1. LUGANO, 08-09.2014 WP V. Quality Assurance of Deliverables (Quality assurance plan). Interim results, challenges, future work

2. STEPS EX-ANTE SELF- ASSESSMENT ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT (MONITORING) FINAL ASSESSMENT 124387659 PLAN PLAN DO DO CHECK ACT

3. 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

4. THE FIRST WEBSURVEY DECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014 5 ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT organisationstructureaction plan EX-ANTE EVALUATION General & specific expectations assessment swot analysis structured items Likert scale

5. THE SECOND WEBSURVEY JANUARY 2014-MAY 2014 5 ONGOING SELF- ASSESSMENT organisationstructureaction plan PERCEPTION OF ONGOING PROJECT EXECUTION realistic expectations? achievement of interim goals swot analysis structured items Likert scale

6. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 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 points 1.communication problems, unclarified activities (living labs, website)

7. EXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVE 1 ST SURVEY S T W O 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

8. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 8 Meeting in Aosta GENERAL ORGANISATION Q1. PREPARATION OF AOSTA MEETING Q2. ORGANISATION AND REALISATION OF THE MEETING

9. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 9 MEETING CONTENTS Q3. CLARITY ABOUT UPCOMING WORK (AIMS, DELIVERABLES, WPs) Q4. NEEDS, EXPECTATIONS, DOUBS, QUESTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

10. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 10 COORDINATION STYLE Q5. COORDINATOR’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS PARTICIPANTS Q6. CLARITY ON UPCOMING WORK AND DEADLINES

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

12. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 12 INTERNAL COLLABORATION Q8. PARTNERS’ CONTRIBUTION Q8bis. PARTNERS’ COOPERATION

13. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 13 INTERNAL COLLABORATION Q9. INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION Q10. COORDINATOR’S ATTITUDE TO INVOLVING PARTNER S

14. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 14 Q11. COORDINATOR’S ROLE AS MEDIATOR OF PARTNERS’ NEEDS Q12. HOW WELL DID THE MEETING MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS?

15. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 15 ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Q13. 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 7 133.54 / 4 (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 7 133.46 / 4 (0.00%)(7.69%)(38.46%)(53.85%) To encourage the learning of modern foreign languages1 2 5 5 133.08 / 4 (7.69%)(15.38%)(38.46%) To support the development of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong learning 0 2 7 4 133.15 / 4 (0.00%)(15.38%)(53.85%)(30.77%) To promote the acquisition of key competences in VET0 0 7 6 133.46 / 4 (0.00%) (53.85%)(46.15%) 3.34 / 4

16. ONGOING SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS 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?

17. FROM 1 ST TO 2 ND SURVEY: WHAT CHANGES? FROM 1 ST TO 2 ND 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 criticalities  strictness of administrative policies  linguistic issues  excessive costs

18. EXPECTATIONS IN A “SWOT” PERSPECTIVE 2 ND SURVEY S T W O 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

19. YOUR 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.’

20. CHALLENGES 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.

21. Thanks! Scientific Responsible for P3-WP5 Prof. Maria Giovanna Onorati m.onorati@univda.it Technical collaborator for P3-WP5 Emanuela Sebastiani info@emanuelasebastiani.it