View source for Goals and success criteria

[[Doing Business Abroad Pilot|Back to Doing Business Abroad main page]]

[[DBA D4.7 Initial Running Phase Report|Back to main page of D4.7 Initial Running Phase Report]]

[[Current status of pilot|Back to Previous Chapter: 2. Current Status of Pilot]]

[Work in progress]

== 3.1 Goals and pilot success criteria ==
''Objectives and how they are satisfied in relation to success criteria. Use D4.6 section 2.1 (Final version of success criteria and Common Pilot Criteria) as a basis.''

<span style="color: blue"> GOALS (BLUE TEXT IS COPIED FROM D4.6) </span>
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
!<span style="color:blue">Actor</span>
!<span style="color: blue">ID</span>
!<span style="color: blue">Goal</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">Public authorities</span>
|<span style="color: blue">A</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Improve  the quality of Company data within the service fulfilment process by re-using  data from authentic sources, thereby reducing manual work and lowering  processing costs.</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">Companies</span>
|<span style="color: blue">B</span>
| <span style="color: blue">Reduce manual work, lower  transaction costs and improving enrolment speed for the company when using  the Once Only Principle</span>
|-
! rowspan="2" | <span style="color: blue">Project</span>
|<span style="color: blue">C</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Evaluate  the OOP-components supporting the cross-border information flow: </span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Assess (technical) impact on national services/registers already in place</span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Evaluate connections of national systems to the OOP TS </span>
|-
|<span style="color: blue">D</span>
| <span style="color: blue">Evaluate whether the solutions designed to the DBA specific challenges  have proven adequate in piloting the DBA eProcedures:</span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Usability of harmonised  Company Evidence model</span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Degree to which powers must  be validated </span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Scalability of solution for  powers validation</span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Usability and security of  Explicit Request and Preview</span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Need for record matching on  Natural Persons</span>

<span style="color: blue">-           Adequacy of patterns to keep  data up-to-date</span>
|}

<span style="color: blue">-           Success Criteria for Public Authorities</span>
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
!<span style="color: blue">-           ID</span>
!<span style="color: blue">-           Criterion</span>
!<span style="color: blue">-           Technical Common Criteria</span>
!<span style="color: blue">-           Principles</span>
|-
! colspan="4" |
<span style="color:r blue d">Pilot goal A: Improve the  quality of Company data within the service fulfilment process by re-using  data from authentic sources, thereby reducing manual work and lowering  processing costs</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">- A1</span>
|

<span style="color: blue">- The DE recognizes  the company data is of higher quality, more reliable and easier to process  when using the OOP TS to retrieve company data directly from the DO. (e.g.  can data is available in an electronic and structured format for easy  processing in the systems of the DE, data requires less correcting, data is kept  up to date automatically, data is reliable and leads to less exceptions when  processing, data is more meaningful, has less inconsistencies and errors, is  more complete).</span>
|

<span style="color: blue">- Reusability, Transparency, Effectiveness & Efficiency, Administrative  Simplification</span>
|

<span style="color: blue">- U, A, L, V</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">-  A2</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">-           The DE recognizes  the method of powers validation to provide data of higher quality and  reliability, proving that the representative is sufficiently authorized to  represent the company (e.g. authorisation data is easier to interpret,  authenticity is clear, data is trustworthy, there is less manual work in  validating the users powers to represent the company with documents proving  the relationship of the user to the company, authorization data requires less  correcting, verification is easier).</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">-           Reusability, Transparency, Effectiveness & Efficiency, Administrative  Simplification</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">-           U, A, L, V</span>
|}
<span style="color: blue">Success criteria for Companies applying for a service</span>
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
!<span style="color: blue">ID</span>
!<span style="color: blue">Criterion</span>
!<span style="color: blue">Technical Common Criteria</span>
!<span style="color: blue">Principles</span>
|-
! colspan="4" |
<span style="color: blue">Pilot  goal B: Reduce manual work, lower transaction costs and improving enrolment  speed for the company when using the Once Only Principle </span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">B1</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">The user acknowledges the procedure for applying for a service to be  effective and efficient (e.g. the procedure requires acceptable effort and  cost, the procedure is not complex, has no language barriers, no  interruptions. The user spends little manual time to correct company data,  and experiences no errors after finishing the enrolment process).</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">Reusability, Effectiveness & Efficiency, Administrative  Simplification, Transparency</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">U, A, L, V</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">B2</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">The user acknowledges the method to proof their authorisation as  effective and efficient (e.g. requires little effort, is established with  simple and effective communication, is reliable).</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">Reusability, Effectiveness & Efficiency,  Transparency, Security and Privacy</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">U, A, L, V</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">B3</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">The user acknowledges the duration of completing the online eProcedure  activities to apply for a service as acceptable.</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">Effectiveness & Efficiency, Administrative  Simplification</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">V, A</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">B4</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">The user saves time and/or cost when completing the eProcedure using  the OOP TS.</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">Effectiveness & Efficiency</span>
|
<span style="color: blue">V, A</span>
|}

