project are given in the Annex 1
“Description of Work” [A1],.(DOW in the following)

5.2 Consortium organisation

5.2.1 Consortium Participants

The following table provides the participants list.
Particip Date Date
Particip Participant
. Participant name Country enter exit
. Role short name
Number project project
CO 1 National Library of Czech Republic NKP Czech 1 24
Republic
BE 2 Cross Czech a.s. CCP Czech 1 24
Republic
BE 3 AiP Beroun s r.o. AIP Czech 1 24
Republic
BE 4 Oxford University Computing OUCS United 1 24
Services Kingdom
BE 5 Københavns Universitet - Nordisk KUNF Denmark 1 24
Foskningsinstitut
BE 6 Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di NLF Italy 1 24
Firenze – National Library in
Florence
BE 7 Università degli Studi di Firenze - MICF Italy 1 24
Centro per la comunicazione e
l’integrazione dei media
Media Integration and
Communicaiton Centre Firenze
BE 8 Institute of mathematics and IMI Lithuania 1 24
informatics
BE 9 University Library Vilnius ULV Lithuania 1 24
BE 10 SYSTRAN S.A. SYS France 1 24
BE 11 University Library Wroclaw ULW Poland 1 24
BE 12 Stofnun Árna Magnússonar í SAM Iceland 1 24
íslenskum fræðum
BE 13 Computer Science for the CSH Germany 1 24
Humanities - Universität zu Köln
BE 14 St. Pölten Diocese Archive DSP Austria 1 24
BE 15 The National and University Library NLI Iceland 1 24
of Iceland
BE 16 Biblioteca Nacional de Espana - The BNE Spain 1 24
National Library of Spain
BE 17 The Budapest University of BUTE Hungary 1 24
Technology and Economics
BE 18 Poznan Supercomputing and PSNC Poland 1 24
Networking Center

CO- Coordinator, BE – Beneficiary

13/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

5.3 Project management structure

Project management structure is given in the DOW as follows:

5.3.1 Project Management Structure and Responsibilities

ENRICH will be managed by the Coordinating Partner supported by a Management
Board on which all partners will be represented. This Board will provide overall
management, guidance and decision-making and will assure inter-workpackage
communication. The Board will meet at least five times during the duration of the
project. Participation of representatives of associated partners on the meetings of
Management board will be supported, but these representatives will not have any
executive or decision making rights. Where possible, these meetings will coincide
with events (e.g. workshops, seminars) or other workplan activities. At all times,
regular consultation and discussion between Consortium Partners will take place
using e-mail and telephone. The overall management responsibility will rest with the
Coordinator, National Library of Czech Republic. Because of the relatively high
number of partners and budget allocated to the project, Cross Czech a.s.
experienced from previous EC funded projects and highly specialized in project
management was assigned to become an administrative and financial coordinator
and AIP Beroun as the developer and administrator of Manuscriptorium will carry out
the technological coordination. To maximise outreach and impact and to ensure
delivery of the project and implementation of the full scope of activities envisaged for
ENRICH project, a specific managerial structure has been designed. The managerial
structure described below consists of three independent committees, interlinked to
ensure an overall cohesion of activities:
• Management Board (MB);
• Work Package Management Committees (WPMCs);
• Technological Group Committee (TGC)

The Management Board (MB):

Membership of the Management Board: 1 representative of each consortium member.
The MB will discuss joint project activities, define the schedule of activities inside and
among the various workpackages, evaluate and validate the progress of the project and
propose corrective actions in the event of problems. In addition, the MB will monitor the
technical direction of the project, approve all major technical decisions, decide and approve
any budget variances, approve all official deliverables, assign specific responsibility to the
most suitable partner representative when new events require it, review and/or amend the
work plan, review and/or amend the cost or time schedule under the EC Contract, review
and/or amend the termination of the EC Contract, and lay down procedures for publications
and press releases with regard to the ENRICH project. Extensive use of information
technology (video and audio conferences, dedicated Web pages and mailing lists) will also be
made.

