1. **Executive summary**

  

  

The present document is a **living document that is continuously updated and**
summarizes the actions taken to create awareness about the results being
generated in the MarketPlace project and to create an open research
dissemination infrastructure. In view of the future sustainable operation of
the MarketPlace, a list of key exploitable results (KER) has been compiled and
is presented. This list of KER on the one hand is based on the MarketPlace
infrastructure and its commercial exploitation. On the other hand it considers
the interests of stakeholders in potentially using the MarketPlace for their
business. A detailed first business plan for a sustainable operation of the
MarketPlace is subject to deliverable D 6.6 of WP6 where first rough estimates
of possible revenues, costs and market size are given and a preliminary “SWOT”
analysis identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threads for
a potential commercial MarketPlace operation are summarized. Based on
extensive lists of SWO and end-users available e.g. in the EMMC, the present
document provides an initial list of SWO which have been personally contacted
and informed in full detail about the possibilities and options of the
MarketPlace.

  2. **Introduction and Objectives**

  

  

The MarketPlace project is expected to generate a considerable amount of
intellectual property rights (IPR), which is open to exploitation by all
partners in the consortium, with the contractual basis for this exploitation
being the consortium agreement CA. Details for the exploitation of project
results are tackled in subtask 6.2.1, while exploitation of third party data
in an open data research management is addressed in subtask 6.2.2. From these
subtasks, a Key Exploitable Results (KER) register and metadata for their
preliminary assessment is compiled. This business plan itself - as a
culmination of the assessment of the KER - is tackled in a separate task and
its respective deliverable (D 6.6).

The scope of this task is to develop, to agree and to implement a strategy for
the exploitation of the combined body of IPR, This strategy eventually –
together with D 6.6 - will condensed into a report being compiled by the
Dissemination and Exploitation (DE) Board.

  3. **Open Research Data Management**

  

  

The DE board keeps track of the generated data and advise partners which data
can be open and how to manage the curation. This task results in the first
draft elaborating a Data Management Plan (DMP) for the results of the project.
Key Outcomes are a Data Management Plan for project results (M12) and
eventually an inventory of open accessible results being made publicly
available (M54).

To date no data has been generated as these are expected to emanate from WP5
where all data generation application did not yet quite start.

  1. **Data Management Plan**

  

  

Before any journal article, software code or data is published, the DE
(Dissemination & Exploitation board) will consult all relevant partners to
resolve potential IP issues. Upon mutual agreement the DE eventually gives
clearance for the data to be disclosed. It is expected that at least all
extensions to the e-CUDS and e-CUBA as well as the APIs will be open and
freely available. The same holds for all non-mission critical data from WP5,
which will become openly available as use cases and tutorials on the
MarketPlace platform.

An account has been created at the Open Research Data Pilot (ORDP):

_https://www.openaire.eu/_ ,  for user “MarketPlace” has been generated where
future publications will be registered by the DE board after clearance by the
partners.

  2. **Inventory of project results**

  

  

The inventory of project results in a first place consists of documents,
publications, and presentations.

####  3.2.1 Publications (until 30.6.2018)

  1. Schmitz, G.J.: “Entropy and Geometric Objects”; Entropy 2018, 20(6), 453; https://doi.org/10.3390/e20060453 (spin-off publication from EMMO discussions) 

  

  2. Arpit Singhal, Adham Hashibon, “OpenFoam Interactive (OFI) an interface to control solvers in OpenFOAM”, Proceedings of Particles 2019\. 

  

  

####  3.2.2 Publications (under preparation)

  1. Arpit Singhal, Yoav Nahshon, Pablo De Andres, A. Hashibon. “A Universal 

  

  

Open Simulation Platform for Materials Modelling and Data Management”.

  2. A. Hashibon. “Interoperability and practical ontology for materials modelling and data spaces”. 

  

  3. Heinz Presig et al. “from ontology wot workflows“ (tentative title) 

  

  4. Jesper Friis, Pablo de Andres, A. Hashibon. “EMMO CUDS and OWL” (tentative title). 

  

  5. L. Koschmieder, S. Hojda, M. Apel, R. Altenfeld, Y. Bami, H. Farivar, C. Haase, A. Vuppala, G. Hirt, G.J. Schmitz: “AixViPMaP® -an operational platform for microstructure modelling workflows”, submitted to: Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation; 

  

  6. G. J. Schmitz: „Computerbasierte Materialentwicklung damals, heute und morgen - 

  

  

Von der Werkstoffkunde zur Materialwissenschaft“, RWTH Themen Ausgabe November
2018 (for general public)

####  3.2.3 Presentations of MarketPlace activities (until 30.06.2018)

Only presentations comprising MarketPlace related content and being given at
events with participants beyond EMMC-CSA and MarketPlace partners are listed
in the following:  
  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

Date

</th>  
<th>

Place

</th>  
<th>

by

</th>  
<th>

Event

</th>  
<th>

Audience

# /type

</th>  
<th>

Remarks/ download from

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

17.-21.6.19

</td>  
<td>

Quebec/

Kanada

</td>  
<td>

G.Goldbeck &

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

NAFEMS World meeting

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

12-

14.06.2019

</td>  
<td>

Bucharest

</td>  
<td>

A.Singhal

</td>  
<td>

EuroNanoForum 2019

</td>  
<td>

50-60

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

14-

15.5.2019

</td>  
<td>

Freiburg

</td>  
<td>

A. Hashibon

</td>  
<td>

Material Digital

</td>  
<td>

60 industry)

</td>  
<td>

(scientific,

</td>  
<td>

a presentation about Marketplace and DSMS system.

