DAISY Consortium Logo - Link to Home Page

DAISY Online Project Charter

Prepared by: Peter Osborne
Date: May 15, 2007
Status: Draft


Describe the background and rationale for the Project, and what is to be accomplished.

A significant strength of the work of the DAISY Consortium is the inter-operability that underpins standards and their implementation.  If a DAISY CD is put it in to a player in the UK, Canada or Japan, the interaction and basic behaviour will be the same.  This is what makes the family of DAISY products the most successful access technology for people with a print disability the world has ever known.  We want to see at least the same level of inter-operability in the online world.  If a DAISY user has the rights to access content from the Royal New Zealand  Foundation of the Blind, he/she or another user should be able to get the same user experience with a UK online DAISY player.

We need to specify the requirements for the interface between  an online service and player in a way that identifies common elements, safeguarding inter-operability, while leaving scope for organisation-specific business rules.

The current situation is that a number of potential models are developing, involving the implementation of streaming of DAISY content and other download pilot models. How inter-operable are those models, and are there common issues we could include in a protocol to enable us to retain the cherished prize of inter-operability?

Project Scope

Describe the parameters (limits) of the Project; specifically, what is in scope and what is out of scope.

In Scope

It is within the scope of this project to:

Out of Scope

It is not within the scope of this project to:


Describe the expected outcomes; what specifically will be delivered by the Project.


Provide a high level perhaps as a (Gantt) chart showing the start, major milestones and end dates, and the human resources required.

This should be accomplished by 3 face to face meetings in the next year or so.  The first will focus on refining requirements, scope and the organisation/resourcing  of the work, taking in to account the already excellent progress made by some organisations in this area.  Subsequent meetings will develop the protocol, assuming we agree this is a feasible deliverable.

Budget/financial Summary

Provide as much information as possible concerning the financial commitment to complete the project successfully.

Meeting costs:

Strategic/political issues to be considered in the project

Describe how the Project relates to strategic directions of the Consortium as well as any particular sensitive issues to be considered in the Project’s development.

Risk Management

Describe (perhaps in a table format) anything that could have an adverse effect on (threaten) the project, likelihood/probability of occurrence and proposed mechanisms to address the threats.

Threat Probability Effect Strategy Action
Specifying how organisations should offer their services, and we must challenge ourselves if we think that we are in danger of trying to specify what should be organisation specific business rules. MediumMediumMitigate to be determined


Project manager: Peter Osborne

Project Manager Reports to: George Kerscher, Secretary General

Project group members:

Andrew Furlong, Arne Kyrkjeboe, Blake Erickson, Bob Axtell, Chris Day, Clive Lansink, Colin Garnham, David Andrews, Dinesh Kaushal, Dominic R. Labbé, Dominique BURGER, Dr. Thomas Kahlisch, Edmar Schut, Edmund O'Reilly, Erica Vaughns, Frank Richter, George Kerscher, Greg Kearney, Hiromitsu Fujimori, James Pritchett, Kathy Kahl, Lisa Friendly, Lynn Leith, Marc Van der Aa, Marc-André Hébert, Markus Gylling, Markus Wildi, Mary Schnackenberg, Mattias Karlsson, Neil Bernstein, Peter Osborne, Peter Proscia, Rob Longstaff, Ron Stewart, Sarah Home, Simon Roy, Steve Tyler, Tanakom Talawat, Tara Alexander, Tatsu Nishizawa, Tracy Turra

Date considered by Board: xxx

Approved /not approved: to be reviewed after June 2007 FTF

Budget amount approved in fiscal year 2007: $_

(Note: repeat for multiple year project.)

Post Project Evaluation

Did the Project meet scope, deliverables, schedule, budget and quality targets (Yes/No explain)?



What was done really well?

What could have been done better?

What would you do differently if the Project could be done over again?

What were the lessons learned?


Can this Project be considered a success?

Are there any recommendations for future DAISY Projects?

Form: DAISY Consortium Project Charter

Last revised: 2 October 2005

Status: version 8, form approved initially by Board 6th of May 2004