Success criteria and research questions for Pilot Technical Goals 

 {| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
!<span style="color: blue">'''ID'''</span>
!<span style="color: blue">'''Criterion'''</span>
!<span style="color: blue">'''Technical Common Criteria'''</span>
!<span style="color: blue">'''Principles'''</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue"> colspan="4" |Pilot goal C: Evaluate the OOP-components supporting  the cross-border information flow: 

·          Assess technical impact on national services/registers  already in place

·          Evaluate connections of national systems to the OOP  TS</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">C1 </span>
|<span style="color: blue">The  DO believes the cost and effort for integrating to the DE4A Connector will  eventually be outweighed by the benefits.</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Openness,  Technical Neutrality and Data Portability</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U,  A, V</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">C2</span>
|<span style="color: blue">The DE believes the cost and effort for  integrating to the DE4A Connector will eventually be outweighed by the  benefits.</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Openness, Technical Neutrality and Data  Portability</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, A, V</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">C3</span>
|<span style="color: blue">The DO believes the cost and effort for  integrating to the Mandate Management System will eventually be outweighed by  the benefits.</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Openness, Technical Neutrality and Data  Portability</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, L, V</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">C4</span>
|<span style="color: blue">The participating Member States believe the  cost and effort for setting up and deploying the DE4A Connector in their  national infrastructure will eventually be outweighed by the benefits.</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Openness, Technical Neutrality and Data  Portability</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, L, V</span>
|-
! <span style="color: blue">colspan="4" |Pilot  goal D: Evaluate whether the solutions designed to the DBA specific  challenges have proven adequate in piloting the DBA eProcedures</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">D1</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Has the Company Evidence Model proven  adequate for cross-border exchange of information on companies for the DBA  eProcedures?</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Openness, Neutrality and Data Portability,  Reusability</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, V, L</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">D2</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Have the solutions to validate powers  proven adequate for the eProcedures involved in piloting?</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Reusability, Administrative Simplification</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, L</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">D3</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Have the explicit request and preview requirements as specified in the SDGR proven suitable for company  eProcedures (representation scenarios)?</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Administrative Simplification, User  Centricity, Inclusion and Accessibility</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, L</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">D4</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Have the mechanisms for record matching at the DC proven adequate for the DBA eProcedures?</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Administrative Simplicity</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, L</span>
|-
!<span style="color: blue">D5</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Have the mechanisms to keep the company information up-to-date (second pilot iteration) proven adequate</span>
|<span style="color: blue">Administrative Simplicity, Effectiveness &  Efficiency</span>
|<span style="color: blue">U, V</span>
|}

==3.2 Pilot dimensions==
''Qualitative description on lessons learned (technical, functional, proess, data, usability etc) and preliminary conclusions on these dimensions, based on metrics, questiuonnaires and interviews? The dimensions target the scope of the piloted functionality and patterns (until delivery of the report)''

===3.2.1 Use ===

*''Overview''
*''Initial feedback from focus group and real users''
*''Initial results from use related metrics (logs)''
*''Usefulness of DE4A patterns and components related to internal stakeholders take-up''
*''Strategy on pilot use until final report''

=== 3.2.2 Value===

*''Verified benefits with users and DEs / DOs'' 
**''Contribution of pilot to DE4A benefits and to external community of SDG stakeholders''
**''Pilot specific benefits''

