GNOSIS carried out a self-evaluation through a questionnaire in October 1993.
The responses were anonymized and all 31 partners responded so the results
accurately represent both positive and negative views. The consolidated report
is 23 pages long and available on request. The following is an extract of the
most significant material.
Please order the benefits you have gained in joining the GNOSIS
consortium?
Technical and scientific benefits? ************************* 24
Social and cultural benefits? ******************* 17
Economic benefits? ****** 06
What
kind of benefits did you expect in joining the consortium?
Learn from others? ********************** 22
Exchange scientific results? ******************* 19
Exchange methods, software or tools? ******************* 19
Exchange application oriented results? ****************** 18
Refine your industrial/technical requirements? **************** 16
Know about issues specific to other region? ************** 14
What
do you think the benefits will be useful?
Create new networks? *************************** 27
Evaluate world-wide states of the art? ********************** 22
Launch research themes? ******************** 20
Create opportunities of benchmarking? ***************** 17
Create opportunities for technical transfer? **************** 16
Enter new markets? ******* 07
In
your opinion, what is the main source of the benefits?
Mutual understanding? ******************* 19
Industrial requirements? ****************** 18
Researchers/partners availability? ************* 13
Advanced communication systems? *********** 11
Frequent international meeting? ********** 10
Links that already exist between partners? ******** 08
Deployment of the resources? ****** 06
Management effectiveness? ****** 06
GNOSIS enabled to create new links between partners. Will these links will
be durable?
Yes? ************************* 25
No? ***** 05
If
YES,
In a GNOSIS further long-term project? ********************** 22
In other possible collaboration? ********************* 22
If
NO, what is the main cause?
Separate interest? ******* 07
Too distant location? ** 02
Language barrier? * 01
Different culture? 00
Do
you think we have achieved a sufficient level of collaboration?
YES? **************** 16
NO? ************** 14
Do
you think the collaboration in GNOSIS has been achieved?
At regional level? *********************** 23
At inter-regional level? ********************* 21
Through other test-cases? * 01
Through others? * 01
Do
you think the benefits could be limited because of
Non sufficient deployment of resources? **************** 16
Management structure? ************* 13
Proprietary rights problems? ************ 12
Language barrier? ******** 08
Communication insufficient? ******** 08
Different culture? ****** 06
Other? ***** 05
Compare
the level of collaboration within GNOSIS to similar project
- Compared to ESPRIT, level of collaboration is fine.
- My experience is that in GNOSIS the level of collaboration is relatively
high.
- Very effective and active.
- Similar to ESPRIT.
- Collaboration within GNOSIS is not lower at least than the other
international cooperative researches in our company.
- The collaboration between industrial partners and academic partners are
well done.
- More diffuse than ESPRIT or DARPA but this is not a problem.
- Within IMS: GNOSIS performing better due to better definition of goals and
roles of partners. With EC-supported projects: more difficult coordination and
communication, more expensive travel but much potential gains much higher in
GNOSIS.
- We have experience of collaboration in EC-funded projects, which at best
achieve good, in-depth collaboration, better than GNOSIS. The difference is
project duration - 1 vs. 3 years.
- Soft structure of the consortium.
- We have many successful projects with industries. GNOSIS is only an
exception.
- Consider level of collaboration in GNOSIS somewhat higher than in another
Test Case am involved in.
- Higher level of collaboration within smaller consortia, eg within EC.
- People are now familiar with each other within one test case, but after
some time we can wait and see to get collaboration more and more. I think this
is one of the best.
- We didn't put in enough resource compared to an ESPRIT project, so we
can't answer.
What kind of social benefits did you expect?
Human resources management (methods...)? ************ 12
Others? ********* 09
Training practices? ******* 07
Do
you think you have gained the cultural benefits from?
Range of the points of view? ************************ 24
International behavior and cultural habits? ******************* 19
Scientific standards and methodologies? **************** 16
Project management methods? ****** 06
Others? * 01
What kind of experience have you gained in joining the consortium?
- Exposure to long-term vision of Japanese participants. Project with this
many partners generates impossible amounts of overhead.
- It is very difficult to organize international project. One year is not a
long time for results.
- We found new partners for our R&D activities. Sometimes difficult to
overcome cultural differences. The project definition was flexible, every
partner could find a domain of interest.
- Cultural difference play an important role. We were able to find new
partners (working in the same field). As the project is so global, we had the
opportunity of discussing our research in a much larger context -> enriching.
- Different regions -> different interests. Worldwide identical problems.
- Participate to long term projects. Foster new paradigms. Benchmarking.
