KOKEMÄKI, 08-09.02.2015 WP V. Quality Assurance of Deliverables (Quality assurance plan)...

KOKEMÄKI, 08-09.02.2015

WP V.Quality Assurance of Deliverables

(Quality assurance plan)

INTERMEDIATE REPORT

STEPS

EX-ANTE SELF-ASSESSMENT

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT (MONITORING)

FINAL ASSESSMENT

1 2 43 8765 109

13

12

11

15

14

PLAN DOCHECK ACT

DIMENSIONS 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

INTERIM RESULTS

THE FIRST WEBSURVEYDECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014

5

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT

Organisation

Action plan Management

EX-ANTE EVALUATION

Priorities&

Expectations

Assessmenttools

Swot Analysis

Structured ItemsLikert scale

Stakeholders

THE SECOND WEBSURVEYJANUARY 2014-MAY 2014

5

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT

Organisation

Action plan &

CooperationManagemen

t

PERCEPTION OF ONGOING PROJECT EXECUTION

RealisticExpectation

s?

Achievement of interim

goals

Swot Analysis

Structured itemsLikert scale

Assessment&

Stakeholders

THE THIRD WEBSURVEYJUNE 2014-JANUARY 2015

5

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT

Organisation

Action plan &

Cooperation

Management

EX-ANTE EVLUATION

Swot AnalysisStructured itemsLikert scale

PERCEPTION OF ONGOING PROJECT EXECUTION

Expectations/

Priorities

Realistic goals?

Coherence of WPs

Assessment &

Stakeholders

FROM 1ST TO 2ND SURVEY: WHAT CHANGED?

new items on partners’ perception of the ongoing execution and fulfilment of the project

good level of satisfaction and enthusiasm improved cooperation among the consortium coordination management perceived as more responsive to partners’ needs

Criticalities strictness of administrative policies linguistic issues excessive costsThreats and Opportunities

Different workstyles

Causes for misunderstandings and failing goals >> no efficiency and no efficacy

Occasion for renewal and gaining new strategies and visions

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTSTHE INTERNATIONAL MEETING

8

Meeting in Lugano

GENERAL ORGANISATION

Q1. PREPARATION OF LUGANO MEETING

Q2. ORGANISATION AND REALISATION OF THE MEETING

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS9MEETING CONTENTS

Q4. NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS, DOUBTS, QUESTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS10

COORDINATION STYLE

Q5. COORDINATOION’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS Ps’ ACTIVE PARTICIPATION

Q6. CLARITY ON UPCOMING WORK AND DEADLINES

Past survey

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

11

Q7. BALANCE OF ACTIVITIES(WORK GROUP AND SOCIAL MOMENTS)

Q7bis. EVALUATION OF CONSORTIUM’S WORKDURING MEETING

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

12

Q8. PARTNERS’ CONTRIBUTION

Past websurvey

Q9. INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION

INTERNAL COLLABORATION

Past websurvey

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

13

Q8bis. PARTNERS’ COOPERATION

INTERNAL COLLABORATION

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

13

Q10. COORDINATION’S ATTITUDE TO INVOLVING PARTNERS

Q11. COORDINATION’S ROLE AS MEDIATOR OF PARTNERS’ NEEDS

COORDINATOR

Past websurvey

Past websurvey

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

16

ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Q14a. TO WHAT EXTENT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT GOALS ARE REALISTIC?

Q14b. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THEINTERIM PROJECT GOALS RESPECTED?

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

16

WPs perceived coherence

Q15. COHERENCE OF THE CURRENT DRAFT OF WP WITH TEH ONE IN THE APPLICATION

Q15a. SCARCE COHERENCE BETWEEN DRAFTS AND INITIAL DESIGN

NEW ITEMS

COHERENCE AMONG WPs

Only one “scarsely”, a choice which in Q5c was motivated as follows: “Lack of internal coherence, and lack of leading function”

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENTRESULTS

STAKEHOLDERS

Q15. STAKEHOLDERS INTEREST

EXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVE3RD SURVEY

ST

WO

Positive working atmosphere;Good organization;Engagement

Lack of coordination Lack of clarity in regard to the WPs contentsLack of timeLack of space for discussionPoor presentations

Awareness of need to make changes;

Good and clear documentation;

Coordination remains on the average (>> scarce attitude to involve partners in the project' construction and synthesis

of results)Scarcity of time

AMELIORATIVE SUGGESTIONSfrom bottom-up

Q14 (2 goals beyond those fixed in the working plan)

“networking and new partnerships” “acquisition of key competences and dealing new

methods “

OPEN QUESTIONS (FINAL AMELIORATIVE SUGGESTIONS:

“more discussion”; “bringing the drafts of the WPs to the next meeting to

discuss them among the partners would be crucial”; “Improve coordination” “Find an editor for the final results” “Create a good link with actual VET activities

(especially in the construction Sector)”

SUMMPING UP:CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

ORGANISATION >> transnational cooperation COORDINATION >> MORE OPENNESS; MEDIATION; INVOLVEMENT; CONSORTIUM >> MORE CLARITY; SOCIALIZATION

STRUCTURE >> transfer process COOPERATION >> MORE INTERNAL COLLABORATION; DISCUSSION;

SHARING; TIME

ACTION PLAN OF THE PROJECT INTEGRATION >> project’s priorities and the Ps’ specific (or additional) aims; shiftings in priorities (KEY COMPETENCES IN VET)

REALISM OF GOALS >> cautious and doubtful approach to the actions implementation and goals achievement;

COHERENCE OF WPS >> only partial - with initial design rated positively;

- internal coherence (among WPs) to be monitored and assessed later onDISSEMINATION PHASE >>

STAKEHOLDERS >> partial interest; need and will to find new ones.

. CAUTIOUS FEEDBACK

DIFFERENCES

ORGANIZATIONS, TEAMS, GROUPS

MONOCULTURAL GROUPS

MULTICULTURAL

GROUPS

MULTICULTURAL GROUPS

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE

EFFECTIVENESS IN CREATIVE TASKS

LESS MOREWHEN DIFFERENCES ARE IGNORED OR NOT SUPPORTEDDIFFERENCES BECOME AN OBSTACLE TO PERFORMNCE

WHEN DIFFERENCES ARE ACKNOWLEDGED AND SUPPORTEDDIFFERENCES BECOME AN ASSET TO PERFORMNCE

MILTON J. BENNETT WOULD SAYS:

Thanks!

Scientific Responsible for P3-WP5 Prof. Maria Giovanna Onoratim.onorati@univda.it

Technical collaborator for P3-WP5 Emanuela Sebastiani info@emanuelasebastiani.it