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

6-7.5.2019

</td>  
<td>

Lausanne

</td>  
<td>

G. Goldbeck

</td>  
<td>

EMMC Expert Group Meeting:

Business Models of

MarketPlaces

</td>  
<td>

15

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

Joint EMMC-MarketPalce-VIMMP-

Talk: Marketplace Personas and

Market Segments

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

6-7.5.2019

</td>  
<td>

Lausanne

</td>  
<td>

G. J. Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

EMMC Expert Group Meeting:

Business Models of

MarketPlaces

</td>  
<td>

15

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

Business models

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

6-7.5.2019

</td>  
<td>

Lausanne

</td>  
<td>

A. Hashibon

</td>  
<td>

EMMC Expert Group Meeting:

Business Models of

MarketPlaces

</td>  
<td>

15

</td>  
<td>

General presentation on the goals of Marketplace

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

8.4.-

13.4.19

</td>  
<td>

Korea

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

along with ACCESS specific product presentations

</td>  
<td>

several companies

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

26.2.-

28.2.19

</td>  
<td>

Vienna

</td>  
<td>

Arpit Singhal,

Adham

Hashibon

</td>  
<td>

EMMC International Workshop

</td>  
<td>

expected 150 (invited specialists)

</td>  
<td>

Poster

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

26.2.-

28.2.19

</td>  
<td>

Vienna

</td>  
<td>

multiple presenters

</td>  
<td>

EMMC International Workshop

</td>  
<td>

expected 150 (invited specialists)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

23.11.18

</td>  
<td>

Pune/India

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

company seminar at

Bharat Forge

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

35 (scientific/ engineering)

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

6.- 7.11.18

</td>  
<td>

Freiburg

</td>  
<td>

Konstandin

</td>  
<td>

IntOP workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

80 (science engineering)

</td>  
<td>

and

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

6.- 7.11.18

</td>  
<td>

Freiburg

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

IntOP workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

80 (science engineering)

</td>  
<td>

and

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

1.-7.11.18

</td>  
<td>

Freiburg

</td>  
<td>

A.Hashibon

</td>  
<td>

IntOP workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

80

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

1.-7.11.18

</td>  
<td>

Freiburg

</td>  
<td>

A.Singhal,

A.Hashibon

</td>  
<td>

IntOP worshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

80

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

Poster presentation

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

25.-

26.10.18

</td>  
<td>

Paris/

France

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

SWO workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

15 (SWO)

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

entire workshop was discussions only

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

17.-18.9.18

</td>  
<td>

Cambridge/

UK

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

EMMO Workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

20 (scientific/ engineering)

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

6.-7.9.18

</td>  
<td>

Aachen

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

ThermoCalc meeting/Germany

</td>  
<td>

user

</td>  
<td>

25 (scientific/ engineering)

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

28.8.18

</td>  
<td>

Aachen

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

German-Chinese seminar

</td>  
<td>

student

</td>  
<td>

50 (students/

PhDcandidates)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

4.7.18

</td>  
<td>

Cambridge/

UK

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

SWO workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

15 (SWO)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

29.6.18

</td>  
<td>

Brussels

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

Ontology workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

70 (scientific/ engineering

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

29.6.18

</td>  
<td>

Brussels

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

ontology workshop

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

70 (scientific/ engineering

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

14.-15.6.18

</td>  
<td>

Solna/

Sweden

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

Thermo-Calc user meeting

</td>  
<td>

50 (scientific/

Engineering)

</td>  
<td>

no dedicated presentation, but contributions to discussions

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

11.-13.6.18

</td>  
<td>

Uppsala/

Sweden

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

Uppsala

</td>  
<td>

80 (scientific/

Engineering)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

25.-27.4.18

</td>  
<td>

Technion

Haifa/Israel

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

Umbrella Symposium

</td>  
<td>

40 (scientific)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

12.3.-

16.3.18

</td>  
<td>

Phoenix/

USA

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

TMS/ ICME committee meeting

</td>  
<td>

60 (scientific/ engineering)

</td>  
<td>

no dedicated presentation, but contributions to discussions interviews with
SWO

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

19.-

22.11.18

</td>  
<td>

Trivandrum/

India

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

ICSSP 7

</td>  
<td>

100 (scientific)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr> </table>

####  3.2.4 Presentations (scheduled for 2019 and beyond)  
  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

Date

</th>  
<th>

Place

</th>  
<th>

by

</th>  
<th>

Event

</th>  
<th>

Audience

# /type

</th>  
<th>

Remarks

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

21.-26.7.19

</td>  
<td>

Indianapolis/

USA

</td>  
<td>

G.J.Schmitz

</td>  
<td>

5th ICME World Congress

</td>  
<td>

expected 200

(scientist/engineers)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

15-

19.07.2019

</td>  
<td>

Valencia

</td>  
<td>

A.Singhal

</td>  
<td>

ICIAM 2019

</td>  
<td>

expected 100

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr> </table>

####  3.2.5 Inventory of MarketPlace owned software codes / data

The software being developed is available on a project folder on GitLab called
“MarketPlace” to which every project partner has access. The GitLab is
complemented by https://mattermost.cc-asp.fraunhofer.de/- a free slack
communication channel hosted by Fraunhofer for EU-MarketPlace, facilitating
discussions on software in the project.

The MarketPlace Project folder on Gitlab (see screenshot below) has currently
21 software code projects, most under heavy development.