- We have learned to understand the dynamics of international cooperation
better. The scientific content is interesting. The work in TW 5 about
manufacturing paradigms is valuable for us.
- I learned a lot of patience in working with different peoples with
different backgrounds. I also gained experiences in working with people with
different vision and ideas. I think that this is the foundation for future
collaboration if the project can continue. It certainly strengthens the
regional collaboration.
- The powerful works in various subtasks parallely done by the many powerful
partners. The approaches from the various points of view, which depend on the
partners.
- Mutual study about manufacturing problem were done. Some consensus about
Knowledge-Systematization were gained. Confidence to continue our GNOSIS
project was got.
- Cultural differences. Benefits of the Email-system.
- From the viewpoint of research, the most important thing we have gained
was research topics to be done that came from needs and requirements from other
partners about our methodology for knowledge systematization and soft machinery.
- We could carry out multi cooperative researches at the same time with
academic partners.
- Realisation that inevitable conflicts will arise between the self
interests of dominant partners: some way of regulating this is necessary if
GNOSIS is to be effective in establishing a common goal and method of
implementation.
- Realization that the management of large-scale international projects is
very different from that of national or local ones, and we need to develop
effective techniques.
- We learned about approaches of other partners/regions to knowledge
systematization and also about a few concepts not used in our organization. In
product/process configuration part we were able to compare our methodology with
techniques used by other companies. Unfortunately, more significant results
that could have been reached were limited due to the short duration of the
project.
- Cooperation at interregional level; sharing of ideas/methods; researcher
exchange.
- Multi-national collaboration within a large consortium.
- We have found a few key persons in several industries and we have
discussed global points of view of future manufacturing system and
knowledge-based systems in our group.
- This first multi-national consortium in manufacturing research has
provided a range and level of experience with researchers from varied
backgrounds that considerably exceeds that available from more limited
consortia. It also fostered regional cooperation.
- International state of art on IMS. Comparison of methods and software.
- Getting knowledge on different views about the future of manufacturing.
- Whatever you do you cannot make everyone happy.
- Circumstances for Industrial Network Worldwide. Preparing work has done
very well for this stage of GNOSIS. The structure of GNOSIS to subitems (TWs
etc) is good. One very important thing is get a real network between companies
from business point of view. We have now all elements needed for the future
Configurable Industrial Business.
- I gained some experience on exchanging opinions with people of the other
regions. To the contrast with my own experience at ISO meetings, we talked
about creating something and I understood some difference of thinking style
among us.
- Other partners' working methodologies. Visits to other partners. Exchange
of knowledge. Wider view of problems.
- We have been able to get the opportunity to know that those tools like
SYSFUND and DSP are useful for design engineering tasks similar to ours in
various companies other than us.
- From one of the research partners in another country we met for the first
time people that are working on interesting subject for our company,
configuration management systems, product configuration for products with many
variants.
Do you consider the costs of travel and meeting organization in GNOSIS?
Greater but acceptable? *************** 15
Equivalent to that of similar projects? ************* 13
Greater and unmanageable? ** 02
Do
you consider the costs of exchange of documentation/researchers/tools in
GNOSIS
Equivalent to that of similar projects? ************** 14
Greater but acceptable? ******** 08
Lower compared to other international projects? **** 04
Greater and unmanageable? *** 03
Do
you consider the extra costs of the project management in GNOSIS
Greater but acceptable? *************** 15
Equivalent to that of similar projects? *********** 11
Greater and unmanageable? ** 02
Do
you consider the extra costs of the project management in GNOSIS are due to
Management structure? ************* 13
Too many partners? ******* 07
Do
you consider the extra costs of the project management could have been avoided
by
Appropriate means of communication? ************* 13
Another management structure? ********* 09
Another task assignment that would privileged regional closeness? ******* 07
Another task assignment that would limit interdependencies? ***** 05
Were
your efforts in GNOSIS combined with other national/international R&D
project?
Yes **************** 16
No ************* 13
Do
you consider the funding mechanism as an obstacle to the efforts?
Yes ***************** 17
No ************** 14
Do
you plan to work
Within the limits of your funding? ******************* 19
Beyond your estimated costs? ********** 10
Do you think the originally stated benefits will be achieved?
Yes ********************** 22
No ******* 07
Do
you think the overhead due to international collaboration are mainly coming
from?
Time spent (to reach consensus...) ************************ 24
Travel budget ***************** 17
Other *** 03
How
sufficient was the level of dissemination of information in GNOSIS in your
region?