Work Package Management Committees (WPMC):

For each workpackage, there is a Work Package Management Committee WPMC responsible
for overseeing the integration and specific actions to be undertaken by that workpackage.
Each WPMC is composed of the main contact person of each institution participating in the
workpackage and is chaired by the Workpackage Leader. Each WP leader nominates from
14/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

his/her WPMC one or more members to act as liaison with the other WPMCs, in order to
promote and coordinate integration between workpackages.For each workpackage, the WPSC
will monitor the activity of the different tasks according to the workplan, and will ensure that
the deadlines for milestones and deliverables are met. The Work Package Management
Committee is responsible for the allocation of funds among the members of the WP. All
recommendations for new or different activities that arise from the WPSC will be submitted
to the Management Board, of which the WP leaders are members. The specific tasks to be
carried out by each separate WP are defined in the workpackage description of ENRICH
project.

Technological Group Committee (TGC)

The Technological Group Committee will be established to coordinate the
implementation of developed and/or selected technologies and tools into
Manuscriptorium platform, to ensure their full complementarity and interoperability
and to adjust the time schedule according to the results of all technological actions
undertaken in frame of the ENRICH project. The Technological Group Committee will be
chaired by the Technological Coordinator – AIP Beroun representative. Other members of
technological group committee will be: NKP, OUCS, KUNF, MICF, IMI, SYS, CSH and
PSCN. TGC management board will monitor the activities within the different tasks and
workpackages, and will ensure that the works carried out within separate workpackages
follow the common strategy of development of the whole system to prevent the conflicts and
misunderstandings in the common vision. The Work Technological Group Committee is
responsible for informing all the partners working on particular WPs regarding all decisions
taken by the TGC that have any relation to their work. All recommendations for new or
different activities that arise from the TGC will be submitted to the Management Board and
respective Work Package Management Committee to confirm the decision taken by TGC.

Day-to-day management
The National Library of the Czech Republic (NKP) will be responsible for overall project
coordination. NKP will closely cooperate with Cross Czech a.s. (CCP) within the overall
project management and mainly on the financial and administrative management issues. This
will include ensuring that reports are delivered on time to the Commission that the
workpackages are effectively interlinked, that cost statements and periodic reports are
collated and delivered on time and that processing and reimbursement of costs is done in a
timely fashion. The Coordinator will also be responsible for the negotiations with the
European Commission and for collecting and distributing deliverables. This will be in part by
the appointing a Project Manager from Cross Czech a.s. to manage ENRICH project on a day-
to-day basis. This Manager will be responsible to the Management Board for:
• developing a detailed project plan and briefing Contractors on their roles and
responsibilities (together with NKP)
• monitoring progress on workpackages and signalling pressure areas to the
Management Board;
• ensuring the quality and timeliness of all deliverables and project outputs
(together with NKP representatives and Technological Coordinator;
• fulfilling the reporting obligations to the European Commission and liaising with
Commission staff (together with NKP representatives)
• financial management and preparation of project records and cost statements;
• implementing membership registration and communication mechanisms
(including ensuring compliance with data protection legislation);
15/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

• troubleshooting technical problems for Contractors; and ensuring regular flow

of communications on project progress around the Consortium.
• maintain the ENRICH project plan and produce consolidated reports on efforts,
results and resource consumption (together with NKP)
• guarantee the financial coordination and supervise the reimbursement of the
partners (together with NKP)
• manage the distribution of information inside and outside the consortium;
• maintain a central archive of all documents produced within the ENRICH
project;

NKP will:
• provide the technical infrastructure for the Website (although the content will
be managed by another partner);
• ensure the reimbursement of the partners;
• supervise the Coordination Action Manager’s activities
• chairing the Management Board

The Technological Coordinator assigned by AIP Beroun, the developer and

administrator of current Manuscriptorium will be responsible for:
• chairing the Technological Group Committee;
• monitoring the time schedule and the timing of the related activities;
• recommending appropriate actions to correct delays;
• creating and maintaining the conditions necessary for successful and effective
collaboration;

16/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

6 Project milestones and Deliverables

6.1 Introduction
As the quality management plan will be applied to all milestones and deliverables we here
include the list of milestones, deliverables, and project outputs that will be governed by the
quality plan. The Quality Management Plan also governs all other activities carried out in
frame of ENRICH project.

