D8.2 Executive Summary

MAS2TERING is a three-year technology-driven and business-focussed project, aimed at developing an innovative information and communication technology (ICT) platform for the monitoring and optimal management of low-voltage distribution grids. MAS2TERING will combine last-mile connectivity solutions with distributed optimisation technologies, while enhancing the security of increased bi-directional communications, to significantly enhance the management of the grid at distribution level and create new business opportunities. In particular, the project aims at enabling new collaboration opportunities between grid operators and telecom and energy companies, both from technology and business perspectives.

MAS2TERING builds upon five pillars:

  1. Interoperability – for ensuring convergence of network (ICT) and transmission (grid) protocols for enhanced cooperation and communication;
  2. Reliability and security – for trusted services provision and enhanced resilience;
  3. Decentralised and self-organising architecture – for enhanced flexibility in grid control and management, and for increased resilience through self-healing;
  4. Smart ICT components for complex systems monitoring and management – for monitoring and optimal management of the grid; and
  5. Innovative business models – for increased participation by stakeholders (e.g. users, telecom operators, utilities, DSO, etc.) – to release investments required for a thorough upgrade of the energy infrastructure (current document scope).

The project consortium includes prominent industrial organisations and research institutes from the European energy, telecom and security fields. Nine project partners are CEA, Smart Metering Systems (formerly Utility Partnership Limited), R2M Solutions, ENGIE (formerly GDF Suez), Airbus CyberSecurity (formerly Cassidian), Telecom Italia, Cardiff University, Waterford Institute of Technology and Laborelec. These partners are from five European countries, namely: France, United Kingdom, Italy, Ireland, and Belgium.

D8.2 Table of Contents

  • Document Information
  • Declaration by the scientific representative of the project coordinator
  • Table of Contents
  • List of Figures and Tables
  • Abbreviations
  • 1 Publishable summary
  • 1.1     Project overview and objectives
  • 1.2     Summary of activities and main achievements
  • 1.3     Expected final outcomes and potential impacts
  • 1.4     Consortium information
  • 2     Objectives and achievements for the M1-12 period
  • 2.1     Whole project
  • 2.1.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.1.2     Summary of activities
  • 2.1.3     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.1.4     Deviations
  • 2.2     WP1 – Services, business models & requirements definition
  • 2.2.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.2.2     Summary of WP activity
  • 2.2.3     Description of activities per task
  • 2.2.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.3     WP2 – Technical requirements, ICT platform architecture design, integration and delivery
  • 2.3.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.3.2     Summary of WP activity
  • 2.3.3     Summary of activities per task
  • 2.3.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.4     WP3 – Multi-agent systems and optimization
  • 2.4.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.4.2     Summary of WP activity per partner
  • 2.4.3     Summary of activities per task
  • 2.4.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.5     WP4 – Design & development of cyber-security components for Smart Grids
  • 2.5.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.5.2     Summary of WP activity
  • 2.5.3     Summary of activities per task
  • 2.5.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.6     WP5 – Design and Development of the MAS Components and Interfaces
  • 2.6.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.6.2     Summary of WP activity
  • 2.6.3     Summary of activities per task
  • 2.6.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.7     WP6 – Use cases and validation
  • 2.7.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.7.2     Summary of WP activity
  • 2.7.3     Summary of activities per task
  • 2.7.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.8     WP7 – Dissemination and exploitation
  • 2.8.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.8.2     Summary of WP activity
  • 2.8.3     Summary of activities per task
  • 2.8.4     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.9     WP8 – Project management
  • 2.9.1     Objectives for the M1-12 period
  • 2.9.2     Summary of activities par task
  • 2.9.3     Progress towards the realization of the objectives
  • 2.10     Summary and assessment of partners contributions
  • 2.10.1     CEA
  • 2.10.2     SMS (formerly UPL)
  • 2.10.3     R2M Solutions
  • 2.10.4     ENGIE (formerly GDF Suez)
  • 2.10.5     Cassidian Cybersecurity
  • 2.10.6     Telecom Italia
  • 2.10.7     Cardiff University
  • 2.10.8     Waterford Institute of Technology (TSSG)
  • 2.10.9     Laborelec
  • 2.10.10     Planned vs spent effort
  • 2.10.11     Additional costs
  • 3     Communication and dissemination activities in the first period
  • 3.1     Communication
  • 3.2     Dissemination
  • 3.3     Stakeholders engagement
  • 4     Deliverables and milestones tables
  • 5     Explanation of the use of the resources
  • 6     Financial status summary

D8.2 Highlights

Milestones & Deliverables Status at Month 12:

Milestone number Milestone name Work package Expected date Comments Status
MS1 Business convergence I workshop (Telecom/ grid operator/ utility) takes place. WP1 M3 Short summary of the

workshop, including list of participants, submitted to the PTC.