These current repositories (code projects) are:

  1. _MarketPlace / EMMO_

  

  2. _MarketPlace / ontology-MarketPlace_

  

  3. _MarketPlace / UserCases-Apps_

  

  4. _MarketPlace / simlammps_

  

  5. _MarketPlace / wrappers_sdk_

  

  6. _MarketPlace / Web_ **(the platform)**

  

  7. _MarketPlace / file-io_

  

  8. _MarketPlace / simopenfoam_

  

  9. _MarketPlace / osp-core_

  

  10. _MarketPlace / osp-rest-api_

  

  11. _MarketPlace / ExpertAPP_

  

  12. _MarketPlace / unittest_

  

  13. _MarketPlace / ontology-tools_

  

  14. _MarketPlace / h5cuds_

  

  15. _MarketPlace / MODA_

  

  16. _MarketPlace / OF_

  

  17. _MarketPlace / Knowledge_

  

  18. _MarketPlace / MRDB_ **(materials relations DB)**

  

  19. _MarketPlace / simliggghts_

  

  

A first example for a code entering into practical use is the EMMO-CUDS data
containers based on a Python API for EMMO and the core for OSP-CORE.
Additional interfaces are Ontology Tools for representing EMMO classes in
Python based on  Owlready2  allowing for mapping to and from EMMO and from
EMMO to CUDS. These are made available for MarketPlace together with the
current owl sources for EMMO at _gitlab.cc-_

_asp.fraunhofer.de:MarketPlace/ontology.git_ , where the Python API itself can
be found in the python/ folder in the "rooted_relations" branch.

Currently all projects have an MIT business friendly license, however they are
not publicly available. As the development proceeds, the licensing of each of
the components will be evaluated with respect to exploitation plans. Ideally
all codes are open and then transferred to the entity running the Marketplace
as per the conditions lady out in the GA and CA. The DE and all involved
partners will update starting from M20 the status of each code they produce or
contribute to with respect to potential exploitation within and outside the
project.

####  3.2.6 Inventory of open accessible project results

The few by now available, open accessible and documented results are indicated
in the above sections including their access details like their DoI or
download links.

These open accessible results are complemented by results being disclosed in a
bilateral way. Such results especially relate to ontologies (owl files)
developed together with the VIMMP project like the European Virtual Market
Place Ontology (EVMPO) or sub-ontologies being developed by the MarketPlace
consortium and being shared with the VIMMP consortium.
(production_processes.owl; material.owl, models.owl, software.owl,..). For
details of these ontologies see Deliverable 3.1 on “Software Solutions Service
(First Version)”.

  4. **Handling of project outcomes**

  

  

**4.1 IPR exploitation strategy**

The IPR exploitation strategy (M18, first draft, M48 final) is based on the
assumption that the MarketPlace will start from scratch, meaning the
MarketPlace a priori does not own any resources or tradable objects.

In principle it thus cannot provide/offer any products/services but only can
broker existing products/services.

A minimum requirement of resources for operating a MarketPlace is a minimum
hardware hosting a MarketPlace SW architecture allowing at least steering the
brokering process.

What then can be brokered is:

  * Hardware (“Hardware as a Service”. This is not really the aim but may perhaps become part of the game. Other players are around or emerging here like e.g. the European Grid Infrastructure EGI 

  

  * Software (agent type distribution of temporary licenses via the Marketplace). The software is eventually run by the end users on their own computers. Strategies like this are followed e.g. in the Fortissimo project. In a typical setting finders fees of about 10% of the sales price can be expected as income for the MarketPlace 

  

  * “Software as a Service” (SaaS) means to temporarily run third party software on MarketPlace owned hardware or alternatively on brokered hardware. This requires extensive negotiations with the owners of the software, the owners of the brokered hardware as well as an accounting system. Fees for the software use have to be agreed and might lead to revenue of 5-10 % of the costs being charged by the SWO in case such type of usage is covered by his portfolio at all. 

  

  * “Data as a Service”. This will need strong negotiations in case of commercially available datasets. The providers of such datasets in general do not see any business model here as the data - once released - can hardly be further sold. Academic data could be brokered, but the question is how revenues can be generated for such basically free and open data. 

  

  * Simulation ”Workflow manager”: This is a tool allowing orchestrating a configurable variety of other apps. “Apps” here are software in combination with the hardware they are executed on in a SaaS type approach. Besides the revenues for the individual apps, revenues could be generated from charging for the use of the Workflow-manager and especially for its configuration. 

  

The MarketPlace SW architecture accordingly must allow at least for

  * Communication between distributed resources/apps and the MarketPlace backend 

  

  * Orchestrating workflows 

  

  * Communication between end-users and the MarketPlace (FrontEnd) 

  

  * Monitoring of the brokerage procedure: Which resources (hardware/software) were used by a specific customer? for which time? etc. 

  

  * Authentication of users and their rights to use specific apps. 

  

  * Billing end users and paying HW/SW providers for the brokered services 

  

An alternative approach may be an architecture, where “Applications” (Apps)
register with the MarketPlace. Once being registered with the MarketPlace, it
is possible to use such registered Applications in a Workflow. An Application
here is any kind of software that can communicate with MarketPlace through a
REST API. Therefore, the Application can be run on MarketPlace hardware, on
Provider hardware or on cloud services. This means that MarketPlace can offer
following services to providers (software and/or Hardware), for example:

  * Building required wrappers enabling SWO to build applications out of their existing software or database services that they would like to offer through MarketPlace, 

  

  * Broker hardware (preferably cloud services, as these significantly reduce investment/maintenance needs and risks for MarketPlace) for Providers to run their Applications on, 

  

  * Provide competence on how to best define, use and exploit metadata in a semantic interoperability setting, such as the workflow, so that a Provider's software or data can be used in Workflows, "Bringing your model to the MarketPlace!" 