6.2 Project Planning and Milestones

The schedule for the main project milestones is outlined in Description of Work.

6.3 EC Project deliverables

The external Project deliverables (i.e. those to be delivered to the Commission) are listed in
the DoW. For convenience it is repeated here:

Deliverable Deliverable title Delivery Nature1 Dissemination

No date level2

D 1.1 Quality Plan 2 R PU

D 2.1 Survey results and their interpretation 3 R PU
D 8.1 Dissemination plan 3 R PU
D 8.2 Project Presentation 3 R PU
D 8.3 Printed publicity brochure 4 P PU
D7.1. Methodology for Testing and Validation of 5 R PU
e-Applications
D 1.2 Progress Report 1 6 R CO
D 6.1 ENRICH Corpus Analysis report 6 R PU
D.3.1 Revised TEI conformant specification 7 R PU
D 2.2 Description of the standards used by the 8 R PU
partners, definition of collaboration principles,
data and metadata standards

1 R = Report
P = Service/Product
D = Demonstrator/Prototype
O = Other

2 PU = Public
PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including Commission services and project
reviewers).
CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including Commission services
and project reviewers).

17/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

D.3.2: Documentation and training materials for use 10 R PU

with specification
D 5.1 Definition of basic conditions for sharing of 10 R PU
large data sets in the frame of Manuscriptorium
D 1.3 Progress Report 2 12 R CO
D 1.4 Annual report 12 R CO
D 4.1 Definition of requirements for the creation of 12 R PU
personalised virtual digital libraries
D 5.2 Report on pilot full integration and publication 12 R PU
of selected partner’s metadata in
Manuscriptorium
D 6.2 Personalised Translation Interface delivery 12 R PU
report
D 1.5 Pre-financing request 12 R CO
D 3.3 Report on development and validation of 15 R PU
migration tools
D 5.3 Report on pilot full integration and publication 16 R PU
of selected partner’s metadata and externally
stored data in Manuscriptorium
D 4.2 Report on search behaviour of Manuscriptorium 17 R PU
users
D 1.6 Progress Report 3 18 R CO
D 4.3 Report on pilot implementation of tools for 22 R PU
creation of virtual documents by researchers
D.3.4 Report on METS/TEI interoperability, best 23 R PU
practice with respect to handling of Unicode and
non-Unicode data in Manuscriptorium and P5
conversion techniques
D 4.4 Report on definition of typical model searches 23 R PU
and their implementation
D7.2. The Evaluation Report 23 R PU
D 1.7 Progress Report 4 24 R CO
D 1.8 Final Report 24 R CO
D 6.3 ENRICH Translation Stylesheet delivery report 24 R PU
D 6.4 Vicodi Ontologies implementation report 24 R PU
D 8.4 Conference with proceedings (summary of 24 O PU
papers) at the end of the project
D 8.5 Exploitation plan for further use of project 24 R CO
results
D 8.6 Project Presentation (results) 24 R PU
18/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

D 1.9 Financial statement 24 R CO

19/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

7 Project monitoring and reporting

7.1 Introduction
Project monitoring and reporting will be performed by means of:
• Periodic progress meetings;
• Periodic progress reporting:
• Review of main project milestones;
• Reviews of all documents and deliverables by partners.

7.2 Reporting
Information necessary for reporting will be collected via the e-mail on a regular basis from all
partners.
7.2.1 Progress Report Document Templates
Project Reporting Documents are available in the internal part of the Project website.

20/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

8 Maintenance of Project Records

8.1 Data, Research, and Other Non-Financial Records

All original data, research materials, and project records (e.g. details of events hosted)
generated by participants in the ENRICH Consortium must be retained and available to
consortium partners for a period of five years following the end of the project.

8.2 Financial Records

The retention of financial records (including timesheets) is governed by The Contract and the
Consortium Agreement.

8.3 Website
The ENRICH web site is a key output of the project. Its contents will be maintained for five
years after the close of the project.

21/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

9 Human Subjects and Data protection

9.1 Human Subjects

All Consortium Partners must ensure that their researchers and other support teams comply
with the Human Subjects policies and regulations of their employer, and legal jurisdiction.

