TIME AND PLACE

Held at Royal Crown Hotel in Brussels from 14.00 to 17.30 on June 4, 1997.

PARTICIPANTS:

Katarina Almquist, DIPLOMAT
Eduardo Argueso, TECODIS (part)
Alessandro Barbagli, DG13
Andrea Bini, AVANTI
Maarten Botterman, DG13
Peter Bruck, INFOWIN
Paul Devoldere, TOBASCO (part)
Carlos Ferrari, DIPLOMAT, TECODIS
Andrew Frayling, DIPLOMAT
Josef Hochgerner, DIPLOMAT
Noel Hodson, DIPLOMAT, GAT Chairman
Alan Husselbee, ETD (part)
Jeremy Millard, ETD (part)
Horace Mitchell, ETD
John Nolan, DG13
Andrew Page, DIPLOMAT
Robert Pestel, DG13 (part)
Christian Van Asbroeck, ETD, GAT Secretariat
Frank Wilson, IBCoBN

AGENDA:

14.00 opening
14.15 1. Guidelines status review
15.15 2. DIPLOMAT presentation
15.45 break
16.00 3. Introduction to AVANTI
16.15 4. Concertation, ownership, consensus, etc.
17.30 close

HIGHLIGHTS:

1. Guidelines status review

GAT-G1 (ETD) editor: H. Mitchell

• Comments had been received that this was appropriate as a guideline topic except that too mixed an audience is targetted and the scope is too broad
• Horace reported that the guideline would be split into different components and tabled a new GAT-G1a, narrowing the audience and scope
• It was agreed that this should now be progressed

• Current published text is H. Mitchell's original, void and
• To be replaced by Deirdre's new version when completed
• Scope Sheet to be made

GAT-G4 (EIES) - no representative at the meeting

• Scope Sheet published only

• Scope Sheet published only
• Full text will be submitted shortly after the meeting
• The guideline is based on TECODIS results only (so far)

2. DIPLOMAT presentation by J. Hochgerner, who gave an explanation of the DIPLOMAT objectives and way of working with consensus groups in 7 thematic areas. The result is a set of guidelines on telework, to be submitted to the EC in July, as a project deliverable.

3. Introduction to AVANTI by A. Bini. This project may have potential for guideline production, maybe in cooperation with G1 and G5.

4. Concertation, ownership, consensus, etc.

This point became central to the meeting as it appeared that :

• There is still confusion as to the nature of ACTS Guidelines
• The EC requires ACTS Guidelines ready by next September

H. Mitchell expressed concern that after 18 months of the chain's life and one year after ETD's and DIPLOMAT's start, the main discussion is still about what is a guideline and what "qualifies" as an ACTS Guideline ; in order to move forward we need to find a way to stop this debate and focus on getting work done and guidelines content enhanced.

Specific points discussed, clarified, and/or agreed :

• True ACTS Guidelines are "easy" to produce from hard technical research, but it is less obvious in human or policy areas
• According to Hill Steward's published review of guidelines, GAT G1 and maybe G5 could qualify, but the issue remains the participation of more projects
• Both the Chains (self- regulating) and the Concertation Steering Committee control the validity of proposals as true ACTS Guidelines

Conclusions and actions:

• RTD projects must be further encouraged to contribute to the production of ACTS Guidelines
• GAT will continue to work on "guidelines" with a "technical" basis as well as with a "human" basis and seek the involvement of more projects
• Guideline "champions" are encouraged to call meetings of selected projects in order to discuss contents, consensus and endorsement, and report at the next GAT meeting in September
• There is a strong demand for some ACTS Guidelines to be in publishable form before the September concertation meeting, and it is desirable that GAT should contribute at least one to this if at all possible
• It was agreed that DIPLOMAT guidelines should be handled by the chain on a separate track from RTD-derived guidelines, and that in addition to chain meetings linked to telework community meetings (e.g. at Stockholm) it is essential that the chain continues to be visible to the ACTS RTD community, to attract support from RTD projects and to contribute telework and related input to the overall guideline process
• The ETD project will focus its support to guidelines in the ACTS chain context on RTD and technology-related guidelines, DIPLOMAT will focus on the telework policy guidelines embedded in the DIPLOMAT workplan ; this will reduce the tendency to revert at each meeting to the "what is a guideline" debate

There was a general understanding that the guidelines on interoperability for telework (GAT-G1, lead: ETD, H. Mitchell) and distributed collaborative working (GAT-G5, lead: TECODIS, E. Argueso, E. Barrera) are promising and probably attractive for a wider ACTS audience to contribute to. A strong effort will be done to attract other ACTS projects in an "electronic concertation" starting by the end of June, based on one further iteration of the current documents. AVANTI already expressed an interest for active participation, all other GAT projects are invited to do so, and will be approached shortly.

The more general guideline on employment and jobs (GAT-G3, lead: DIPLOMAT, N. Hodson) is probably not in the focus of most ACTS projects, but nevertheless considered important. DIPLOMAT will not only try to involve ACTS projects, but also a wider audience.

The guideline on telework for SMEs (GAT-G2, lead: DIPLOMAT, D. Hunt) is included in the DIPLOMAT work, according to N. Hodson and A. Page. SInce nothing was presented regarding that guideline it was decided that GAT would leave it fully to the discretion of DIPLOMAT to progress this work.

The guideline on harbour telework (GAT-G4, lead: EIES) was not presented.

Appendix

Note From Frank Wilson,
GA Chain Group Rapporteur, extracted from his 06 Jun 97 message to GA Chain Chairs:

At the ACTS management steering committee there was a general discussion on guidelines, including a review by Hill Stewart of existing drafts. There was general concern that the products to be put between the standard covers called "ACTS Guidelines" should not be confused with other guidelines, recommendations, and formulations from the chains and working groups within chains.

The main points which seemed to obtain general acceptance were as follows:

1. An ACTS Guideline offers a consensus view from ACTS projects (2 or more).
2. The recommendation offered has been reviewed by some stated reference group and is supported by them.
3. A guidelines should be based on RTD results 'from ACTS'.
4. A guideline proposes an action which is well defined.
5. The action is proposed to a clearly defined target audience.
6. The reasoning is made clear - supporting results or data from ACTS.
7. The expected outcome of following the recommendation is also made clear.
So in summary, a guideline must :

• Be supported by a number of projects and have 'contributions' from them (so its not just their approval of a project deliverable or extract)
• Show WHO it is for
• Say WHAT they must do
• Argue WHY they should follow the advice
• Explain WHAT is the expected outcome
• Show clearly HOW IT IS AN ACTS GUIDELINE

Some 'guidelines' are written to influence policy directly and do not obtain inputs and contributions from other projects - so perhaps these should be addressed to their audience as what they really are : a recommendation from a working group or from a project recommending action. Perhaps not with ACTS results as a basis, or perhaps not with contributions from many projects.

As it was expressed in GAT "perhaps to deliver the good work of an activity as an ACTS Guideline is the wrong ambition". Many actions are producing valuable results, and these should find expression to their audience without doubt. However, to be explained as an ACTS Guideline, only those which do conform to the key points should be offered in that guise. Prepared by :
Christian Van Asbroeck
GAT Chain Secretariat