===3.2.3 Learning towards Adoption===

*''Approach to knowledge-building''
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+
''Lessons learned from analysing and designing national integration of cross-border OOP''
!style="width: 2%"|id
!style="width: 10%"| topic
!style="width: 60%"| observations
!style="width: 28%"|lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|1
|design process
|Designing national integration required in depth knowledge of both eIDAS and OOTS. This knowledge (specifically the combination of both) is not broadly available in Member States. Knowledge of both domains should be brought together in order to prevent designing based on false assumptions of the other domain. 
|DBA advises Member States to invest time to bring together the eIDAS and OOTS knownledge. This requires organising and prioritising as this knowledge is scarse.
|-
|
|scoping
|The project ran into a lot of complex topics that needed to be solved in the pilot design. The pilot lead has organised a series of meetings to discuss these topics.  
To keep focus at the core research questions and to limit resources needed, the pilot partners agreed to simplify whenever adequate, e.g. focussing at most important evidence type instead of all possible types, accepting request for one single evidence type at the time (instead of allowing requests for multiple evidence types), limiting to full powers validation to start with. The pilot benefitted from strict scoping.
|DBA advises the European Commission and Member States not to solve all user scenario's at once, but to focus on the most frequently used ones. Please focus on core functinality. And at the same time organise follow-ups on improvements and additions to address later on. 
|-
|
|company representation
|Use of eIDAS including legal entity attributes (company representation) is not widespread in the EU. Currently, there are just two eID scheme's notified including legal person attributes. For piloting the partners set up a pilot network of eIDAS nodes including legal person attributes to allow for piloting eProcedures for companies. In preparing for the pilot, Member States turned out to communicate company representation in different ways. Especially regaring the use of the eIDAS representative attributes (representative prefix). Furthermore, during pilot preparation eIDAS node 2.4 became available. This version of the CEF reference software enforced the eiDAS 1.2-specification that turned out to be in conflict with the agreed use of eIDAS attributes in the DBA pilot. The eIDAS 1.2 specification regarding representation is not necesarilly backwards compatible. As a result, this raised additional confusion and led to inconsistent deployments. 
|DBA advises the European Commission to clarify in advance which version of the eIDAS specificaton should be implemented for the SDGR to prevent incompatibility between Member State.
|-
|
|powers validation
|Validating full powers has been proven to be a first (and good) step in implementing cross-border OOP for businesses (requiring company representation). It allows for moving ahead with eIDAS as is available today and seems fitting for SME's (it will be an official representative initiating business abroad most of the time).
|DBA advises Member States to focus at implementing full-powers validation flows to start with. Adding more fine grained powers validation is required for 100% implementing the eProcedures, but also adds complexity to the solutions.


Furthermore, DBA advises the European Commission to facilitate validating full-powers using currently available eIDAS. this requires an additional policy rule - please see DBA design documentation regarding this topic. 

|-
|
|record matching
|The pilot partners agreed to provide the national company registry numbers as eIDASLegalIdentifier in the authentication flow (eIDAS authentication proxy role). This diminished the need to do record matching on companies at the data owner. There was not a substantial need to do record matching on the natura person by the data owners of the DBA pilot. 
|DBA advises Member States to use the national company id's as eIDASLegalIdentifiers when extending the pilot to SDG-wide implementation.
|-
|
|explicit request
|In some cases, users need to express consent for the retrieval of attributes (GDPR). In almost all cases when using the OOTS, the user needs to express explicit request (SDGR). Although legally sound, in practise the difference between both is difficult to understand for data evaluators. DE's furthermore expect that users will ignore such requests and just click "ok".
|DBA advises data evaluators to integrate (1) request to consent and (2) explicit request into one joint question to the user to prevent adding to the confusion - of course in case both are applicable at the same time. 
|-
|
|Multiple-MS scenario's
|Three- or multiple Member State scenario's (add examples) tend to get really complex, requiring disproportionate resources to analyse, design and implement.
|DBA advises Member States to start SDG-implementation with the simplest interaction patterns involving just two Membert States.
|-
|
|eIDAS non-notified eID
|Most of the participating Member States dind't operate a notified eID at the moment of piloting. On a bilateral basis non-notified eID's were accepted for piloting purposes, although pilot partners expressed their doubts regarding acceptance of non-notified eIDs for large scale SDG. Notification of eID's is a strong prerequisite for implementing SDG. Mandatory eID-notification as expected under the new eIDAS regulation (eIDAS revision) will not be in time for SDG-implementation.
|DBA advises The European Commission and the Member States without notified eID's to agree on a temporarily solution for using non-notified eID's in SDG-procedures.
|-
|
|sector specific systems
|For the DBA pilot alignment to - or integration with - BRIS has been an important topic from the start of the project. A lot of time has been spent on workshops, desk research and analysis. In the end, re-use of BRIS has been limitied to semantics. Re-use of information flows, building blocks, etc. was not possible due to difference in legal framework, governance, authorities involved, , solution implemented, etc.The solutions have been developed for different porposes and hence are not easily aligned. 
|Integration of the OOTS with sectoral systems (BRIS in this pilot) has proven to be not so straight forward as many expexted at the start of the project. Please take this into account. 
|-
|
|user interaction design
|Several data evaluators needed to implement the same logic in their specific systems, including user iteraction (general explanaition, explicit request, preview). The user interaction design across participating Member States turned out to show some differences in informative texts, detail of explanation, use of buttons, etc. This may lead to confusion for the user that deals with multiple data evaluators as well as a slow learning curve. DBA decided to provide a pilot-wide reference in the form of wireframes to allow for more uniformity across the pilot. 
|DBA advises the Europeon Commissin to provide wireframes in order to have generic steps (like Explicit Request and Preview) implemented in a similar way in all MS.
|}
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+''Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS''
!style="width: 2%"|id
!style="width: 10%"| topic
!style="width: 60%"| observations
!style="width: 28%"|lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|1
|planning and organising tasks
|<span style="color:red">The components to be used (in the pilot) were distributed over several authorities in a Member State, requiring the commitment from all authorities. This commitment is not obvious and must be secured beforehand. Also, as the systems are distributed, the teams working on the systems are distributed as well. Collaboration took more time and in each team, a battle for prioritizing needed to be fought. 
|DBA advises to allocate a multi-month phase for involving all organisations involved, aligning between them, prioritising, allocating financial means, etc. 

