Grant Agreement No. TREN/FP7/TR/218621/ PROPS UPRC

Transcription

1 Grant Agreement No. TREN/FP7/TR/218621/ PROPS Project Start Date: July 1 st 2008 End Date: June 30 th 2011 Co-ordinator: UPRC Deliverable No: Document type: WP No: WP Leader: GPI Due date: Dissemination Level: Public Submission date: 5/11/2009 Distribution Group: A Project supported by the European Commission. Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. DISCLAIMER Use of any knowledge, information or data contained in this document shall be at the user s sole risk. The members of the PROPS Consortium accept no liability or responsibility, in negligence or otherwise, for any loss, damage or expense whatsoever incurred by any person as a result of the use, in any manner or form, of any knowledge, information or data contained in this document, or due to any inaccuracy, omission or error therein contained. The European Commission shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the use of any such knowledge, information or data, or the consequences thereof. 1

2 Document summary information Authors and contributors Initials Author Organisation Role Mr Xuan Loc Doan GPI Research Associate Prof Chris Dixon GPI Deputy Director DISCLAIMER Use of any knowledge, information or data contained in this document shall be at the user s sole risk. The members of the PROPS Consortium accept no liability or responsibility, in negligence or otherwise, for any loss, damage or expense whatsoever incurred by any person as a result of the use, in any manner or form, of any knowledge, information or data contained in this document, or due to any inaccuracy, omission or error therein contained. The European Commission shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the use of any such knowledge, information or data, or the consequences thereof. 2

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction The response rate Responses to the questions General information about the SPCs The areas of focus of SPCs The ranking of SPCs activities The existing performance indicators (PIs) Awareness and application of the PIs The use of the PIs The objectives The means The indicators to be removed or added The PROPS proposed indicators Additional comments Conclusion ANNEX 1: Existing SPC performance indicators ANNEX 2: Use of indicators by SPCs 19 3

4 1. Introduction The objective of this deliverable was to report on the use of PIs (Performance Indicators) by SPCs (Shortsea Promotion Centres). In particular to gauge: the extent to which SPCs use the PIs in their operations and reporting; their views of the clarity, suitability and range of indicators; and what changes, if any, should be made. The necessary data was collected through a questionnaire supplemented by and telephone calls. Electronic questionnaires were sent to the 21 SPCs on 21 September It was recognised that the SPCs are extremely varied in level of activity and general understanding of the use and importance of the performance indicators. It was thus anticipated that significant effort would have to devote to explaining the importance of the survey, its potential to influence revisions in the indicators and their application. To this end a number of reminders were sent and several telephone calls made over a two-week period. 2. The response rate Ten SPCs completed the questionnaire and sent back their feedbacks. They were Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden. However, a 47.6 % response rate is not out of line with the response rate for this type of study. In addition, the responses are sufficient to provide some important insights, particular given that the contact with the SPCs gave some indicators of the reasons for the non-response. The reasons not to respond were e.g. that they had done a similar exercise for the EC before; they thought that this survey was a theoretical exercise and the parties who were financing their activities were not interested in it; the performance indicators did not help to get extra funds from their respective government or ministry; they did not have resources or time; and as a consequence of the other reasons, they did not have the incentive to participate in the survey. 3. Responses to the questions 3.1. General information about the SPCs The areas of focus of SPCs The SPCs were asked to identify which areas they focused on (Table 1). Among the ten responses received, eight SPCs focussed on Providing information. The second most focussed area was Marketing with seven SPCs doing this activity. Lobbying, Addressing issues of bottlenecks and Reports and Studies are less focussed on with four SPCs carrying out these activities. 4

