1. 1 Nacionalna Tempus kancelarija www.tempus.ac.rs

2. Analiza neuspešnih projektnih prijava iz trećeg konkursnog roka Nacionalna Tempus kancelarija Jasmina Gajić, Sofija Dukić

3. EACEA Skala ocenjivanja po bodovima

4. Broj analiziranih pisama neuspešnim prijavama Ukupno 24 (18 sa kratke liste + 6 gde učestvuje RS)  4 Iz grupe 1: projekti sa bodovima od 75 - 100  14 Iz grupe 2: projekti sa bodovima od 50-75  6 Iz grupe 3: projekti sa bodovima od 0 - 50

5. Sadržaj  Pregled nedostataka neuspešnih projektnih prijava  Saveti zarad izbegavanja uočenih nedostataka

6. Relevance JPCRJPHES -the needs analysis doesn’t exist (or there is NA in one of the beneficiary country, but not in other one)- to revise/develop mA/PhD/training courses; -project rationale partially explained; -more effective role of the external expert; -planned impact on the participating institutions is not adequately demonstrated* -very ambitious project- intercultural exchange but without strategies on it in partner countries; -covered geographical area too small -System of credits is not foreseen for courses; -There is no non-academic, industry partners and relevant authorities needed, student organizations, relevant institutions etc. * Najčešće greške -Lack of the involvement of student Organizations, relevant ministries -necessity of creation of Center as a key result not well described; -the needs analysis doesn’t exist (or there is NA in one of the beneficiary country, but not in other one; or specific conditions in partner countries not presented in detail, or it is too general; -results only seen at faculty level* -fails to correspondent with priority which is not set for that country; -no good geographical coverage -specific objectives not described well (one of them) -it is impossible to see the impact of the project in Serbia, not well described, very few lectures will benefit from the project; -the target group identified in the project does not seem to represent a significant sample in economy of their countries

7. Saveti – relevantnost projekta  Analiza potreba treba da se poziva na potrebe regiona unutar jedne zemlje i svake od parnerskih zemalja učesnica – dobro je citirati neke zvanične dokumente i skorašnje analize;  Očekivani rezultati projekta (impact) treba da budu sagledani na više nivoa – počev od departmana, fakulteta, univerziteta, zemlje i regiona (po mogućnosti);  Kritički sagledati / nagovestiti zbog čega je projekat bitan za svaku od konkretnih institucija učesnika i u kojoj meri im može doneti koristi  Proceniti spremnost institucija da se poduhvate određene teme kroz projekat

8. Quality of the Partnership JPCRJPHES - competences and experiences of the key persons not well described; - distribution of the tasks among the partners is not balanced; - role of non-academic partners are marginalized; - lack of strong capacity building process among partner countries - experiences of the key persons (from EU) not well described in specific area (they are good in Tempus project management); - communication between partners and Board not well explained; - non-academic partners are not sufficiently involved and not included financial management structure - there is no major stakeholders and target groups in consortia (partners from industry in that area); - the leading role and control remains at one university; - The role of the Serbian partners seemed to be limited; - there is no evidences that institutions in partner countries will benefit for capacity building process or EU partners are not use adequately for their experiences and expertise - description of the objectives-very law - distribution of the tasks among the partners is not balanced; - Experiences of the key persons (from EU) not well described in specific area, non enough experience of the partners (development of LLL courses,..); - no evidences on operational capacity for project management; - to many activities are on the sight of EU partners (specially at coordinator institution); partner institutions are not leader in any of WP - Section E2 of e-form is empty; some relevant details missing in other parts of e-form - partners' communication between consortia meeting is not explained; - lack on references regarding financial capacity of the applicant; - the project would have benefit form relevant ministry been involved

9. Saveti – kvalitet partnerstva  Projekat treba a doprinosi građenju kapaciteta svih institucija partnerskih zemalja podjednako /uravnoteženo  Objasniti konkretnu ulogu EU partnera  Indentifikovati ključne ne-akademske partnere u smislu postavljenih ciljeva i pozvati ih da učestvuju  Ne marginalizovati ulogu ne-akademskih partnera već ih uključiti u više radnih paketa  Navesti više od jedne ključne osobe i predstaviti je u smislu ekspertize/kvalitata za ostvarivanje ciljeva  Menadžment projektom ne sme da bude u rukama samo jedne institucije – raspodeliti odgovornosti i uspostaviti principe odlučivanja uz uvažavanje interesa svih

10. Methodology JPCR - LFM needs some quantitative measures and timelines (how many studnets will be enrolled, traneirs trained, by which date); - 2-year project is too short for CR; - all management activities done by coordinator, - no students involvement - activities are not well described; - there is no selection procedure for enrollment of students; - no analysis of needs from private or public sector; - non-academic partners are not involved in creating the syllabuses for new MA/PhD or revising BA studies; - predominant role of the coordinator - not balanced tasks between partners - there is no delivery on some study programme during the project lifetime; - teaching material and accreditation is foreseen only in Macedonia but not in RS; - no specification on content of MA - The teaching courses start before teaching materials are prepared - purchasing and installation of the equipment last 17 months (too long); - students are not involved in development of the project - the overall working method is not clear (the main objectives have been identified but there is lack in description of activities leading to the outcomes/ outputs) - the assumptions and risks need further development; the plan for quality assurance needs to be further developed,