9.2 Data Protection

All Consortium Partners must abide by their national legislation and EU directives in relation
to the management of personal data.

22/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

10 Risk management
The management of risks in ENRICH project is detailed in the DoW. Two main aspects of
risks will be taken into account:
• Risks related to technical activities and validity of results
• Risks stemming from relatively large number of partners and their various
types
In order to contain those risks the Project is organised along the following principles:
The project management is structured to ensure smooth communication between technology
providers, content partners and end-users, to monitor the progress and to keep up to date with
the evolution. To ensure the successful completion of the activities and the validity of their
results, each work package is run as an autonomous project with defined relations and
dependencies with other WPs, i.e. contains of planning of work, validation and quality
assurance activities. This ensures that the project remains focus on its original objectives.
With respect to the analysis & management of risks related to the technical activities, the
project management structure & workplan have been set up along the following lines:
AIP as a technical coordinator will review technical aspects of the project and control
technical activities and directions. Certain risk is raised by heterogeneity of metadata for
machine translation. The metadata information available in the documents, by definition, can
be very general (for instance the fields describing content of a book), but also very specific
(fields covered by the ontology). For the first category, translation with SYSTRAN
technology allows a good stability of the translation quality which is - for the second
category, use of the multilingual ontology combined with structure-driven translation options
allows a high accuracy of the translation.
The technical risks are minimized by above mentioned management structure, including
Technological Group Committee. The technological coordinator will be assisted by the
leading experts in development of the technologies that will be used/adjusted during the
project implementation.

23/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

11 Authorship guidelines & Acknowledgements

11.1 Authorship
Where it is not possible for documents to be issued with ‘Corporate Authorship’, that is with
ENRICH project listed as the author, the following guidelines apply. These guidelines also
apply to all articles that are published by the Consortium Members based on work funded by
the project.
11.1.1 Authorship Reserved For
Authorship is reserved for persons who receive primary credit and hold primary responsibility
for a published work. Authorship encompasses not only those that do the actual writing but
also those who have made a substantial contribution to an article or study (e.g. research
assistants). Substantial professional contributions may include, but are not limited to,
formulating the research problem or hypothesis, structuring the experimental design,
organizing and conducting statistical analysis, interpreting the results, having responsibility
for management and funding, or writing a major portion of the paper. Those who so
contribute should be listed in the byline for the piece of work.
11.1.2 Acknowledgement
Lesser contributions, which do not constitute authorship, may be acknowledged in a note.
These contributions may include such supportive functions as collecting or entering data,
modifying or structuring a computer program, recruiting participants and suggesting or
advising about statistical analysis. Substantial combinations of these with other tasks
however, may constitute authorship.
11.1.3 Main Author Obligations
The author who serves as main contact should always obtain a person’s consent before
including that person’s name in a byline or note. Each author listed in the byline of an article
should review the entire manuscript before it is submitted.
11.1.4 Byline Ordering
Authors are responsible for determining authorship and for specifying the order in which two
or more authors’ names appear in the byline. The general rule is that the name of the principal
author should appear first, with subsequent names in order of descending contribution or
alternatively the Principal Author’s name first with subsequent authors names appearing
alphabetically.

11.2 Authorship Notes

An author note should appear with each article to identify each author’s institutional
affiliation, provide acknowledgments, state any disclaimers or perceived conflicts of interest,
and provide a point of contact for any interested reader.

11.2.1 Structuring of Author notes

The details of the institutional affiliations of the authors should be listed and the details of a
contact address of the lead author should be given.

24/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

11.3 Acknowledgements, Contributor Statement, Conflict of Interest

11.3.1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All publications that relate to ENRICH project should include an acknowledgement not too
disimilar to this:

The background work was conducted within the context of the European Union
funded eContent+ project ENRICH (contract number: ECP 2006 DILI 510049,
http://enrich.manuscriptorium.com).

11.3.2 CONTRIBUTORS
Where articles have more than one author a statement about the Contributors should be
included. This statement might be something along the following lines:
All the authors participated in the definition of this work, analysis and
synthesis, and drafting of the manuscript. They agreed the final version of the
document.

