lugano, 08-09.2014 wp v. quality assurance of deliverables (quality assurance plan). interim...
TRANSCRIPT
LUGANO, 08-09.2014
WP V.Quality Assurance of Deliverables (Quality
assurance plan).Interim results, challenges, future work
STEPSSTEPS
EX-ANTE SELF-ASSESSMENT
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT (MONITORING)
FINAL ASSESSMENT
1 2 43 8765 9
PLANPLAN DODOCHECKCHECK ACTACT
DIMENSIONS TO BE MEASUREDDIMENSIONS TO BE MEASURED
1. ORGANISATION >> transnational cooperationmanagement, consortium, stakeholders, task assignments, role taking, negotiation, cooperation
2. STRUCTURE >> transfer processWPs’outline, endowments (tools, equipments, etc.)
3. ACTION PLAN OF THE PROJECTscheduling, implementation (activities), outputs, dissemination/appraisal
THE FIRST WEBSURVEYTHE FIRST WEBSURVEYDECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014 DECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014
5
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT
organisation structure action plan
EX-ANTE EVALUATION
General&
specificexpectations
assessment
swot analysisstructured itemsLikert scale
THE SECOND WEBSURVEYTHE SECOND WEBSURVEYJANUARY 2014-MAY 2014 JANUARY 2014-MAY 2014
5
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT
organisation structure action plan
PERCEPTION OF ONGOING PROJECT EXECUTION
realisticexpectations?
achievement of interim
goals
swot analysisstructured itemsLikert scale
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
7
Meeting in Vilnius
1.PROJECT MANAGEMENT >> good level of satisfaction>> criticalities• need for stronger cooperation, sharing of goals and processes
2.SWOT ANALYSIS >> strong points• good teamwork, competence of Ps, relevance of topics, effective meeting
organisation>> weak points1.communication problems, unclarified activities (living labs, website)
EXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVEEXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVE11STST SURVEY SURVEY
ST
WO
Good will to cooperate,
Good competence of the teamwork (partners and management) Relevance of the topics,
Good organization of the meeting: welcoming, accommodation, food, scheduling, sociality, excellent hospitality; good structuration of the work activities
Communication, Negotiation, Integration Scarce knowledge of English; Too much formality;No space for shared discussion among the partners;Many open questions unanswered and postponed to one-to-one communication. Some activities not clarified:"living labs" and the website
Coherence of the activities with the project’s aims;
Excellent documentation;
Strong structure;
Different workstyles
Top down coordination:Lack of cooperative work: incoherence; incongruity;Different workstyles: misunderstanding >> no efficiency fail the goals >> no efficacy
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
8
Meeting in Aosta
GENERAL ORGANISATION
Q1. PREPARATION OF AOSTA MEETING
Q2. ORGANISATION AND REALISATION OF THE MEETING
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
9
MEETING CONTENTS
Q3. CLARITY ABOUT UPCOMING WORK (AIMS, DELIVERABLES, WPs)
Q4. NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS, DOUBS, QUESTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
10
COORDINATION STYLE
Q5. COORDINATOR’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS PARTICIPANTS
Q6. CLARITY ON UPCOMING WORK AND DEADLINES
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
11
Q7. BALANCE OF ACTIVITIES (WORK GROUP AND SOCIAL MOMENTS)
Q7bis. EVALUATION OF CONSORTIUM’S WORK DURING MEETING
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
12
INTERNAL COLLABORATION
Q8. PARTNERS’ CONTRIBUTION
Q8bis. PARTNERS’ COOPERATION
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
13
INTERNAL COLLABORATION
Q9. INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION
Q10. COORDINATOR’S ATTITUDE TO INVOLVING PARTNERS
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
14
Q11. COORDINATOR’S ROLE AS MEDIATOR OF PARTNERS’ NEEDS
Q12. HOW WELL DID THE MEETING MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
15ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIONQ13. matching of eu priorities
Q13). According to the EU Priorities declared in the call, could you say please till what INCOM-VET Project is matching these Priorities?
To no extent (Not at all)
To a smaller extent (Scarcely)
To some extent (Partially)
To the greatest extent (Totally)
Responses
Weighted Average
To improve the quality and to increase the volume of co-operation between institutions or organisations providing learning opportunities, enterprises, social partners and other relevant bodies throughout Europe
0 0 6 7 13 3.54 / 4
(0.00%)
(0.00%)
(46.15%)
(53.85%)
To facilitate the development of innovative practices in the field of vocational education and training other than at tertiary level, and their transfer, including from one participating country to others
0 1 5 7 13 3.46 / 4
(0.00%)
(7.69%)
(38.46%)
(53.85%)
To encourage the learning of modern foreign languages
1 2 5 5 13 3.08 / 4
(7.69%)
(15.38%)
(38.46%)
(38.46%)
To support the development of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong learning
0 2 7 4 13 3.15 / 4
(0.00%)
(15.38%)
(53.85%)
(30.77%)
To promote the acquisition of key competences in VET
0 0 7 6 13 3.46 / 4
(0.00%)
(0.00%)
(53.85%)
(46.15%)
3.34 / 4
ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTSRESULTS
16
ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Q14. TO WHAT EXTENT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT GOALS ARE REALISTIC?
Q14bis. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE INTERIM PROJECT GOALS RESPECTED?
FROM 1FROM 1STST TO 2 TO 2NDND SURVEY: WHAT CHANGES? SURVEY: WHAT CHANGES?
new items on partners’ perception of the ongoing execution and fulfilment of the project
>> excellent results good level of satisfaction and enthusiasm improved cooperation among the consortium coordination management: perceived as more responsive to partners’ needs
criticalitiesstrictness of administrative policies linguistic issuesexcessive costs
EXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVEEXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVE22NDND SURVEY SURVEY
ST
WO
Friendly atmosphere;More openness than in the first meeting;Good organization of the meeting: well-timed schedule, possibility to discuss, active involvement and good preparation of all partners and further planning of activities
Communication, Negotiation, Integration; Diverse learning cultures to be better exploited; Scarce knowledge of the English language;Too much formality;Scarce feeling of cooperation; Excessively expensive meal
Coherence of the activities with the project’s aims;
Excellent documentation;
Strong structure;
Different workstyles
Top down coordination: unsustainability,Lack of cooperative work: incoherence; incongruity;Different workstyles: misunderstanding >> no efficiency fail the goals >> no efficacy
YOUR REMARKSYOUR REMARKS
AMELIORATIVE COMMENTS FROM THE SECOND SURVEY
‘More space for in-depth discussion and collective work’
‘We should present our outputs in a more attractive way. Our PPs with long texts and long speeches are exhausting’
‘I would suggest a self-assessing reflective discussion among the partners as a conclusive part of any meeting. This would grant a quantitative feedback and a reflective self-assessment of the on-
going actions and a better overview of the way we are working as a team.’
CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURECHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
1. ORGANISATION >> transnational cooperation NEGOTIATION >> of the activities: who does what when which way COORDINATION >> continue to meet partners’ expectations and needs
2. STRUCTURE >> transfer process COMMUNICATION >> a shared tool for peer-to-peer exchange and information
3. ACTION PLAN OF THE PROJECT INTEGRATION >> conjugate project’s priorities with the Ps’
specific (or additional) aims DISSEMINATION PHASE >> define strategies to convey project’s potential; its impact and effectiveness
.
Thanks!
Scientific Responsible for P3-WP5 Prof. Maria Giovanna [email protected]
Technical collaborator for P3-WP5 Emanuela Sebastiani [email protected]