Arcadia consulting evaluation report besni

Qualipaths: Leonardo Learning Partnership Meeting

Evaluation report of the meeting in Besni

1

Cittadella (Italy)10th to 11th January 2013

2

index1. Introduction

2. the preparation of the seminar (planning),

3. the seminar as a whole and its activities (implementation),

4. the ways to address the weaknesses (review).

5. Sum up your proposals to take steps to improve the project

6. Conclusions

3

1 – INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the

quality of our project and its activities. Introduce key areas and indicators to help

us:

• recognize the strengths,

• identify areas that need some improvement or further action,

• take the necessary decisions to correct deficiencies.

4

1 – INTRODUCTIONThree basic questions are at the centre of the

evaluation process:

1 - How are we doing?

• It asks us to consider how our project has been planned and is currently performing in

relation to its aims and the work plan

• It enables partners to form their own judgements which can then be used as the

basis for discussion

5

1 – INTRODUCTION2 - How do we know?

• It makes us identify specific examples as evidence to back up our assessment

3 - What are we going to do now?

• It encourages to take steps towards addressing any areas of weakness

6

1 – INTRODUCTIONThree key areas are assessed (evaluation):

• the preparation of the seminar (planning): global performance indicators as regards planning

• the seminar as a whole and its activities (implementation): performance indicators for the activities during the seminar

• the ways to address the weaknesses (review): strenghtening of the project and ways to address weaknesses

7

1 – INTRODUCTIONFor each area were reported aggregated data

(frequency and average) and graphs.

The number of respondents is 8 (partner) .

Were also evaluated and reported on comments from participants.

The level to each indicator: 4 = very good - major strengths

3 = good - strengths outweigh weaknesses

2 = fair - some important weaknesses

1 = unsatisfactory - major weaknesses

8

2 – THE PREPARATION OF THE SEMINAR (PLANNING)

4 3 2 1

1.1.a.1Extent to which I was prepared to commit time and resources in line with the jointly agreed work plan

4 3 1 0 3,4

1.1.a.2 Willingness to resolve problems related to the preparation 7 1 0 0 3,9

1.1.bQuality of the planning by the coordination and partnership

Clarity of the agenda Clarity of the requirements prior to the meeting in realistic time scale

3 5 0 0 3,4

1.2Effective communication amongst partners prior to the seminar

Effectiveness and clarity of communication Appropriate information issued to participants prior to the meeting

4 2 2 0 3,3

1.3Reflection on the approach of my organisation regarding quality assurance

Preparation of the presentation of our approach and practices to partners 5 3 0 0 3,6

3,5

3,6

averageNo.

Commitment to the preparation of the project by my organisation

frequency valuePerformance Indicators

Topic

total average

total average of Glasgow

9

2 – THE PREPARATION OF THE SEMINAR (PLANNING)

Comments:• We have been actively involved in the delivery of this

project, however communication and information from some partners has been very limited.

10

3 – THE SEMINAR AS A WHOLE AND ITS ACTIVITIES (IMPLEMENTATION)

4 3 2 12.1.a clear rationale and clarity of objectives 3 5 0 0 3,42.1.b realistic timescales 1 7 0 0 3,12.1.c clarity and consistency of the general design of the

activities 2 6 0 0 3,32.2 Quality of project materials/products quality of materials/guidebook/reports/products as

envisaged in the seminar 2 6 0 0 3,32.3 Quality of the promotion of the European

dimension as regards Qaulity assuranceeffective promotion of knowledge and understanding about EQAVET 3 5 0 0 3,4

2.4.a mutual understanding about project rationale, overall aims and short-term/long-term objectives 3 3 2 0 3,1

2.4.b clear evidence in the work plan of sharing of roles and responsibilities amongst partners 3 4 1 0 3,3