Complete
MS2 Value-Driven Advisory group members list is confirmed. WP7 M3 List of Advisory group members and related letters of confirmation included in the project handbook (delivered at M3). Complete.
MS3 Detailed use cases scenarios definition starts based the outcomes of the second thematic workshop. WP6 M10 Minutes of WP6 KO meeting available to the PTC. Note that this milestone is also related to WP1. Complete. WP6 and the refinement of the use cases has started way earlier than what was initially planned in the DoW.
MS4 First use cases assessment based on the first version of the integrated platform (delivered at M24). WP6 M27 Internal delivery – related WP6 technical meeting minutes submitted to the PTC. Note that this milestone is also related to WP2 to 5. The refinement of the use cases has progressed a lot – it was one of the priorities of this 1st year. The technology development is progressing as planned. No delay is therefore expected on this milestone.
MS5 Standardisation focused dissemination strategy is defined based on deliverables 4.1 and 5.2. WP7 M24 Minutes of M24 project general assembly. This milestone is also related to WP4 and 5. While a thorough assessment of the relevant standards has been lead (specifically as part of WP5), the dissemination strategy to reach the standardization bodies is still to be defined.
MS6 Post-project enabling technologies market uptake strategy is assessed WP7 M36 Exploitation status report delivered at M36. Note that this milestone is also related to WP1. This milestone has not been addressed during the first period. It is intended to lead, during the second period, an in-depth assessment of the project’s exploitable results. This work will set the foundations for the definition of the post-project market uptake strategy.

The following highlights on partners’ effort consumption are worth being mentioned:

  • CEA: The effort spent is in line with previsions, except minor deviations in WP1 (0.3 instead of 0.5 pm) and WP4 (1.65 instead of 2 p.m). In WP1, the inputs required from technology partners (and specifically from CEA, the lead developer of the Multi-Agent Systems platform) were less significant than planned. In WP4, the delays that experienced the WP resulted in a slightly lower consumption than planned. In WP6, the effort is larger than planned to the earlier start of the WP.
  • SMS: Efforts are in line with expectations except for WP4 (same justification as for CEA) and WP6 (same justification as CEA).
  • R2M: Efforts are in line with expectations except for WP6 (same justification as CEA).
  • ENGIE: actual efforts are behind the initial targets in all WPs except WP5, WP6, WP7 and WP8. This is due to a loss of confidence of the project management related in particular to the delays experienced in the signature of the consortium agreement. For WP1, the inputs requested were less significant than planned and focused review work. For WP3, it is due to a contribution scope change to enhance partners complementary: we removed our participation to the development of the forecast component to increase our participation to the integration activities. WP7 involvement was on the contrary higher than planned due to an unexpected overload related to the coordination of the WP. For WP6, planned efforts are in line with actual efforts on year 1 (initial planning), the effort were intensified as from September 15 (at a time the negotiations gave assurance that convergence would be reached on the consortium agreeement)..
  • CCS: Consumption is lower than planned in WP2,3,5. This relates to the development tasks, which were less intense in year 1 than expected. This will be compensated by an intensification of these activities in years 2 and 3.  In WP7, the contribution of CCS on the exploitation activities was lower than expected. WP8 required more effort due to the negotiations that took place on the Non-Disclosure agreement and on the Consortium Agreement. In WP6, the effort is larger than planned to the earlier start of the WP.
  • TI: Efforts are in line except for WP5. The main deviations relates to the 3PMs anticipated in task T5.3. The task was anticipated because the Smart Meter from SMS was already available and since UC1 is considered an “enabler” for UC2 and UC3, we anticipated the work in order to mitigate the risks left to the integration phase. In WP6, the effort is larger than planned to the earlier start of the WP.
  • CU: The following deviations can be mentioned. In WP1, a Senior researcher was involved in this WP, as opposed to junior researchers costed for in the proposal, resulting in less person-months during the review period. In WP3, senior researcher spent more time during the reporting period due to the need for the management of the work package. Mid-level researcher started on the project later than anticipated due to the employment formalities. In WP4: Senior researchers were mostly involved in this WP, as opposed to junior researchers costed for in the proposal In WP5: Mid-level researcher was employed at a higher grade than costed for during proposal development, which resulted in less person months than originally anticipated. The employment of experienced researcher resulted in the same work but with less amount of time. In WP6, the effort is larger than planned to the earlier start of the WP.
  • TSSG: no significant deviations except for WP6 (same justification as other partners).
  • LAB: Actual efforts are behind the initial targets in all WPs except WP6 (earlier start of the WP). This is due to the delays experienced in the signature of the consortium agreement, which resulted in a loss of confidence of the project management in LAB.

With respect to effort consumption at WP-level:

  • The effort spent on WP1 is lower than expected. This relates to two main factors: the delay in the signature of the consortium agreement, which prevented some partners to get involved at the level initially planned and; the low involvement of technology partners in the initial steps of WP1.
  • The effort spent on WP2 is slightly lower than planned but the deviation is not significant (slightly more than 6%).
  • The effort spent in WP3 is slightly lower than planned (approx. 10 %). This is mostly due to a change of category of staff in some partners (e.g. CU).
  • The effort spent in WP4 is in line with expectations. Please note that, as mentioned earlier, the lack of involvement in the first three months of the WP was compensated by the intensification of effort in the subsequent stages.
  • The effort spent in WP5 is higher than planned. This is due to the deviation in TI partner effort (see justification above).
  • The effort spent on WP6 is significantly higher than planned. This is due to the earlier start of the work-package.
  • The effort spent in WP7 is in line with expectations.
  • The effort spent in WP8 is in line with expectations.

At the project level, the effort spent is on the whole higher than planned. This is mainly due to the earlier start of WP6.

D8.2 Conclusion

This progress report had to be submitted two weeks before the review, at a time when the individual financial statements of the partners were not finalized. The end of the 1st period is actually the end of August 2015 and the financial departments of the partners need a few weeks to consolidate the financial data, before submitting them to the EC. This is the reason why the financial information given in this section and the previous one may be subject to slight variations at consolidation time, in particular for what concerns the personnel expenses*. The assumption is however that the information is reliable enough to give a good picture of the project financial status at M12.

D8.2 Download Link

mas2tering_deliverable_8-2_first_periodic-report-m12