KOKEMÄKI, WP V. Quality Assurance of Deliverables (Quality assurance plan) INTERMEDIATE REPORT

STEPS EX-ANTE SELF- ASSESSMENT ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT (MONITORING) FINAL ASSESSMENT PLAN PLAN DO DO CHECK ACT

DIMENSIONS TO BE MEASURED 1.ORGANISATION >> transnational cooperation management, consortium, stakeholders, task assignments, role taking, negotiation, cooperation 2. STRUCTURE >> transfer process WPs’outline, endowments (tools, equipments, etc.) 3. ACTION PLAN OF THE PROJECT scheduling, implementation (activities), outputs, dissemination/appraisal INTERIM RESULTS

THE FIRST WEBSURVEY DECEMBER 2013-JANUARY ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT OrganisationAction planManagement EX-ANTE EVALUATION Priorities & Expectations Assessment tools Swot Analysis Structured Items Likert scale Stakeholders

THE SECOND WEBSURVEY JANUARY 2014-MAY ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT Organisation Action plan & Cooperation Management PERCEPTION OF ONGOING PROJECT EXECUTION Realistic Expectations? Achievement of interim goals Swot Analysis Structured items Likert scale Assessment & Stakeholders

THE THIRD WEBSURVEY JUNE 2014-JANUARY ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT Organisation Action plan & Cooperation Management EX-ANTE EVLUATION Swot Analysis Structured items Likert scale PERCEPTION OF ONGOING PROJECT EXECUTION Expectations / Priorities Realistic goals? Coherence of WPs Assessment & Stakeholders

FROM 1 ST TO 2 ND SURVEY: WHAT CHANGED? FROM 1 ST TO 2 ND 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 costs Threats 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 RESULTS THE INTERNATIONAL MEETING 8 Meeting in Lugano GENERAL ORGANISATION Q1. PREPARATION OF LUGANO MEETING Q2. ORGANISATION AND REALISATION OF THE MEETING

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 9 MEETING CONTENTS Q4. NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS, DOUBTS, QUESTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 10 COORDINATION STYLE Q5. COORDINATOION’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS Ps’ ACTIVE PARTICIPATION Q6. CLARITY ON UPCOMING WORK AND DEADLINES Past survey

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 11 Q7. BALANCE OF ACTIVITIES (WORK GROUP AND SOCIAL MOMENTS) Q7bis. EVALUATION OF CONSORTIUM’S WORK DURING MEETING

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 12 Q8. PARTNERS’ CONTRIBUTION Past websurvey Q9. INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION INTERNAL COLLABORATION Past websurvey

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 13 Q8bis. PARTNERS’ COOPERATION INTERNAL COLLABORATION

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 13 Q10. COORDINATION’S ATTITUDE TO INVOLVING PARTNERS Q11. COORDINATION’S ROLE AS MEDIATOR OF PARTNERS’ NEEDS COORDINATOR Past websurvey

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 16 ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Q14a. TO WHAT EXTENT THE ORIGINAL PROJECT GOALS ARE REALISTIC? Q14b. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE INTERIM PROJECT GOALS RESPECTED?

ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 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-ASSESSMENT RESULTS STAKEHOLDERS Q15. STAKEHOLDERS INTEREST

EXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVE 3 RD SURVEY S T W O Positive working atmosphere; Good organization; Engagement Lack of coordination Lack of clarity in regard to the WPs contents Lack of time Lack of space for discussion Poor 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 SUGGESTIONS from 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 on DISSEMINATION PHASE >> STAKEHOLDERS >> partial interest; need and will to find new ones.. CAUTIOUS FEEDBACK

DIFFERENCES  ORGANIZATIONS, TEAMS, GROUPS MONOCULTURAL GROUPS MULTICULTURAL GROUPS AVERAGE PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS IN CREATIVE TASKS LESS MORE WHEN DIFFERENCES ARE IGNORED OR NOT SUPPORTED DIFFERENCES BECOME AN OBSTACLE TO PERFORMNCE WHEN DIFFERENCES ARE ACKNOWLEDGED AND SUPPORTED DIFFERENCES BECOME AN ASSET TO PERFORMNCE MILTON J. BENNETT WOULD SAYS:

Thanks! Scientific Responsible for P3-WP5 Prof. Maria Giovanna Onorati Technical collaborator for P3-WP5 Emanuela Sebastiani