<span style="color:red">Furthermore, it is necessary to have a coordinating team (having sufficient knowledge about the solution) in each Member State to make sure that legal, semantical, technical and managerial issues are being resolved in a timely manner.
|-
|2
|handing over
|<span style="color:red">Design documents and specification have sometimes been interpreted by different piot partners in different ways. During preperation of the pilot or during interoperabuility testing such differences surfaced. It would be better to have a detailled common understanding of all the design details prior to the testing phase. Take the time for handing over Solution Architecture to WP3 and 5, and make sure that everything is understood. </span>
|DBA advises the European Commision to put additional efforts in explaining the workings of the SDG OOTS components to public authorities involved. The better the solution is understood by all, the smooher the SDG implementation will be. 
Please do not underestimate the national complexity that the SDG imposes on Member States, e.g. record matching. 
|-
|3
|documenting
|For developers of the common components, there's a lot of logic behind its internal logic, structure, configuration, etc. Deploying these components by the Member States in the DBA pilot raised several questions regarding the use of Docker images, configuration items that needed to be set correctly, required firewall and DNS settings, etc. Things were not always as straight forward as expected.
|<span style="color:red">DBA advises the European Commission to invest in proper and clear documentation for developers in Member States, so they can get the OOTS up and running with as less as possible efforts. Documentation should not be too cryptic and short, but definately also be not too extensive. Feedback on the documentation from first movers has proven to be very useful in the DBA pilot.</span>
|-
|4
|configuring
|The components needed for SDG rely heavily on use and exchange of certificates for server authentication, signing, etc. The process of acquiring the certificates turned out to be time-consuming and error-prone (all details must be in place when requesting the certificates). Furthermore, the procedure of requesting certificates is regulated in a way it requires signatures of responsible people within the requesting institution that do not on a daily basis work with - and understand the use of - certificates. Or people that are not available imidiately (company executives).
|DBA advises Member States to prepare for the steps to be taken to request the certificates needed to operate the OOTS. 
DBA advises the European Commission to investigate whether the process for acquiring the OOTS certificates can be simplified. 