2.4.c development of teamwork 4 2 2 0 3,32.5.a evidence of a varied range of approaches by all partners

within the project 4 3 1 0 3,42.5.b extent of the opportunity for partners to input their own

expertise and learn from each other 3 5 0 0 3,42.6 Provision and suitability of materials, resources

and equipmentrelevance and quality of materials issued during the event 2 6 0 0 3,3

2.7 Effectiveness of content and appropriate range and balance of activities

Effectiveness of work plan to identify good practices 2 4 2 0 3,0

2.8 Requirements of participantsEvidence that the needs and expectations of participants have been taken into account according to each participants situation as regards quality assurance

4 3 1 0 3,4

2.9Quality and appropriateness of the domestic arrangements and the comfort factor

Attention to practical details and catering arrangements, suitability of working place and quality of overnight accommodation

3 4 1 0 3,3

3,4

3,4

Structure of the activities regarding quality assurance

total average


No. Topic Performance Indicatorsfrequency value

average

Agreement amongst partners and shared ownership of the event

Innovation and variety of approaches regarding quality processes

11


Comments:• Thanks very much to the Turkish team for their very warm

(literally in this case!) welcome and hospitality.• We gained great insight into the vocational and education

experience in Turkey.

• Up date, we progress in sharing our experiences, but we are not yet really able to scrutinize common practices or common standards.

• I has became evident that some partners are not so involved in the project delivery and that the work relating to the delivery of the project has been down to 5 of the 7 partners involved in project delivery.

12


Strong Medium Low No3.1 Improvement of participants’ skills on the work

topics 2 4 1 0 3,13.2 Appraisal of inter-cultural differences, including

overcoming of stereotypes and prejudices 6 1 0 0 3,93.3 Increased participants’ motivation in being more

involved at local level 1 5 1 0 3,03.4 Exchange of experience and know-how 6 1 0 0 3,93.5 Establishment or strengthening of partnerships or

stable relationships among organisations 5 2 0 0 3,73.6 Potentialities for further projects 5 1 1 0 3,63.7 Approach of innovative and new work methods 3 4 0 0 3,4

total average 3,5

3,6

No. Impact of activities impact

average


13


Comments:• Some partners are more active and interactive than other

partners working within the project delivery.

14

4 – THE WAYS TO ADDRESS THE WEAKNESSES (REVIEW)

1. Preparation of the seminar (planning)

Comments:•Provide proposal for agenda and requirements earlier before meetings•More information prior to meeting.

•Anniesland was/has been committed to project delivery and committed resources as necessary.

15


2. Development of the work sessions

Comments:• This was clear from project start.• Timescales adequate• Yes, we have a full understanding of the project aims.• Difficult to gauge as some partners are more active than others.• More so from a number of the partners, some should input more.• Our situation with regards to quality is high, not so clear from one or

two of the other organisations.• Working place was fine, hotel accommodated was below average.

16


3. Impact of activities on the participants and organisations

Comments:• Slight improvement due to some partner input

• Not made much if any difference to our normal input at local level

17

5 – SUM UP YOUR PROPOSALS TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE THE PROJECT

Comments:• Since WSINF is currently undergoing internal financial

and organisational difficulties the main effort is put on optimisation of its remaining in the partnership.

• Stronger, more pro-active and visible project management

• Awake the project’s blog (which unfortunately is sleeping) and use it more actively; stimulate partners to contribute to discussions

• More input from partners, one or two of the partners need to be more involved.

18

6 – CONCLUSIONS

POSITIVE

• Got to know partners

• The preparation of the seminar (planning) is very good.

• A lot of interest from partners to EQAVET

• Relevance and quality of materials issued during the event is very good.

• Workshops are an important moment of the seminar.

19

6 – CONCLUSIONS

TO CLARIFY or QUESTIONS OPEN

• Comunication EQAVET very complicated?

• The time was short compared to subjects?

• Implementing EQAVET very complicated?

• More time for cultural activity (location of hotels near city centres)?

• Should clarify the expectations from partners.

20

Thanks for your attention!

Marco

Technology

Arcadia consulting evaluation report besni