5 Besides the seven areas mentioned, there are three additional activities, which were focused on by three SPCs. They were EU funded projects (Croatia), Advising on government policy (Ireland) and Conferences and meetings (Sweden). 1 Table 1. The areas of focus of SPCs Areas of focus Respondents* B G C R C Y D N F N F R I T I R M T S W Total 1 Marketing x x x x x x x 7 2 Lobbying x x x x 4 3 Providing information x x x x x x x x 8 4 Addressing issues of bottlenecks x x x x 4 5 Bringing stakeholders together x x x x x x 6 6 Cooperation within the ESN x x x x x x x x 8 7 Reports and Studies x x x x 4 8 (Others) = EU funded projects x 1 = Advising on government policy x 1 = Conference, meetings and activities x 1 Total number of areas reported Note: * The ten respondents are (BG) Bulgaria, (CR) Croatia, (CY) Cyprus, (DN) Denmark, (FN) Finland, (FR) France, (IT) Italy, (IR) Ireland, (MT) Malta, and (SW) Sweden The ranking of SPCs activities The SPCs were asked to rank the importance of their activities on the scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the most important and 7 the least important (Table 2a). The more important activities include Providing information (average 2.4), Bringing stakeholders together (3.4), and Cooperation with the ESN (3.6), while the least important ones include Marketing ( average 4.7), Reports and Studies (5.0) and Lobbying (5.2). This is generally similar pattern to the one shown in Table 1, with the exception of Bringing stakeholders together. That is, the most focussed areas also have high rankings and the less focussed ones low rankings (Table 2b). 1 See comment in footnote 4. 5

6 Table 2a. Ranking of activities Activities Ranking * µ Marketing 1x 2x 1x 2x 3x 1x 4.7 Lobbying 1x 2x 3x 2x 2x 5.2 Providing information 5x 2x 1x 1x 1x 2.4 Addressing issues of bottlenecks 1x 1x 3x 1x 1x 3x 4.5 Bringing stakeholders together 5x 1x 1x 2x 1x 3.4 Cooperation within the ESN 2x 4x 1x 2x 1x 3.6 Reports and Studies ** 1x 2x 2x 2x 1x 5.0 Other *** 2x EU funded projects 1x Advising on government policy 1x Conference, meetings and activities 1x Notes: * There are 8 ranks here because three SPCs added other activities and ranked them. ** Two SPCs, namely Cyprus and Sweden, did not rank Reports and Studies with Sweden stating it did not have resources to undertake this activity. Based on the eight responses that ranked Reports and Studies, the average ranking of this activity is 4.9. *** With regard to the additional activities: SPC Denmark and SPC France do not specify what they are but rank them no. 8. Croatia specifies EU funded projects and rank this activity no. 1; SPC Ireland specifies and ranks Advising on government policy no.1, equally Providing information ; and SPC Sweden specifies and ranks Conferences and Meetings no. 5 Table 2b: The overall ranking of activities Ranking Activities µ 1 Providing information Bringing stakeholders together Cooperation within the ESN Addressing issues of bottlenecks Marketing Reports and Studies Lobbying The existing performance indicators (PIs) Awareness and application of the PIs With regard to the awareness of the existing performance indicators, eight of ten responses said they were aware of the indicators. Only two of them, namely Cyprus and Italy, claimed that they did not know of the indicators. However, when asked whether they used the indicators in their daily work, only four responses, (Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, Malta), said that they did so, with one of these four, (Finland), not applying the full range of indicators or using them on a regular and consistent basis. 6