11.3.3 Collaborative Research Guidelines

Common authors of all public documents should establish as early as possible how the
attributions of authorship are to be divided between them. Attribution of Authorship: In the
absence of an agreement between the researchers, the following guidelines for attribution of
authorship apply. Authorship is attributed to all those persons who have made scholarly
contributions to the work and who share responsibility and accountability for the results, or
who were responsible for the activity. Unless alphabetic ordering is used the order of the
names in a publication is decided according to the quality of the contribution, the extent of the
responsibility and accountability for the results, and custom.

Duties of the Principal Author: In the absence of an agreement between the authors, where
there are co-authors, the following guidelines apply: The author who submits a manuscript for
publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons who are
entitled to co-authorship, and none who are inappropriate. The submitting author should send
each co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and should make a reasonable attempt to obtain
consent to co-authorship, including the order of names. Other contributions should be
indicated in a footnote or an "Acknowledgements" section, in accordance with the standards
of the discipline and the publisher.

25/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

12 DOCUMENTATION MANAGEMENT

12.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to describe the documentation management procedure for the
ENRICH Project. It defines standard rules and procedures related to document production that
all the partners shall apply throughout the project.
The documentation management procedure is applicable:
• to all partners,
• for all documents both internal documents and those that are delivered to the European
Commission,
• and for documents exchanged between partners.

12.2 Definitions
Deliverable: A deliverable consists of one or more types of products (documents,
websites, registries, databases, events, training).
The lists of deliverables appear both in the Description of Work and in
Chapter 5.3 of this Quality Plan
Deliverable identifier: A deliverable identifier uniquely identifies each deliverable. It states the
WP to which this deliverably belongs and its order

12.3 Documents publication rules

12.3.1 Documents presentation

Standard documentation templates will be used by all partners in order to produce
standardised documentation. These templates are based on the templates requested by the
European Commission.
Each deliverable will contain:
• a title page,
• a document status sheet and change record table (for evolutionary documents only),
• the file name,
• an (executive) summary,
• a glossary if necessary,
• a list of applicable documents and reference documents (with version and date for
technical documents),
• annexes as appropriate.
All documents will be written in English. All deliverables will be provided to European
Commission in pdf format. All partners are encouraged to use open formats such as *.odf for
circulation of documents inside the consortium. It is the responsibility of the author of the
document to choose which format fits the best his/her standards and purposes of creation of
particular document or other file.

English date format will be used for all documents, e.g. 24/07/2006 for 24 July 2006.

26/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

The following table gives an overview of the main attributes of a document (this does not
apply to financial statements, which will use the standardized format requested by the
European Commission).

Attribute Description Title page Other

pages
Logos ENRICH Logo X X

Logos EU Flag X
Project Name ENRICH X
Document title Document title according to DoW X
Date Last update X
Partner(s) e.g.: CCP, NKP … X
Author(s) Document author(s) name(s) X
Document Status See 11.6 X
Dissemination level Public/Confidential X
Deliverable identifier (D) See 11.2 X
Contract reference ECP 2006 DILI 510049 X
Executive Summary
(D) for deliverable documents, only
12.3.2 Document identifier
Each document must be referenced by a unique document identifier to ensure effective
version control.
The nomenclature is defined as:
<Project name abbreviation>_<WP number>_<Document name or number of
deliverable>_<Document version_number>_<Version_Revision>_<initials of the author or
the last revisioner> e.g.: ENRICH_WP1_Qualityplan_01_00_JH

This form of name corresponds to the file name.

12.3.2.1 Version_Revision
For a document in a draft version, the version and the revision start at 0.0. When a document
is distributed internally or delivered, the Version.Revision number must always be updated.
When the delivery concerns just a part of the document only the revision number is
incremented. For delivery of a revision, the change control table and document change record
table of the document must be updated. For a new version, if the change control table and
document change record table become important, only history of Version number remains.

27/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

12.3.3 Document Revision Control Documentation

All documents except the financial statements, annual and periodic reports are to have on
their second page the following:

Document Version Control

Version Date Change Made (and if appropriate Name and Institution
reason for change) of Commentator(s)
or Author(s)

Document Review
Reviewer Institution Date and result of Review

12.3.4 Document Signature/Approval:

Before the table of contents each document is to contain an approval signoff form.