  

The present MarketPlace architecture does not distinguish between software and
data. Both can be sold as Products, if contained in an Application being (i)
registered at the MarketPlace and (ii) connected to MarketPlace by a Provider.

  5. **Key exploitable results**

  

  

Besides publications and possible patents being described in the section on
open research data management, the following list of exploitable results –
essentially being based on software and data structures resp. ontologies - can
be expected from the activities within the marketplace project:

  1. **Hardware and computational grid**

  

  

The Hardware being initially procured in the frame of the MarketPlace project
forms the basis for any activity of a future MarketPlace consortium. In case
this hardware should not be accessible after termination of the project,
measures have to be taken to allow at least for a minimum of operations.

The minimum exploitation of this hardware is its use

  * as host for the MarketPlace website 

  

  * for all contractual matter 

  

  * for customer relations 

  

  * as repository for information catalogues like o event calendar 

  

o consultants and translators directory o trainer directory o software
directory o Expertise directory o Software solutions directory

The next exploitation level is its use

  * as “Hardware as a Service” to run individual third party simulations 

  

  * as a central server managing and distributing jobs on a grid of distributed computational resources to be established 

  

  * as central unit to store and retrieve data 

  

  * to run third party software as demos in an SW agent type of operation 

  

  * to run third party software as simulations in a SaaS type of operation 

  

  * to test, configure and run simulation workflows (if these are not run on a grid) 

  

  2. **Web-Front-End**

  

  

The central element of the MarketPlace is its web front end and especially the
“Entry Portal”. Besides its basic functionalities like the MarketPlace
corporate ID, navigating the website, management of user login etc., the
“entry portal” especially offers space for _**commercial exploitation by
advertisements** _ .

Such advertisements may be classified into different value propositions
depending e.g.

  * on specially featured content 

  

  * on size of advertisements, 

  

  * on duration of display 

  

  * on frequency of display 

  

  * on graphical elements, 

  

  * on possible animations, 

  

  * on possible videoclips 

  

  * on provisions of hyperlinks 

  

  * (further options would be sound, 3D animations etc..) 

  

  3. **Scientific Networks**

  

  

A major scope and benefit of the MarketPlace is to serve as a one stop shop
for the materials modelling community. To cope with this role a number of
services have to be provided making the MarketPlace sufficiently attractive.
Most important in this context seem directories and calendars. Most of this
information is considered as “nice to have” by the potential MarketPlace user

####  5.3.1 Event Calendar

The event calendar comprises a searchable list of future events being of
interest to the materials modelling community. It will especially compile data
of conferences and workshops. Although such a calendar can be operated in a
quite automated way allowing external users to add their events, there is
still a need for curation and checking the entries (avoid spam, keep ethics).
Operation of such a calendar can be expected to be a source of costs rather
than of revenues.

####  5.3.2 Directory of Consultants/Translators

The business model for establishing, maintaining and commercialising a
directory of trainers/consultants is still to be defined. In case of brokering
such services a contractual network of numerous agreements between the
consultants/trainers and the MarketPlace entity as well standardized contracts
between the MarketPlace entity and the end-users. Issues to be solved
especially relate to the liability of the brokering MarketPlace entity for the
results offered by the consultant. Possible revenues could be

  * a fee paid by the consultant for being listed 

  

  * a royalty (percentage) for each contract mediated between a consultant and an end-user 

  

  * a fee paid by the end user for identification of a suitable consultant 

  

**5.3.3 Directory of Trainers**

The business model would be similar to the one above for consultants.

####  5.3.4 Job opportunities

Maintaining a list of “job opportunities” is similar to maintaining an event
calendar and there is also a need for curation and checking the entries (avoid
spam, keep ethics). Operation of such a list thus can also be expected to be a
source of costs rather than a source of revenues.

**5.4 Software Catalogue**

The basic, searchable catalogue of modelling software is one of the key
services offered by the MarketPlace. The respective part of the website may be
commercially exploited by

  * charging the users with a basic fee for the use of all basic MarketPlace services 

  

  * charging software providers when registering their software at all 

  

Both of these options would however create barriers for the widespread use of
the MarketPlace in general and thus should only be considered if really
necessary.

Options to still commercially exploit the Software Catalogue could however be
a gradual increase in the result display characteristics as follows

  * Name of Software, website address (not_hyperlinked), short description (free), user rating 

  

Additional information (to be charged with increasing content)

  * website address (hyperlinked) 

  

  * Logo of Software 

  

  * Contact details of Vendor (Name Phone e-mail, hyperlinked ) 

  

  * extended description 

  

  * further information (pictures) 

  

  * further information (animations) 

  

  * further information (videos) 

  

  * …. 

  

A typical example for such an advertisement strategy is the “TMS Marketplace”
see http://tmsmarketplace.com/:

Typical cost for such a listing (according to own experience) are around 500
to max. 1000 $ per annum. Direct impact on sales is moderate only. Customers
placing advertisements have to be regularly contacted and convinced to
continue placing their ads. These customer relations and administration
consumes a non-negligible share of the income.

