Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 [email protected]
Technical collaborator for P3-WP5 Emanuela Sebastiani [email protected]