Approved By (signature) Date

Accepted by at European Commission Date

(signature)

28/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

Document file name

The standard format for document file names is:
<Project name abbreviation>_<WP number>_<Document name>_<Document
number>_<Version_Revision>.<file type>

e.g.: ENRICH_WP1_Qualityplan_01_00_JH.doc

12.4 Dissemination level

This attribute defines the confidential level:
• CONFIDENTIAL: Restricted circulation list (specify in footnote)
• INTERNAL: Internal circulation within project partners
• PUBLIC: Public document.

12.5 Document Status

The different statuses of a document are :
• Draft
• Finalised
The above statuses appear on the document presentation page.

12.6 Deliverable document Status

After delivery the status of the document becomes :
• Delivered
• Accepted, Accepted with remarks or Refused
• Final
The above status does not appear on the document.

12.7 Document approval and distribution

The Task Leaders are responsible for the delivery to the Workpackage Leader for review
documents. The Task Leader is also responsible for delivery to the Technical Coordinator.
The Workpackage Leader is responsible for making certain that documents are reviewed.
All deliverables will be provided in English. If the validation shows discrepancies, the
document is rejected, and it must be modified to take into account the remarks and then a new
review is carried out.

12.8 Document validation

The document is reviewed by the WP Leader, and an appointed reviewer (usually the Project
Manager).

12.9 Document modification

As a document can be revised during the project lifecycle, it is necessary to use a version
revision mechanism based upon the identification number in order to:
• track all the modifications that affect a document after its delivery,
• inform each partner on the last released version of a document,

29/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

• provide each partner, at any given time, with a consistent vision of the documentation
state.

30/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

13 Methodology, techniques and tools

This chapter describes the methodology, the technique and tools used by ENRICH
Consortium.

13.1 Document management tools

In order to improve workflow activity, it is recommended to standardise tools, the following
tools will initially be used: for creation and exchange of documents within the consortium.
• Word processing: MS Word, Open Office or other fully compatible tool
• Spreadsheet: MS Excel, Open Office or other fully compatible tool
• Slides presentation: MS PowerPoint or fully compatible tool

The following formats will be used for delivering documents to the European Commission:
• Document distribution: Acrobat pdf (preference for PDF/A)

13.2 Website
The Web site has three core areas:
Category Description Access for
PUBLIC the interface between the project PUBLIC
and its constituency and will
include the basic information
about the project, its results and
consortium members, public
documents released by ENRICH,
news, Details of public events,
information about possibility to
join the project as associated
partner
INTERNAL The area for project data storage Consortium
and sharing, file exchange system. Partners with
username and
password
DATA/SYSTEM Core application service layer AIP and granted
LEVEL with publishing system individuals with
username and
password

31/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

14 Delivery Procedure
All deliverables will be produced and delivered in English.

14.1 Presentation to European Commission

Before delivery to the European Commission, each deliverable will undergo a Peer Review
by the Management Board in order to assess that each deliverable meets acceptable standards
on the technical, quality and cost levels. This review process is documented in the change
history of the document.
If it is refused, the deliverable will be modified taking into account the remarks and then a
new review carried out.
The deliverables will be delivered by the Project Coordinator to the European Commission.
The final version of a document is delivered with a paper copy and an electronic copy to the
European Commission. A delivery note is sent with the delivery, to describe the delivery
content.

32/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

15 Quality control
This chapter describes the techniques that are used to check the application of the quality plan
on the ENRICH project.

15.1 Purpose and responsibilities

The aim of quality control is to develop and produce a ENRICH deliverables and services that
are of the highest possible quality:
• Workpackage and Task Leaders have initial responsibility for monitoring, controlling
and ensuring the timely delivery of documents and other deliverables in their area of
responsibility
• Work Package Leaders and Task Leaders will approve the quality of all deliverables
and submit them to the Project Manager for forwarding on to the Commission.
• The Project Manager will arrange for all deliverables to be reviewed by a consortium
member from another workpackage, or at least not directly involved in the particular
Task.
• The Technical Director will verify products before their delivery to the EC, in order to
ensure final product quality and attainment of project quality objectives.