**5.5 Software as a Service**

Software as a Service or SaaS is a software maintenance and distribution model
in which a service provider (the marketplace in our case) hosts applications
and makes them available through a certain access model to customers (end
users) over the Internet. SaaS is one of four main paradigms of cloud
computing, alongside infrastructure as a service (IaaS), platform as a service
(PaaS) and hardware as a service (HaaS). SaaS available on MarketPlace can be
summed under the following categories.

####  5.5.1 Third party Software

This section addresses individual third-party software codes. The combination
of tools in workflows is handled in the section on workflows. To provide third
party software both a number of contractual and technical issues have to be
tackled.

Following the establishment of a contract between the third party SWO and the
MarketPlace entity, the commercial exploitation of individual codes may
proceed by

  * Initial installation charge 

  

  * handling fee for regular maintenance updates 

  

  * commission per catalysed and paid use 

  

  * commission for short term license sale (see also software sale) 

  

  * fees for use on MarketPlace Hardware 

  

  * fees for using MarketPlace accounting & billing system (may be part of the commission) 

  

Alternative to installing the S/W itself at the marketplace infrastructure,
the registration of Apps being downloadable and executable on/from third party
resources is an interesting option. The revenue for such type of use would be
less and hardly controllable. It could be generated by providing

###  5.5.2 MarketPlace owned Software

The major software tools owned by the MarketPlace are tools related to

  * the website including its search services 

  

  * the user management 

  

  * the workflow management 

  

  * the data handling and retrieval 

  

  * the management of hardware resources 

  

  * inventories of software/events/experts etc (the knowledge Apps) 

  

  * the OSP-CORE, semantic Services and EMMO-CUDS 

  

According to the grant agreement the core software tools developed within the
MarketPlace and needed for its operation are open and freely distributed.
Thus, there is no way of commercial exploitation by sales of this software. As
often the case for open source software codes (e.g. Linux operating system),
however, there remains however some space for commercial activities in the
areas of

  * support for installation 

  

  * support for operation 

  

  * extended documentation 

  

  * fees for their use on the MarketPlace infrastructure 

  

  * customisation of apps on top of the MarketPlace framework 

  

  * customised entire MarketPlace installations on site (private cloud computing) 

  

##  5.6 Software Sales

Commercial Exploitation may further proceed by sales of software licenses with
the MarketPlace acting similar like an agent for the SWO. This will need a
bilateral agreement between the MarketPlace and the SWO. Exploitation then may
proceed via

  * Finder’s fee for identification of new customers (further handling of the sale by the SWO in this case) 

  

  * Commission for handling the sale as an agent for the SWO 

  

This kind of business requires strong knowledge of the individual tools and
respective skilled manpower.

##  5.7 Scientific Data

Marketplace will result with a bulk of scientific datasets mainly from WP5
work of demonstrators. To date no data has been produced as most WP5
activities have not yet started. However, there maybe options to exploit the
bulk of data generated by Marketplace partners as well as third parties using
the MarketPlace to generate valuable scientific data. This can be utilised in
various ways:

  1. Users declare their dates to be open, this allows Marketplace to provide search functionality and furthermore integration of the data via APIs into third party applications. This can of course be offered as a fee (the data is free, but access to it through dedicated interfaces is not). 

  

  2. Users may declare their data to be closed but open for exploitation. This is similar to 1, but the MarketPlace will share the fee with the users (owners) of the data. 

  

  

Other options are shown with respect to the type of access, public or
commercial below:

###  5.7.1 Open Data

Open data can be exploited in multiple ways. The MarketPlace data services may
harvest such open data, whether generated on the marketplace or on third party
repositories linked with the marketplace. The value proposition of the
marketplace is the tools and interfaces that allow streamlined rapid semantic
data management.

Hence while data is open and may be free, the access is the main product.

###  5.7.2 Commercial datasets

Commercial data sets are completely proprietary and require licenses to access
them. These licenses are often complex and require specific legal bilateral
agreemenets between the owner and user of the data. For the Marketplace it may
be most beneficial to allow commercial owners of datasets to host their own
access application as a SaaS whereby they have to deal with the access and
licensing. MarketPlace model here is either:

  1. Charge a free from the owners for hosting their applications, e.g., per traffic used (which is proportional to sales of data) 

  

  2. Charge a flat rate for the use of the Marketplace 

  

  3. Charge a fee per user or contract 

  

  

An important aspect here is that the marketplace must guarantee that no data
leak is possible, e.g., by allowing the commercial users to host their own
data servers that are discoverable on the marketplace but otherwise provide
direct access (using the Marketplace API to enable interoperability).

Another avenue for marketplace is, like in the public data, to offer
interoperable semantic interfaces to the data.

##  5.8 Workflows

The MarketPlace will establish simulation workflows for the integrative
simulation of processes for different products and materials in the use-case
work packages (WP5). Each of these configured workflows is a priori specific
and useful only for that particular situation. The partners in the different
uses cases will surely further exploit their workflows for their own purposes
after the end of the project.

Further commercial exploitation of these use-case workflows is not straight
forward. Their reconfiguration to other materials, to other processes and to
other products is a non-trivial task. This re-configuration task requires a
profound expertise and will most probably proceed by
experts/consultants/translators only. For these stakeholders pre-configured
and validated work-flow templates might however be highly interesting as a
starting point for tackling similar challenges. Thus a specialist market for
the sale of simulation workflows may be expected especially if the number and
variety of existing workflows increases.

The commercial exploitation of workflows will thus best proceed on a case by
case basis.

