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 Onoratim.onorati@univda.it

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