15.2 Approach
Different approaches can be employed by the person involved in quality control such as:
• participating into meetings;
• reviewing the documentation;
• engaging in discussions with those involved in preparing the deliverables; and,
• evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the deliverable.
15.3 The Quality Control Stages
1. On completion of a piece of deliverable if it is a document, the Task Leader
responsible will send this for comment to two agreed reviewers. This second editor
will check and evaluate the work on several levels:
• Successful communication of author’s intention
• Quality of language
• Quality of expression
• Length
• Conciseness
• Communication of significant key points
• Synthesis and analysis
• Compliance to ENRICH Document Templates if appropriate

2. The reviewer returns the document within two weeks to the Task Leader with
comments and suggestions. The Task Leader makes certain that appropriate revisions
are made.

33/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

3. The document is then passed to the Workpackage Leader for approval. The
Workpackage Leader checks and evaluates the document based on the criteria above.

4. The document is passed back with further comments if needed. The Task Leader
makes certain that appropriate revisions are made

5. Once approved by the Workpackaged leader and two reviewers, the WP leader should
send the document to the Project Coordinator. By this stage the document should be in
its final form and ready to be mounted on the ENRICH website.

6. Final approval for publication of the document will come from the Project Manager.

Task Leaders must ensure that sufficient time is included in the programme of work to
ensure that quality assurance can be completed in a timely fashion.

34/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

16 External evaluation
External monitoring process, involving external experts will be applied to the most important
project deliverables. The external evaluators will be suggested by the respective WP leaders.
All consortium members can recommend their candidates for external evaluators in advance.
The final selection will be done usually during the project meeting preceding the planned
submission of the deliverable or later by e-mail confirmation. The final selection of external
experts has to be approved by project Management Board and Technical Coordinator.
The list of deliverables which will undergo the external evaluation:

Deliverable Deliverable title Delivery Nature Dissemination

No date level

D 3.3 Report on development and validation of 15 R PU

migration tools
D 5.3 Report on pilot full integration and publication 16 R PU
of selected partner’s metadata and externally
stored data in Manuscriptorium
D.3.4 Report on METS/TEI interoperability, best 23 R PU
practice with respect to handling of Unicode and
non-Unicode data in Manuscriptorium and P5
conversion techniques

Two external evaluators will evaluate each of above listed documents. The deliverables will
be internally reviewed according to Chapter 14.3 of this Quality Plan before they will be
passed to external evaluators. After successful internal review the document will be sent to
external evaluators. Further procedure will be similar to the internal review:
1) WP Leader responsible will send this document for comment to two agreed external
reviewers. They will check and evaluate the work on several levels:
• Successful communication of author’s intention
• Quality of language
• Quality of expression
• Length
• Conciseness
• Communication of significant key points
• Synthesis and analysis
• Compliance to ENRICH Document Templates if appropriate

2) The reviewer returns the document within two weeks to the WP Leader with comments and
suggestions. If recommended by the reviewer, he returns the document to Task leader for
appropriate revisions.
3) The document is then passed back to the Workpackage Leader and external reviewers for
approval of revision, if any.

35/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

4) Once approved by the Workpackaged leader and two external reviewers, the WP leader
should send the document to the Technical Coordinator and Project Manager. By this stage
the document should be in its final form and ready to be mounted on the ENRICH website.
5) Final approval for publication of the document will come from the Project Manager and
Technical Coordinator.

36/37
DL 1.1 Quality Plan

Project information

Project acronym: ENRICH

European Networking Resources and
Project full title:
Information concerning Cultural Heritage
Proposal/Contract no.: ECP 2006 DILI 510049

Project Officer: Gudrun Stock

European Commission - Information Society and
Address: Media DG, Rue Alcide de Gasperi, L- 2920
Luxembourg
Phone: Tel: + 352 / 4301 38140

Fax: + 352 / 4301 30269

Mobile:

E-mail: Gudrun.Stock@ec.europa.eu

Project Co-ordinator: Zdeněk Uhlíř

Klementinum 190, Praha 1, 19000, Czech
Address:
Republic
Phone: +420221663283

Fax:

Mobile: +420731612422
E-mail: zdenek.uhlir@nkp.cz

37/37