Work Package 3: Advanced Robo STEM Games and Jury
Work Package 3: Development of the International Robo STEM Competition Platform
Specific Objectives and Contribution to General Project Goals
Work Package 3 (WP3) is focused on the design, development, and testing of a web-based platform that enables automated, remote-controlled international Robo STEM competitions, utilizing physical robots located in different parts of the world. The specific objectives of WP3 are to:
- Enable real-time, synchronized competitions with decentralized participants and centralized judging.
- Lower barriers to participation by allowing remote access and integrating automated scoring mechanisms.
- Offer an open-access platform available to VET schools, students, NGOs, and educational centers.
- Support the overall project goal of bridging formal STEM education with practical high-tech applications while encouraging international collaboration and advancing digital transformation in VET education.
Main Results
WP3 will deliver a fully functional, web-based software system, including:
- Conceptual design for the competition platform, including both server-side architecture and robot-side library.
- Selection and integration of a reliable communication protocol for real-time interaction.
- Development of:
- A prototype web server.
- A user-facing platform for competition organization and scoring.
- A software library to be installed on each participating robot.
- Real-world testing of the complete system, including server-robot communication and automated judging functionality.
Qualitative and Quantitative Indicators
Quantitative Indicators
Indicator | Target |
Workshop participation | At least 1 participant per partner |
Brainstormed ideas | At least 1 per topic |
Document comments | At least 1 per document from each partner |
Task completion rate | At least 95% |
Software error rate | Fewer than 10 errors per KLOC |
Recommendations per document | At least 1 from each partner |
Qualitative Indicators
Metric | Target |
Participant satisfaction | At least 75% positive feedback |
Feedback analysis | Identification of at least one area for improvement |
Scope clarity | Documented and validated |
Effectiveness | Users achieve defined goals accurately and fully |
Efficiency | Minimal resources expended for goal achievement |
User satisfaction | High comfort and acceptability reported |
Institutional satisfaction post-pilot | Positive feedback documented |
Usability will be evaluated according to ISO/IEC 9126-4 standards, covering effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction.
Tasks and Responsibilities of Each Partner Organisation
WP3 is organized collaboratively with specific task leaders guiding the activities, while all partners contribute actively throughout the process:
Activity | Lead Partner | Roles of Other Partners |
A1: Team Building & Synergy | All partners | Participation and joint contribution |
A2: Scope Definition | Academic partners | All partners contribute input and validate results |
A3: Implementation | Technically specialized partner | Support by all partners: universities (design/testing), VET schools (real-world application) |
A4: Testing & Quality Assurance | Academic partner (not leading A3) | All partners participate in testing and validation |
A5: Pilot Deployment | VET or secondary school | All partners support; led by end-user institution |
All organizations will contribute a minimum of 10% co-funding via in-kind services and effort, aligning their work with national, regional, and EU policies on digitalization and sustainability.
Cost-effectiveness measures:
- Focus on core development activities (A3) with efficient resource allocation.
- Leverage partner expertise in design, implementation, and testing.
- Involve end-users in early stages to ensure relevance and optimize outcomes (A5).
Detailed Description of Activities
Activity 1: Team Building and Knowledge Sharing
- Purpose: Establish a collaborative working environment, align expectations, and co-develop the vision for the platform.
- Participants: 14 total (2 from each partner).
- Deliverables: Workshop report, shared documentation, collaboration logs.
Activity 2: Needs and Scope Definition
- Purpose: Validate user needs and define functional and technical requirements.
- Participants: 2 university representatives + 1 VET representative per partner.
- Deliverables: Detailed technical specification guiding implementation.
Activity 3: Implementation
- Sub-activities and Participants:
Sub-Activity | Description | Participants |
3.1 | Conceptual software design (server and robot library) | 3 from lead, 2 university, 2 VET |
3.2 | Communication protocol selection | 4 lead, 1 university, 3 VET |
3.3 | Web server prototype development | Same as above |
3.4 | Web platform development and evaluation | Same as above |
3.5 | Robot-side software library development | Same as above |
3.6 | Testing of server-robot communication | Same as 3.1 |
- Outcome: Internally evaluated alpha version of the full platform and robot software.