7 The use of PIs The SPCs were asked to state how often they reported their progress by using the indicators from each of the 14 sets of indicators (Table 3). Sweden did not answer this question because it worked to a yearly-action plan, which was reviewed regularly at the board-meetings to which it reported without using the PIs. In addition, as may be seen from Table 3, a number of the PIs were not used at all by some SPCs; this was most frequently the case with Get new shippers. In addition, all the indicators were reported by at least one SPC as only used occasionally. This was most frequently the case with Informing young people, Contributing to MoS, and Efforts towards road hauliers. This may imply that either the use of PIs is not seen as important or the PIs are not suitable to measure the performance of the SPCs. If the reason for not using the PIs is the former then the introduction of the indicators has not been successful. If the latter explanation is correct then a better set of indicators should be developed. Similarly, use of some of the indicators only occasionally may be because the indicators are not suitable to measure the performance or because SPCs spend less time on these activities. Table 3. The use of indicators Indicators under the following µ Average use objectives 1 Sound organisation 2x 2x 4x 1x 2.4 Often 2 Acceptability by clients 2x 2x 4x 1x 2.4 Often 3 Info gathering 2x 5x 2x 1.7 Often 4 Get new shippers 2x 1x 2x 4x 2.7 Occasionally 5 Stimulate cooperation 2x 2x 4x 1x 2.4 Often 6 Efforts towards road hauliers 2x 6x 1x 2.9 Occasionally 7 Extension of scope 3x 3x 3x 2.7 Occasionally 8 Issues of bottlenecks 1x 4x 3x 1x 2.4 Often 9 Promote participation in Marco Polo 3x 3x 1x 2x 2.2 Often and TEN-T 10 Contribute to MoS 2x 2x 5x 1x 2.8 Occasionally 11 Promote participation to cohesion and 2x 1x 4x 2x 2.7 Occasionally structural funds programme 12 Promote SSS 3x 2x 4x 2.1 Often 13 Networking in ESN 3x 3x 3x 2.0 Often 14 Inform young people about SSS 1x 8x 2.8 Occasionally Note: 1 = very often, 2 = often, 3 = occasionally, and 4 = never. 7

8 The objectives 2 When asked whether the list of objectives cover all of their main activities, six of the nine responses (one of the respondents did not answer this question) said it did. Three respondents, namely Cyprus, Denmark and Ireland said it did not, with Denmark stating that it should include Maritime conferences and events, Ireland stating it should include Advice to government and planning, and Cyprus not stating why. Concerning their opinion about the list of objectives, five of the nine responses (Sweden did not answer this question) said it was easy to read and use for reporting, with one response saying that it was very unclear or very difficult to use for reporting. When asked to state how important were the inclusion each of the 14 sets of indicators it was suggested that overall: from the ten responses received the very important sections were Networking in ESN and Promote SSS and the other sections were important (Table 4). Table 4. Importance of objectives Objectives µ Level of importance 1 Sound organisation 3x 3x 2x 1x 2.1 Important 2 Acceptability by clients 3x 3x 3x 2.0 Important 3 Info gathering 5x 4x 1.4 Important 4 Get new shippers 2x 5x 1x 1x 2.1 Important 5 Stimulate cooperation 4x 4x 1x 1.8 Important 6 Efforts towards road hauliers 2x 3x 3x 1x 2.3 Important 7 Extension of scope 2x 5x 2x 2.0 Important 8 Issues of bottlenecks 1x 7x 1x 2.0 Important 9 Promote participation in Marco Polo and TEN-T 6x 2x 1x 1.6 Important 10 Contribute to MoS 5x 2x 2x 1.7 Important 11 Promote participation to cohesion and 3x 4x 2x 1.9 Important structural funds programme 12 Promote SSS 6x 3x 1.3 Very import 13 Networking in ESN 6x 3x 1.3 Very import 14 Inform young people about SSS 4x 2x 3x 1.9 Important Note: 1= very important, 2 = important; 3= unimportant; and 4 = very unimportant 2 The objectives are defined as goals or priorities that an organisation wishes to achieve. In order to monitor progress achieved by the implementation for policy towards goals or objectives, it uses indicators. In other words, indicators are variables the organisation use to evaluate progress towards goals and objectives. See also Table 5 and Annex 1. 8