11. Methodology JPHES - LFM needs some quantitative measures and timelines (how many students/participants will be enrolled, trainers trained, by which date); - project objectives are described in generic terms without providing important details or information on activities very poor described; - overlapping with activities; activities start too late or last too long; - not clear structure of the management and quality control plan - Methodology of training the trainers are not defined; - involvement of non-academic partners are not adequate - no number of persons that will be trained, go on mobility or take a tasks in project; - development phase of the WP is unjustifiably long (21 months preparation activities for one week training course); - Manuel is not described well; copy-paste elements in various parts of the project; - no financial management structure; - there is no info on the aim for some mobility flows; no info on composition of knowledge center staff; no info on the content for short training courses - the outcomes /outputs not clearly defined in WP; - students/students organizations are not involved at all; - WP must be link with some logical line of activities; visit to companies must be in beneficiary countries (not only in EU countries) work plan doesn't ensure that partner countries will benefit from EU knowledge and experiences; no mobility from Partner countries to EU or vise versa is planned; - inadequate involvement of industry partners; - specific objective "harmonization of …legislative" -but work plan doesn’t have any activity related to the legislation;

12. Saveti – metodologija  Razložiti bolje faze kroz koje se stiže do određenog cilja, prateći logičan sled aktivnosti  Prilagoditi trajanje aktivnosti realnim očekivanjima  Planirati barem pilot implementaciju onoga što je kroz projekat razvijeno u toku njegovog trajanja  Navesti što više kantitativnih parametara npr. broj studenata, osoba za treninge, uključenih nastavnika, preduzeća...  Planirati kupovinu opreme nakon što se definiše čemu će ona da služi konkretno  Obrazložiti ciljeve putovanja kao i ko treba da putuje  Izbeći “copy-paste” delova teksta na raznim mestima u prijavi  Praćenje kvaliteta razvoja samog projekta ne treba mešati sa ocenjivanjem kvaliteta proizvedenog materijala  I prikaz finansijski menadžmenta je deo metodologije

13. Saveti – metodologija  centri u projektima: formiranje centara ne može biti cilj projekta  “e-learning” i “distance learning” opcije u projektima: na njihovu primenu se gleda kao na jednu od metoda i to u skladu sa dobro procenjenim, dokumentovanim potrebama i mogućnostima za npr. takvo izvođenje nastave-treninga a uskladu sa postojećim nacionalnim regulativama o priznavanju ovakvih kurseva

14. Sustainability JPCRJPHES - only accreditation of the study programme is foreseen for sustainability; - more activities for dissemination; sustainability not well presented; more evidences on financial sustainability of the institutions - dissemination should be expanded to the region; - students role should be more active in dissemination (not only as a listeners); - the accreditation of new training programme is not foreseen;; - Some activities should be further specified (2 seminars and symposium should be more explained); - lack of sustainability because the programme wouldn’t start during project lifetime the role of the Center after project lifetime isn't described; - bad dissemination and sustainability plan; - there is no web site planed; study program will last till the project end - No explanation of the multiple effect and introduction of the similar courses to the other HE institutions in country; - no evidence on how new training courses (or their elements) will be integrated in 3cycle system, with how many additional credits,..; - dissemination activities star quite late compared to he project objectives - Industry partners, students,.. should be more involved in dissemination activities (not only as listeners) - creation of Platform for continuing education is one of the result-but platform model is not described - lack of clear information who is main responsible for activities in one of the working-package - the planned work shops need to be more specified

15. Saveti – održivost i širenje rezultata projekta  Rani početak uključivanja ovakvih aktivnosti  Svi partneri u projektu treba da su svesni važnosti ova dva aspekta projekta i uključeni u planiranje od početka  Razumeti povezanost – pravilno širenje informacija o rezultatima projekta, doprinosi interesovanju i olakšava finansijske aspekte održivosti  Obaveza: akreditacija nastavnih sadržaja ili metoda, priznavanje i formalizovanje procedura, regulativa, načina institucionalne saradnje  Web-site projekta postaje neophodnost od samog početka – dobro osmisliti njegov sadržaj

16. Budget and Costs Effectiveness JPCRJPHES - lack of the money distribution for staff costs; too long mobility flows for lot of people; - not-eligible or overestimated equipment costs (4 laptops for EU partners or computer - 1200eur or 90 000 Euros for "scientific books and journals) - Ineligible expenses/not in the order with guidelines tables (exursions, dinners,…); - exaggerating of staff costs (coordinator has 45% more for staff costs then other partners); the budget is not balanced between partners (half of the budget goes to coordinator); - mobility tables are confusing; - necessity of some equipment should be more justified - staff resources for one partner are overestimated; no administrative staff costs are planned; - exaggerating of staff costs; total costs are not justified by foreseen objectives; staff resource allocation for coordinator is several times higher then that of the others - distribution of the equipment is not adequate, lot of translations for the consortium meetings are not justified, weak cost-effectiveness for project with no reasonable equipment purchasing (photocopier for 50 000 eur); - equipment costs should be reduced so as mobility flows between Partner and EU countries or no costs for mobility flows from partner countries to EU (only between partner countries);

17. Saveti – budžet i racionalno predviđanje troškova  Dobro se obavestiti šta je sve eligible cost  Uravnotežena raspodela sredstava u projektu pozitivno utiče na odnose među partnerima  Detaljnije planiranje troškova u prijavi olakšava posao praćenja trošenja sredstava kasnije  Sve VO institucije -partneri, treba da budu zastupljene u svim vrstama troškova

18. Često postavljana pitanja za pripremu projekata na Tempus sajtu

19. Tempus kancelarija u Srbiji Lazarevićeva 9/14 11000 Belgrade, Serbia +381 11 32 33 409, +381 11 33 47 389 office@tempus.ac.rs www.tempus.ac.rs Hvala Vam na pažnji! Ne ponavljajte greške Želimo Vam uspeh u ovom konkursnom roku www.tempus.ac.rs