Goals and success criteria - Revision history

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2.2 Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS */

2022-02-10T15:27:34Z

3.2.2 Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2.1 Lessons learned from analysing and designing national integration of cross-border OOP */

2022-02-10T15:27:12Z

3.2.1 Lessons learned from analysing and designing national integration of cross-border OOP

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2 Learning towards Adoption */

2022-02-10T08:41:38Z

3.2 Learning towards Adoption

Ard.vanderheijden at 08:40, 10 February 2022

2022-02-10T08:40:59Z

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2.1 Lessons learned from analysing and designing national integration of cross-border OOP */

2022-02-10T08:35:27Z

3.2.1 Lessons learned from analysing and designing national integration of cross-border OOP

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2 Learning towards Adoption */

2022-02-10T08:35:04Z

3.2 Learning towards Adoption

Bart.vanbekkum: typos and minor changes

2022-02-09T13:54:41Z

typos and minor changes

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2.2 Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS */

2022-02-09T12:43:31Z

3.2.2 Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.2.2 Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS */

2022-02-09T12:42:41Z

3.2.2 Lessons learned from implementing and testing the DE4A OOTS

Ard.vanderheijden: /* 3.1 Introduction */

2022-02-09T12:41:24Z

3.1 Introduction

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 |SDG implementing acts
 |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 initiatives during single steps is not feasible and will delay each initiative started.
-|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<span style="color:blue"> and caused prioritization challenges for the pilot activities of partners. </span>
+|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 and caused prioritization challenges for the pilot activities of partners.
 |-
 |11

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 |7
 |Multiple-MS scenario's
-|DBA advises Member States to <span style="color:green"> make an early start with the analysis of the SDG-implementation where data exchange involves more than 2 Member States.
+|DBA advises Member States to make an early start with the analysis of the SDG-implementation where data exchange involves more than 2 Member States.
-|<span style="color:green">The pilot involved 2 Member States in the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot. </span>
+|The pilot involved 2 Member States in the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot.
 |-
 |8

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 |Multiple-MS scenario's
 |DBA advises Member States to <span style="color:green"> make an early start with the analysis of the SDG-implementation where data exchange involves more than 2 Member States.
-|<span style="color:green">The pilot involved 2 Member States with the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot. </span>
+|<span style="color:green">The pilot involved 2 Member States in the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot. </span>
 |-
 |8

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 |7
 |Multiple-MS scenario's
-|DBA advises Member States to <span style="color:green"> make an early stat with the analysis of the SDG-implementation where data exchange involves more Thant 2 Member States.
+|DBA advises Member States to <span style="color:green"> make an early start with the analysis of the SDG-implementation where data exchange involves more than 2 Member States.
 |<span style="color:green">The pilot involved 2 Member States with the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot. </span>
 |-

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 |Multiple-MS scenario's
 |DBA advises Member States to <span style="color:green"> make an early stat with the analysis of the SDG-implementation where data exchange involves more Thant 2 Member States.
-|<span style="color:blue">The pilot involved 2 Member States with the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot. </span>
+|<span style="color:green">The pilot involved 2 Member States with the exchange of information on companies and representatives. The level of complexity for analysis increases vastly with each additional Member state that is involved in the exchange of information on representatives and companies. An example of a 3 MS-scenario could be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) also from Member State A, which applies for a service from a Service Provider in Member State B and having to hand over evidence that is available in Member State C. Such an analysis introduces a level of complexity that exceeded the constraints of the pilot. </span>
 |-
 |8

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 |3
 |Company representation
-|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 States.
+|DBA advises the European Commission to clarify in advance which version of the eIDAS specification should be implemented for the SDGR to prevent incompatibility between Member States.
-|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.
+|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 regarding 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.
 |-
 |4
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 |7
 |Multiple-MS scenario's
-|DBA advises Member States to start SDG-implementation with the simplest interaction patterns involving just two Membert States.
+|DBA advises Member States to start SDG-implementation with the simplest interaction patterns involving just two Member States.
-|Three- or multiple Member State scenario's (add examples) tend to get really complex, requiring disproportionate resources to analyse, design and implement.
+|Three- or multiple Member State scenario's tend to get really complex, requiring disproportionate resources to analyse, design and implement. An example of a 3 MS-scenario would be a natural person (representative) from MS A, representing a legal person (represented) from MS B, based on a mandate registered in MS B, to apply for a service form a SP in MS C.
 |-
 |8
@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 |9
 |Sector specific systems
-|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.
+|Integration of the OOTS with sectoral systems (BRIS in this pilot) has proven to be not so straight forward as many expected at the start of the project.
 |For the DBA pilot alignment to - or integration with - BRIS has been an important topic from the start of the project. Much time has been spent on workshops, desk research and analysis. In the end, re-use of BRIS has been limited 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 purposes and hence are not easily aligned.
 |-
 |10
 |User interaction design
-|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.
+|DBA advises the European Commission to provide wireframes in order to have generic steps (like Explicit Request and Preview) implemented in a similar way in all MS.
 |Several data evaluators needed to implement the same logic in their specific systems, including user iteraction (general explanation, 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.
 |}
@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 |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.
 The national complexity that the SDG imposes on Member States (e.g. record matching) is easily underestimated.
-|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.
+|Design documents and specification have sometimes been interpreted by different pilot partners in different ways. During preperation of the pilot or during interoperability 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.
 |-
 |3
@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 |7
 |Interopability testing
-|Establish clear readiness criteria for DE/DO/DE4A Connector before starting connectathons.
+|Establish clear readiness criteria for DE/DO DE4A Connector before starting connectathons.
-|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.
+|The DBA pilot has proven that a lot of settings need to be configured correctly to allow succesful cross-border evidence exchange. During interoperability 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.
 |-
 |8
@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 |10
 |SDG implementing acts
-|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.
+|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 initiatives during single steps is not feasible and will delay each initiative started.
-|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 <span style="color:blue"> and caused prioritization challenges for the pilot activities of partners. </span>
+|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<span style="color:blue"> and caused prioritization challenges for the pilot activities of partners. </span>
 |-
 |11
 |Cooperation
-|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.
+|DBA advises to facilitate technical experts of the Commission and the Member States to easily ask each other questions, respond, etc. using a tool for this purpose, e.g. Slack.
 |Slack seems to be a good means to have developers of different MS / WPs collaborate.
 |}
@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 Prepare the creation of an animation by setting up a good storyline and slides that illustrate the flow of the animation.
-|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.
+|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 understandable way the hugh difference that OOP makes.
 |}
@@ Line 174: / Line 174: @@
 |1
 |Harmonisation
-|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).
+|DBA advises the European Commission to organise the harmonisation process of services for cross-border powers validation (see SEMPER project results and DBA pilot for sample 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.
 |-
 |2
 |Harmonisation
-|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.
+|DBA advises the European Commission to organise the harmonisation process of event types for cross-border subscription & notification. See DBA pilot for example of harmonisation.
 |For subscribing and notifying on company events / changes there needs to be a specified set of harmonised company event types.
 |}

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == 3.1 Introduction ==
-The analyses conducted with regards to challenges that the implementation of the SDGR introduces, as wel as the realization of the infrastructure implementing the SDGR and conclusions of these analyses, proved very fruitful. This chapter
+The analyses conducted with regards to challenges that the implementation of the SDGR introduces, as wel as the realization of the infrastructure implementing the SDGR and conclusions of these analyses, proved very fruitful. This chapter summarizes the lessons learned form these activities, and provides suggestions for the implementation and adoption of the SDGR implementation.
 ==3.2 Learning towards Adoption==