##  5.9 Human Capital/ Skills / Expertise

“Today high effort for contract set-up and agreements on requirements”

In the current landscape of materials development, industry struggles not only
to find the right contact (the experts) but also usually need to tackle many
contractual agreements including NDA. Marketplace, through the operating
entity can offer a value proposition by means of sets of pre negotiated
agreements with major industries and consultants. There agreements can then
form a basis where contract set-up and agreements on requirements can be
substantially. A prerequisite for this is that the legal entity has proper
legal advice.

“Today high effort to research information, purchase and installation, often
inadequately high when only tested within a study”

Numerous SME’s lacks expertise or experts as well as software and hardware
resources to actuall conduct materials modelling. The Marketplace by
definition provides these resources. In particular models for

  1. Pay-per-“use” models for software (commercial and proprietary) should be provide for a free. This requires agreements with SWO. 

  

  2. Host software and provide hardware as a service for end users, including support for updates, upgrades, maintenance, and help on demand. 

  

  

##  5.10 Potential sources of revenues

In addition to the EMMC survey, MarketPlace conducted another survey and a
study for the types of services needed and the potential for revenue. .

Exemplarily, the view of an industrial prospective platform user answering to
an EMMC survey is documented below. Solutions to the posed questions may
become unique selling points for the MarketPlace:

\- Cite -

  * Manage complex simulation workflows (Today in PFPs: cross-institutional computations w/ manual data transfer create high effort for performing linked/coupled workflows. 

  

  * Access to computational resources when not available internally (Today high effort for contract set-up and agreements on requirements) 

  

  * Access to new software (Today high effort to research information, purchase and installation, often inadequately high when only tested within a study) 

  

2\. Key difference to current practice for three biggest problems:

  * Platform manages simulation processes / chains by offering pre-configured workflows and / or possibility for user-defined workflows (share w/ other users if specified). 

  

  * Platform has contracted cloud resources / computational clusters that can be used on demand (pay per use, highly welcome solution, optional), or platform provides links to cluster providers for individual assignment 

  

  * Platform provides overviews / introduction to simulation software for material topics, provides links to vendors (mandatory) and / or assists / offers purchase (opt.). 

  

  3. \-- 

  

  4. Security requirements: No expert on this field, but mandatory: encrypted protocols (https), no network traffic tracing. Data privacy: “Private data” (according to CMU classification) as mandatory, “Public data” when specified by the data provider (e.g. via retrieval during uploading) 

  

  5. For every day use, the platform should provide pre-configured workflows for linking / coupling of software that is often used in a simulation chain, e.g. DFT + phase field, microscopic + continuum simulation, data analytics + data based prediction methods etc. 

  

  6. Further, it should provide overviews/introduction to simulation software for self-study in addition to training services. Third, an overview over computer clusters in the EU which can be used as external capacity for academic and commercial computations and or cloud computing would be welcome. For software and computing resources, a link to the provider for the further process would be mandatory, handling of the assignment / purchase over the MarketPlace platform highly welcome (i.e. optional). 

  

  

6\. I would pay for training services individually. For translation services,
I am open to pay per use or a pay a flat rate (e.g. via annually MarketPlace
utilization fee)

Summarizing the above, I personally would be open to invest in the
marketplace, since I would profit from it in the sense of accessibility of
data / services if all mandatory requirements stated are fulfilled. If even
optional requirements could be fulfilled, the benefit would be even stronger.
- end_cite -

This example clearly indicates a demand for MarketPlace type services and also
the willingness of prospective users to pay for such services.

However, at the same time, it also indicates the necessity of the very wide
range of infrastructure which has to be generated, operated and maintained by
the MarketPlace company. The current “high effort for contract set-up and
agreements on requirements” and “the effort to research information, purchase
and installation, often inadequately high when only tested within a study to
set up a simulation environment” just for a single software - as mentioned by
the prospective user - will be shifted to the marketplace entity and has to be
multiplied by the number of software codes to be installed at the MarktPlace.
_This number has to be sufficiently high_ in order to have a high probability
to match the potential user demand for just one single code he has got in his
mind

A list of potential sources of revenues originating from different
stakeholders is exemplarily compiled below. The quantification of these
revenues in terms of estimated turnover and market size is subject of
deliverable 6.6.

  * Revenues from users of the Marketplace (using of general infrastructure): 

  

one time registration fees, annual subscription fees, flat rate subscriptions

  * Revenues from users of Marketplace for _specific_ services 

  

(translation/consultancy/SaaS/HaaS: DaaS, PaaS))

(Refund hardware cost) no net revenue

(Refund software cost) no net revenue

Commissions Hardware use

Fees for use of MarketPlace owned HW

Commissions Software use

Fees for use of MarketPlace owned SW

Commissions Database use

Fees for use of MarketPlace owned SW Handling fees

  * Revenues from public bodies 

  

Institutional support for providing public (free) information services

  * Revenues from SWO offering their software (both as software and/or as service) 

  

Commissions for brokered sales Commissions for brokered SaaS annual base
membership fee handling fees

advertisements (SW companies)

  * Revenues from experts offering their services (translation/training/consultancy) 

  

Commissions for contact matchmaking annual base fee for being listed as expert
advertisements ( e.g. consultancy companies) handling fees

This preliminary list of potential sources of revenues will be further
regularly updated in future versions of this document.

##  5.11 Sources of Costs

Sources of Costs are detailed in Deliverable 6.6 and a related Excel file

##  5.12 Estimated Market Size

Estimates for the market size are given in Deliverable 6.6.