Good ************* 13
Fair *********** 11
Poor ******* 07
Should
there have been a limit or maximum number of partners to optimize
collaboration?
Yes **************** 16
No ************** 14
Due
you think we could have avoided overheads due to international collaboration
with an advanced communication services? To what extent?
- More optimal use of email.
- Some of the overheads could have been avoided. Fax machines and email are
efficient tools . The problem is sometimes partners don't inform others enough.
- By email, telephone, fax we would have been able to reduce overheads, but
meetings are still important on the one hand for personal contact, on the other
for being able to focus on GNOSIS for a few days.
- We could, but the meetings are still necessary for motivation by personal
contact and for effective work.
- No. Communication with email and fax has been very well.
- Yes, We can have more teleconferences which may be more cost-effective.
Also, more workpackage meetings and group meetings are needed for future
collaboration
- Yes, especially in full-scale study after the mutual understanding is
promoted.
- Active usage of E-mail; Standard format of exchange technical reports;
Enlargement of communication using MEDIATOR. I think it is difficult for
industry partners to exchange binary files by way of Inter-Net.
- No, meetings are extremely important for the collaboration.
- Yes. If we can send figures, formatted documents, and data of tools
easily, the situation will be better. (Of course, if all of us use tex and
postscript, it possible). However, such advanced communication cannot be the
solution.
- Yes, I do. If we can use advanced communication technologies such as an
email or a fax, some of the overheads due to international collaboration would
be avoided.
- YES, information could be made consistent avoiding confusion between
inter-regional and national groups.
- It would be easy to put in place a database and communication coordination
system that would effectively support the needs of all the IMS projects. This
should be a major service component of any future program.
- To some extent but not totally eliminate travel.
- Yes. All partners should have had advanced communication systems (e-mail
and ftp).
- Yes. Videoconferencing could have reduced meeting costs by perhaps 10%,
although some of this would be used for the videoconferencing costs.
- Definitely, a good teleconferencing facility (with terminals on people's
desks) would really help. I think the technology exists to do this now but it
needs someone to put it together. This could be a gnosis-2 sub-project?
Personally, I'd quite like to do this! Limiting factor is cost of bandwidth and
possibly infrastructure if certain facilities don't exist.
- Question is not applicable. Communication is not the decisive factor.
- People must be first familiar with each other. After that an advanced
communication service e.g. videoconference could be utilized.
- I don't think so. Although it requires a lot of budget, we must talk with
each other in order to deeply understand each other.
- I believe that more than this we should learn to use more
effectively the current means of communication, e-mail fax, telephone, etc.
- Probably yes, but it was not a major problem anyway.
- Maybe we can save some travel expenses with video conference or sharing
travel expense between several companies by committing only one representative
to USA and Japan.
For the possible continuation of GNOSIS, do you think the management
structure is still applicable for a possible mid- or long-term research
project?
Yes ***************** 17
No *********** 11
For
a possible continuation of GNOSIS, do you think the leadership of the project
must be shared out among various sub-projects with similar management
structure?
Yes ********************** 22
No ****** 06
Do
you think the global management should be
More directive? *************** 15
More decentralized? *************** 15
More centralized? ****** 06
Do
you think the global management should be based on
A matrix structure? ******************** 20
A hierarchical structure? ***** 04
Do
you think the sub-project management should be based on
More distributed? ************* 13
More directive? ******** 08
More centralized? ******* 07
If
the management structure was more decentralized, do you think it should be
done?
By theme ******************* 19
By competitive sub-projects under a GNOSIS umbrella
that would check coherency and links ********* 09
By categories of partners ***** 05
By region ***** 05
For
the continuation of GNOSIS, what do you think about the participation of
Large companies? ************************* 25
Research centres? ******************* 19
Competitive companies? ***************** 17
SME's? *************** 15
Individual persons? ******** 08
Consulting organizations? ******* 07
To enforce cooperation, do you think we should implement
Common databases? ********************* 21
Communication services? ********************* 21
Extended networks? *************** 15
Teleconferencing? *********** 11
Others? ** 02
Regarding
documentation management, do you think we should adopt
Centralisation of documents? ****************** 18
More detailed rules of management? ************* 13
More directive filtering procedures? ********** 10
If
these measures were adopted, do you think they could
Make meetings more effective? ************************* 25
Make decision making more rapid? ******************* 19
Reduce regional meetings? ******** 08
Reduce interregional meetings? ******* 07
Contents,
Previous
Section,
IMS
Page,
KSI
Page
gaines@cpsc.ucalgary.ca 1-Sep-94