Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Lessons learnt from OS operations|
|Authors: ||Martin, O.|
de Goede, Maartje
|Issue Date: ||2017|
|Publisher: ||EU FP7 Project UDRIVE Consortium|
|Citation: ||MARTIN, O. ...et al., 2017. Lessons learnt from OS operations. UDRIVE Deliverable 35.2. EU FP7 Project UDRIVE Consortium.|
|Abstract: ||This report focuses on the specific lessons learnt from the data collection in UDRIVE, derived from the difficulties encountered by the operation sites and the solutions applied to mitigate the problems where possible. These lessons learnt concern all aspects of the data collection. Such lessons learnt will provide
useful insights for any future naturalistic driving study or field operational test. During the project, the operation sites provided three feedbacks related to their lessons learnt. These
reports covered the pilot phase, the first six months of data collection and the last one at the end of the data collection. This iterative process gathered 71 lessons learnt. After the data collection, the final questionnaire was filled in by the participants and they provided with some interesting feedback. Most important lesssons learned were: Selecting only one or two vehicle types contributed to easier
instrumentation of the Data Acquisaition System to the vehicles. However, this decision put some constraints in the recruitment of participants due the different fleet of vehicles across the European countries, especially some models were not very common in certain countries. One of the common problems across the Operation Sites (OS) was the participants’ drop-outs. The main lesson learnt was that it is important to maintain a set of replacement participants until the end of the project to cover any eventual drop out. Data protection was one of the most challenging aspects of the project. Dealing with images and personal data create some difficulties between the partners and their country data protection agencies.
From the participants’ questionnaires, it was noted that even if they felt comfortable, their driving behaviour was somehow affected. Hide the equipment, and especially the cameras, the best it can be will help the participants drive normally. They also were pleased to have all the information beforehand and happy when dates, deadlines, incentives, etc., were respected as explained to them. When involving any external supplier (e.g. rental vehicle company, garage, equipment supplier, etc.). the role, responsibilities, response time, liability, etc., of every supplier have to be defined in more detail to avoid misunderstandings, delays or ambiguities.
Developing as early as possible a very detailed and realistic plan of action allows to avoid delays, overspending, save resources and to achieve the project objectives.|
|Description: ||This is an official report.|
|Sponsor: ||This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 314050.|
|Publisher Link: ||https://doi.org/10.26323/UDRIVE_D35.1|
|Appears in Collections:||Official Reports (Design School)|
Files associated with this item:
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.