A recent study conducted by Goldbeck consulting focused on Cloud based IaaS
market size estimate. It found cloud computing market size estimates relevant
to materials modelling marketplaces is R&D spending in relevant industries, in
particular chemicals and materials as well as aerospace and defence (plus a
few others):

  * Chemicals and materials global R&D: $40-50bn; Aerospace and defence: about $30bn; Industrial Energy: about $20bn. In comparison: Life Science: about $180bn 

  

  * Relevant ‘materials science R&D’ is about $90bn, i.e. about half of Life Science R&D 

  

  * The global Cloud computing IaaS in Life Science market was valued at USD 946.1 million in 2017 

  

The first level estimate would be that the Materials Science cloud computing
market is about half that of life sciences, i.e. about $500m. Hence the Total
Accessible Market (TAM) for marketplaces would be a 5% brokerage fee of that,
i.e. : $25m. Assume that in the first place we only deal with Europe, the
serviceable addressable market is perhaps ¼ of that, or about

$8m. If we base the figure on servicing primarily chemicals and materials R&D,
the TAM is

€4m. A realistic market share is 5%, hence: € 200,000

##  5.13 Summarizing analysis and assessment

A qualitative comparison of the exemplary demands of a prospective user with
the effort being necessary to fulfil these demands already indicates the need
for a sufficient large market – and also a respective share of this market for
the MarketPlace entity.

This is essentially due to the fact, that a reasonably large amount of
infrastructure – especially in terms of a high number of software codes - must
be made available and accordingly be installed at and be maintained by the
MarketPlace entity. Besides technical efforts this also includes a substantial
administrative and contractual effort for establishing and maintaining
business relations/contracts with numerous software providers.

The situation might perhaps be compared with a library providing access to a
host of books as compared to those being in the shelf at home. Such libraries
in the past have been publicly installed and maintained at cities, at
universities. They provided free – or minimum charge - access to expensive
books and a wealth of information in the past.

Software – and especially modelling software – is the future source of
information. In contrast to former books it can be re-used and be modified. It
integrates all types of experience and validation efforts and thus – beyond
being a source of information - becomes a source of knowledge.

In spite of an obvious demand for a MarketPlace and its benefits, a
sustainable private/commercial operation of such an entity might turn out to
be hardly feasible. In this case, the establishment of public funded e.g.
european or national “software farms/software hubs” – similar to European
experimental CERN or ESRF facilities, but probably less costly – should be
considered.

**5.14 Pretest Academic Survey**

  * Aim of the study: 

  

  * Identify latent needs, wishes, requirements and expectations 

  

  * Priorize the planned features • Evaluate customer satisfaction 

  

  * Execution: 

  

  * PhD student at Fraunhofer IWM 

  

  * Cooperation with the Faculty of Economics and Behavioral Sciences of the Albert-Ludwig-University Freiburg 

  

  * Contact: _rebecca.reichenbach@iwm.fraunhofer.de_

  

  * Topic: 

  

  * dynamics of customer preferences and satisfaction on products related to the Kano model. The product under investigation is the MarketPlace platform. 

  

  * Method: 

  

  * two queries, one before introduction of the product or in an early stage and at least one sometimes after. 

  

  * Benefit for MarketPlace: 

  

  * insights on what customers would like to have on the MarketPlace, content, features, etc. 

  

  * Current status (M12): first query designed, compiled and sent out 

  

( _https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Survey1MarketPlace_

  * Additional question are in the Vienna EMMC Workshop (M14) 

  

The survey addresses levels of Involvement, Extrinsic and intrinsic
Motivation, and Passive Innovation Resistance (see tables below for
questions). The End Users were 21% females and 79% Male with age distribution
mostly in the 40’s. Also most users had previous experience with Nanohub,
JmatPro, LAMMPS, TotalMateria. The results include Prioritization of
attributes by the End Users, including those features that must be implemented
before release, and those after.

These attributes included online training, data conversion, contact to
experts, software offerings, and others, see Figure below. The analysis of the
results and user feedback is summarised in the following Table :

Clearly it sheds light on the importance of the knowledge services to the
entire marketplace. Moreover, it shows that software and data come next. In
particular, Data Conversion (interoperability, and translation of formats) is
a prominent attribute.

Next steps of the study is to analyse willingness to pay.  
  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

**Involvement**

</th>  
<th>

**Digitalization of materials**

</th>  
<th>

**Seven-point**

**likert scale**

</th>  
<th>

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

I1

</td>  
<td>

I am very interested in the digitalization of materials.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

Zaichkowsky

(1985)

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

I2

</td>  
<td>

I know a lot about the digitalization of materials.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

Bloch (1981)

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

I3

</td>  
<td>

The digitalization of materials is important to me.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

Bloch (1981)

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

I4

</td>  
<td>

I am happy to advise others on questions about the digitalization of
materials.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

Summers

(1970)

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

I5

</td>  
<td>

I like to inform myself about the digitalization of materials in magazines, at

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

Corey (1971)

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

conferences media.

</td>  
<td>

or

</td>  
<td>

in

</td>  
<td>

the

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr> </table>  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

**UTAUT2-**

**Modell**

</th>  
<th>

**Online materials modelling and**

**collaboration platforms**

</th>  
<th>

</th>  
<th>

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Extrinsic Motivation**

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

**Yoo et al.**

**(2012)**

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Performance**

**Expectancy**

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

**Seven-point**

**Likert scale**

</td>  
<td>

**Vankatesh**

**(2012)**

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

P1

</td>  
<td>

  1. I would find the 

  

  

MarketPlace useful in my daily and professsional life.

