2. Overview of the Benchmark Group review questionnaire Presentation to the EXTR@Web subcontractors’ meeting 13 October 2005 Andrew Winder

3. Changes to BG members

4. Contacts between BG member and partner / subcontractor

5. Validation of forms (programme / project)

6. Value added by BG member

7. Conclusions - 1 Mixed picture overall some BG members provide significant added value, active in meetings, have a good working relationship with national partner or subcontractor Very positive feedback in 8 countries implies that BG member was well chosen and is committed to the project 6 of these 8 BG members are also regular participants in the BG meetings Quite positive feedback in 3 more countries So, in 11 of the 18 countries surveyed with a BG member, there was evidence that they provide a useful support to the project

8. Conclusions - 2 In other areas, the picture is less good: in some cases, the BG member is competent, but is in a senior position and lacks time to devote to the task In some cases, the person has more time and more commitment but is in a more junior position, so the level and value of their input is lower sometimes they do not have the right contacts or sufficient influence in order to properly fulfil their task in several of these countries the “wrong” person was probably appointed by their national administration BG is not contractually obliged to undertake tasks, and is based on goodwill alone: the performance generally depends upon the importance the Member States attach to the EXTR@Web project