DBA advises the European Commission to design a procedure for communication between Member States in case of change of certificates and to provide for certificate-rollover to guarantee OOTS-connectivity. 
|-
|5
|integrating DE and DO
|
<span style="color:red">When integrating to the DT/DR, expect to run into existing problems in the DO/DE systems that need resolving as well. This will create extra work, although the work is not directly being created due to integration with the DT/DR. The problems in the DE/DO systems were existing already, but were not causing real issues until then (problems were accepted) but might need to be resolved in order to achieve good integration to the DT/DR.</span>
|DBA advises Member States to take impact on existing systems into account. Including the backlog of items that might need to be resolved before being abble to connect to the OOTS. 
|-
|6
|interopability testing
|<span style="color:red">The<span style="color:red"><span> <span style="color:red">speed of development varies per Member State. Therefore readiness for cross-border testing (and piloting, for that matter) is also distributed in t<span style="color:red"><span>ime. MS A can have their DE ready months before MS B has (due to several impediments). Testing on fixed moments in time for all DEs and all DOs has proven not realistic, as does starting pilots at one moment in time. </span>
|Wider OOTS implementation requires more inter-Member State coordination regarding exchange of connectivity details, configuration and cross-border interoperability testing. Planning of these activities requires the attention needed and lots of flexibility from the Member States. DBA advises to take this into account when connecting the decentralised SDG OOTS components. We refer also to the eIDAS lessons learned with regards to exchange fo certificates etc.
|-
|7
|interopability testing
|The DBA pilot has proven that a lot of settings need to be configured corectly to allow succesful cross-border evidence exchange. During interopatbility testing (connecthatons) Member States sometimes had different views on what components or parameters had to be set in order to start testing. As a result, not in all cases the complete flow could be tested at once.
|<span style="color:red">Establish clear readiness criteria for DE/DO/DE4A Connector before starting connectathons.</span>
|-
|8
|interoperability testing
|Proper interoperability testing is only possible with the required test eID means. These national eID means have not always been easily available (depending on the MS-specific situation - dependancies on IdP's may exist). This hindered cross-border interoperability testing at some occasions. The effect of lacking test credentials will be much greater in case of large scale implementing the SDGR.
|DBA advises the European Commission to coordinate exchange of test credentials between Member States. Many-to-many "requesting and sending of eID's on a bilateral basis" should be prevented.
|-
|9
|reliance on eIDAS
|DBA pilotting - just as SDG implementation - relies on use of eIDAS. Unfortunately, eIDAS is not fully up and running in all Member States. In preparing for the DBA pilot, Member States had to setup eIDAS as well (pilot network of eIDAS nodes). In interoperability testing, several eIDAS related setup-issues needed to be solved.
|DBA advises the Member States to setup and test national eIDAS deployment prior to implementing the SDGR, to prevent this delaying SDGR.
|-
|10
|SDG implementing acts
|DBA pilot implementation has been delayed by numerous discussions (within Member States and between Member States) on alignment with the SDG OOTS that was being sketched at the same time. Although this approach had been deliberately chosen and agreed upon at the start of the DBA project (to enable real piloting and provide input to SDG), in practise discussions were raised over and over again.
|DBA advises the European Commission and Member States to be aware no such thing as 'a final version' exists in the area of inter-Member State information exchange. Moving forward step-by-step with versions currently available is crucial to progress. Note that continuous alignment with all European initiatived during single steps is not feasible and will delay each initiative started.
|-
|11
|Cooperation
|<span style="color:red">Slack seems to be a good means to have developers of different MS / WPs collaborate </span>
|DBA advises to facilitate technical experts of the Commission and the Member States to easily ask eachother questions, respond, etc. using a tool for this purpoise, e.g. Slack. 
|}

* 

*
*
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+''Technical, semantic and organisational/legal knowledge provided to other WPs''
!style="width: 2%"|id
!style="width: 10%"| topic
!style="width: 60%"| observations
!style="width: 28%"|lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|
|communication
|Implementation of the Oncle Only Principle might be interpreted as abstract by users / companies that might benefit from it. From a user perspective, there's not too much to see in the OOP-process. OOP might be interpreted as 'not a big deal' by the user. Large parts of the solution are "complexity under the hood". Hence, additional efforts are needed to explain in an understandible way the hugh difference that OOP makes. 
|Use visual tools to show the benefits of OOP to users, e.g. presentations and videos. 