  2. Using the MarketPlacewill enable me to accomplish things more quickly. 

  

  

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

P2

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

P3

</td>  
<td>

Using the collaboration platform will probably increase my productivity.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Facilitating**

**Conditions**

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

**Seven-point**

**Likert scale**

</td>  
<td>

**Vankatesh**

**(2012)**

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

F1

</td>  
<td>

  4. I have the resourcesnecessary to use the 

  

  

MarketPlace.

  5. I have the knowledgenecessary to use the 

  

  

MarketPlace.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

F2

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) -

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

F3

</td>  
<td>

Open web-based services are in general compatible with other technologies I
use.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

F4

</td>  
<td>

6) I can get help from others when I have difficulties using the MarketPlace.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Social**

**Influence**

</td>  
<td>

</td>  
<td>

**Seven-point**

**Likert scale**

</td>  
<td>

**Vankatesh**

**(2012)**

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

S1

</td>  
<td>

7) People who are important to me think that I should use the MarketPlace.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

S2

</td>  
<td>

People who influence my behaviour think that I should use the materials
modelling and collaboration platform.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

S3

</td>  
<td>

People whose opinions that I value prefer that I use the open web-based
platform.

</td>  
<td>

strongly

disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

S4

</td>  
<td>

8) In general, my organization supports the use of the MarketPlace.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr> </table>  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

**Intrinsic Motivation**

</th>  
<th>

</th>  
<th>

**Yoo et al.**

**(2012)**

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Effort Expectancy**

</td>  
<td>

**Seven-point**

**Likert scale**

</td>  
<td>

**Vankatesh**

**(2012)**

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

E1

</td>  
<td>

9) Learning to use the MarketPlace is easy for me.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

E2

</td>  
<td>

The interaction with the online platform is clear and understandable for me.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

E3

</td>  
<td>

I find online collaboration platforms easy to use.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

E4

</td>  
<td>

It is easy fo rme to become skillful at using the materials modelling and
collaboration platform.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree (1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Hedonic Motivation**

</td>  
<td>

**Seven-point**

**Likert scale**

</td>  
<td>

**Vankatesh**

**(2012)**

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

HM1

</td>  
<td>

10) Using the MarketPlace is fun.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

HM2

</td>  
<td>

Using open web-based modelling and collaboration platforms is enjoyable.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

HM3

</td>  
<td>

Using open web-based modelling and collaboration platforms is entertaining.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

**Anxiety**

**(Frage 2)**

</td>  
<td>

**Seven-point**

**Likert scale**

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

A1

</td>  
<td>

3) I feel apprehensive about using the MarketPlace.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

A2

</td>  
<td>

I hesitate to use online platforms because of making a mistake.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

A3

</td>  
<td>

Using online platforms is somewhat intimidating to me.

</td>  
<td>

strongly disagree

(1) - strongly agree

(7)

</td>  
<td>

</td> </tr> </table>

#  Directory of contacts/ network of MarketPlace stakeholders

Following software owners exhibiting during the TMS annual meeting in
Phoenix/Arizona from 11  th  through 15  th  of March 2018 were _personally_
contacted (by Dr. G.J. Schmitz, ACCESS), informed and interviewed w.r.t.
possibly offering of their services on the future Marketplace platform:  
  
<table>  
<tr>  
<th>

Thermo-Calc

</th>  
<th>

Anders Engstrom

</th>  
<th>

President

</th>  
<th>

anders@thermocalc.se

</th> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

Computherm

</td>  
<td>

Fan Zhang

</td>  
<td>

President

</td>  
<td>

Fan.zhang@computherm.com

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

SenteSoftware

</td>  
<td>

Jean Philippe Schille

</td>  
<td>

Managing

director

</td>  
<td>

j.p.schille@sentesoftware.co.uk

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

SCM

</td>  
<td>

Fedor Goumans

</td>  
<td>

Business developer

</td>  
<td>

Goumans@scm.com

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

Bluequartz

</td>  
<td>

Michael Jackson

</td>  
<td>

Owner/ Software architect

</td>  
<td>

Mike.jackson@bluequartz.net

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

Kitware

</td>  
<td>

Marcus D Hanwell

</td>  
<td>

Technical leader

</td>  
<td>

Marcus.hanwell@kitware.com

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

CNS Software

</td>  
<td>

Andreas Pilgrim

</td>  
<td>

CEO/co-owner

</td>  
<td>

A.Pilgrim@cns-gmbh.de

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

Ohio State University

</td>  
<td>

Yunzhi Wang

</td>  
<td>

Professor

</td>  
<td>

Wang.363@osu.edu

</td> </tr>  
<tr>  
<td>

Citrine

Informatics

</td>  
<td>

Bryce Meredig

</td>  
<td>

CSO

</td>  
<td>

Bryce@citrine.io

</td> </tr> </table>

They were all very positive and highly interested and want to be kept informed
about the developments in order to possibly influence them with respect to
their needs.

#  Deviations from the objectives, corrective actions

None so far.

The Data management plan and IPR exploitation strategy along with a table with
key exploitable results KER are summarized in the present document. The
initial table of established **direct** contacts to end user communities and
SWO depicted in this document is complemented with a large list of possible,
future contacts (see e.g. D 3.1 for a comprehensive list of SWO). Continuous
updates of this document will be reported until M60.