Activity 4: Quality Assurance
- Purpose: Validate functionality, usability, and robustness of the system.
- Participants: 2 university and 1 VET partner representative.
- Deliverables: Final validated product based on test findings.
Activity 5: Pilot Deployment
- Purpose: Deploy and test the system in a real-world educational environment.
- Lead: VET institution representing the end-user group.
- Participants: 3 university and 5 VET representatives across 3 countries.
- Deliverables: Field-tested system version, user feedback, final improvements.
Support for Work Package Objectives
- Activities A1 and A2: Establish a common understanding and shared goals among all partners.
- Activity A3: Delivers the main technical output – the competition platform.
- Activity A4: Ensures that the final product meets quality and usability standards.
- Activity A5: Enables validation in an operational context, facilitating future adoption and scalability.
Expected Participants and Profiles
Activity | Estimated Participants |
A1 | 14 (2 per partner) |
A2 | 2 university, 1 VET per partner |
A3.1, A3.6 | 3 from lead organization, 2 university, 2 VET (across 3 countries) |
A3.2–A3.5 | 4 from lead, 1 university, 3 VET (across 3 countries) |
A4 | 2 university, 1 VET per partner |
A5 | 3 university, 5 VET (across 3 countries) |
This structure ensures the professional presentation of WP3 within any Erasmus+ proposal or official project document. Let me know if you need it formatted in a table or template-compliant structure for submission.
Involves all participants to set-up the innovative process and provide synergies between the institution, shared expectations, agreed upon, yet diversity friendly process, and quality focus.
Involves the academic partners as its main goal is to formalize the outcomes of A1 and to set strong foundation for the following activities and WPs.
The implementation process relays heavily on the specific expertise of the activity leader. The sub-activities require specific academic knowledge and practical skills. During A3 the activity leader will be responsible not only for the quality of the final result but will spend at least 20% of the activity time for knowledge exchange and (if need be) education sessions for the involved participants from the partner institutions as they (by project design) represent the main stakeholders
The test activity will be led by an academic partner institution but to provide independent evaluation of the results and to create most favorable conditions for user-driven testing, it will be different then the A3 activity leader.
The pilot phase (activity) will be led by a representative of the main target group – VET or secondary school. This way we empower them to contribute to the adoption of the WP results and their integration within the target group institutions.
Please explain how you define the amount dedicated to the work package and how the work package is cost-effective ?
The budget uses standard EU planing – researcher 74 euro, travel (500-1999 km) 575 euro/person.
The WP is designed to include activities that provide effective team cooperation, well-defined responsibilities of the partner organizations, shared innovation, specific quality assurance activities throughout the WP.
Workshop budget will cover the expenses of the initial creative cooperation phase – online sessions and face-to-face sessions. 14 researchers (2 from guest organization).
Scope definition budget is 10% of the WP budget (excluding the budget for the A1. Workshop). The activity is of great importance for the overall WP success. It defines in details the following steps, the coordination between the partners, and the quality criteria. It involves all partners, but the leading roles is of the academic institutions.
Implementation – 60% of the WP budget (excluding the budget for the A1. Workshop). As the project is result oriented, this is the single most important activity in the WP. It involves researchers from all organizations, while relaying heavily on the team of the WP.Activity 3 leading partner.
– Implementation sub-activity 1: Conceptual software design of the WEB server and the robot competition library;
– Implementation sub-activity 2: Choosing a communication protocol, which can fulfill the task.
– Implementation sub-activity 3: Web server prototype – Implementation sub-activity 4: WEB platform development and
evaluation;
– Implementation sub-activity 5: Development of competition software library for the robot.
– Implementation sub-activity 6: Testing the communication between the server and robot in a real-life scenario.
Test and validation budget is 10% of the WP budget (excluding the budget for the A1. Workshop) – all partners checking
the quality of the result.
Pilot activities budget is 20% of the WP budget (excluding the budget for for the A1. Workshop) – integrating the system into the partner organizations.
All partner organizations will provide co-funding of 10% on top of the listed budget in form of in-kind project related work to provide the needed research so that the WP results are grounded in a solid scientific base and correspond to the regional, national and EU level strategies on digitization and green policies.