<span style="color:red">Prepare the creation of an animation by setting up a good storyline and slides that illustrate the flow of the animation. </span>
|}


{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+''Pilot learning for “Sustainable impact and new governance models” WP (to be agreed e.g. Sustainability recommendations, standardisation needs)''
!
!topic
!observations
!lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|1
|harmonisation
|For fine-grained powers validation, Member States need to agree on a harmonised set of services. In the DBA pilot: the SDG procedures of annex II to start with.
|DBA advises the European Commission to organise the hamonisation process of services for cross-border powers validation (see SEMPER project results and DBA pilot for sample harmonisation).
|-
|2
|harmonisation
|For subscribing and notifying on company events / changes there needs to be a specified set of harmonised company event types.
|DBA advises the European Commission to organise the hamonisation process of event types for cross-border subscription & notification. See DBA pilot for example of harmonisation.
|}
*
*

*
{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+''Lessons being learned from users (questionnaires & interviews)''
!style="width: 2%"|id
!style="width: 10%"| topic
!style="width: 60%"| observations
!style="width: 28%"|lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|
|
|
|to fill in after receiving user feedback. 
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|}


{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+''Lessons being learned from DEs and DOs (results and outputs questionnaires & interviews)''
!
!topic
!observations
!lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|
|
|
|add some initial figures regarding efforts to connect to the OOP TS and to implement the SDG requirements (ER and preview). 
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|}



{| class="wikitable" style="width: 80%;"
|+''Other lessons from interaction with other initiatives (SEMPER, EBSI…)''
!style="width: 2%"|id
!style="width: 10%"| topic
!style="width: 60%"| observations
!style="width: 28%"|lessons for wider adoption and implementing SDG
|-
|
|scoping
|<span style="color:red"> (Potential) differences between the DE4A scope and the Implementing Act distract and demotivate participants from prioritizing development and deployment of changes in their national infrastructures.</span>
|Focus at the agreed project targets and stick to the plan. 
|-
|
|focus
|<span style="color:red"> It turned out to be difficult to focus on the pilot activities whlist at the same time a lot of initiatived gain momentum in the EU, like the eIDAS revision, SDG implementing act, etc. </span>
|<span style="color:red">The added value of the OOP TS compared to other developments / pilots / experiments in the EU must be broadcasted continuously in order to keep authorities involved and secure commitment.</span>
|-
|
|
|
|
|}
Ivar: these seem project-internal to me (I suggest to delete this from the evaluation):

*<span style="color:red"> Keep audit-trail and error-logging simple, considering the limited number of participating companies and the highly controlled fashion of the pilot.</span>
*<span style="color:red"> Collect pilot data in the most simple way possible, without risking data loss or integrity-loss. But don't set up complex systems to collect data for metrics.</span>


Ivar: Is this a lessons learned in the DBA pilot (I suggest to delete this from evaluation, it is in the financial domain and not so much the business information domain):

* <span style="color:red"> Bank account information is not part of the CompanyEvidence. But it can be requested to provide afterwards, in screens in the eProcedure after exchange of evidence by the OOP TS. It seems that BIC-codes are unique, but BANK-codes (like INGB etc) are not unique across Europe (but are unique within one country). The DE might do some kind of validation on the bankcode and might then run into issues because of new bank-codes (from Romania, for example) that are identical to bank-codes in the country of the DE (The Netherlands for example). DE systems should therefore consider closely how to work with bank information (when entered manually, but also in case of future extension of CompanyEvidence).  </span>

==3.3 Technical common criteria (questionnaire for evaluation?) ==
''[Qualitative description of preliminary conclusion per criterium. Explanation (in written) on how success criteria /metrics are related with Technical common criteria, distributed by pilot dimensions]''

''Openness => U, A''

''Transparency => U, V''

''Reusability => V, L''
** <span style="color:red"> eIDAS tech profile 1.2 is more prescriptive than profile 1.1. Depending on the way profile 1.1 is implemented in a MS, it might not work with the way 1.2 prescribes the implementation of this version, introducing an error in the authentication process between MS A (using 1.1) and MS B (using 1.2). </span>

''Technological neutrality and data portability => L''

''User-centricity => V''

''Inclusion and accessibility => U''

''Security and privacy => U''

''Administrative simplification => A, V''

''Effectiveness and efficiency => A, V''
** <span style="color:red"> Not sure if this is the right pace, but we should address the design decisions we made too. And for that matter, also say something about how we comply to the SDG (or where we deviate and why, for example we work with 1 company evidence type while the SDG states that a DE should not receive more attributes than they strictly need for the procedure, which might not always be the case in DBA). Another example is that the preview is provided by the DE, meaning that the transfer has already taken place.</span>

''[Qualitative comments, and follow-up with quantitative comments on second iteration]''

[[Pilot Procedures|Next Chapter: 4. Pilot Procedures]]