9 The means The detail of the means The SPCs were asked to rate the existing means in terms of detail (Table 5). Among the ten responses, one said it was too detailed and one stated the detail was insufficient to measure SPCs efforts. No response said it should be more detailed. The other eight SPCs said it was sufficiently detailed. The effectiveness of the means When asked how effectively the means measure their promotional activities, five of the ten responses said they were satisfactory. Two SPCs said they measured their activities very well (Table 6). That is to say generally they think the means measure their promotional activities satisfactorily. Table 5. The means for each objective grouping Objective Means 1 Regular incomes from diversified sources Activity-based management Ex-post reporting 2 Updating users satisfaction surveys 3 Meetings to disseminate information/best practices and to promote new SSS services Updating website Updated database on SSS services, set up of an intermodal service data base Newsletter and/or news Enquiries by phone, mail etc. Updating benchmarking/best practices studies 4 Answers to enquiries Participation as speaker to seminars involving (potential) users Brochures and other publications Press articles EU Internet consultations 5 Dedicated seminars 6 Meetings to promote ro-ro services Information sent to hauliers 7 Transformation into a intermodal promotion centre Mastering of know how on intermodal transport 9

10 Set up a general brochure on intermodal transport Extension of the website Extension of newsletters, mailing lists and target audience Fact sheet on intermodal transport Set up of a standard multi media presentation Workshops to analyse bottlenecks Take over of a broker functions; matching inquiries with service providers Extension of intermodal service data base 8 Contribution to the EU bottlenecks exercise Letters to inform Authorities about bottlenecks 9 Disseminate information to potential proposers 10 Mastering of know how on EU funding programmes Disseminate information Support financial engineering of MoS projects 11 Visit to local, regional and national authorities 12 Exchange of information and best practices 13 Exchange of best practices 14 Presentations Disseminate information Awareness campaign Website Subject for thesis Table 6. The effectiveness of the means The means measure your promotional activities: Responses Very well 2 Satisfactory 5 Not satisfactory 2 Very unsatisfactory 1 10

11 Means to be removed or added When asked whether they wished to remove any of the existing means or add any new ones to measure in the future, only three (Bulgaria, Finland and Malta) responded. o Means to be removed: Dedicated seminars (Objective no. 5) (Bulgaria) Take over of a broker functions (Objective no. 7) (Finland) Visit local, regional and national authorities (Objective no. 11) (Bulgaria) o Means to be added: Results from projects, (Objective no. 10) (Malta) Indicators to be added or removed The SPCs were also asked whether they wished to remove any of the existing indicators or to add any new ones for the use in the future. Only Bulgaria, Denmark, and Malta responded to this question. o Indicators to be added: Number of companies that made a modal shift (Objective no. 6) (Bulgaria) Financing of SSS Promotion Centres by (A): EC, (B): National Government/ministry, and (C): Industry, should be an indicator (Denmark) Modal split (Objective no. 10) (Malta) o Indicators to be removed: SPC Bulgaria Relative importance of promotion activities (Objective no. 1) Yes/no, page impressions on websites, number of download (Objective no. 3) Number and kind of enquiries (Objective no. 3) Number of replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country (Objective no. 4) Number of meetings, hauliers (Objective no. 6) Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies (Objective no. 6) Number of page impressions on the website, number of download (Objective no. 7) Number of letters (Objective no. 8) Number of meetings (Objective no. 11) Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport (Objective no. 11) 11

12 The PROPS proposed indicators The last question of the questionnaire asked whether they think the PROPS proposed indicators should measure: (1) efforts such as seminars, (2) real outcome such as increased volumes, and (3) a balance between measurements of effort and measurements of real outcome. Among the ten responses received, two thought they should measure in terms of (1), one response opted for (2) and six responses said they should measure in terms of (3) (see Table 7). That is to say majority of responses thought that the PROPS proposed indicators should provide a balance between measurement of effort and measurement of real outcomes. However, the existing indicators are heavily weighted towards effort rather than outcomes (see Annex 1). One response did not answer the question directly. Instead it said that the situation in the countries differ, the possibilities of the SPCs differ, SPC funding and resources differ. Suggesting that the indicators should take more account of national differences. Table 7. The PROPS Indicators The PROPS proposed indicators should measure: Responses 1 Efforts such as seminars 2 2 Real outcome such as increased volumes 1 3 A balance between measurements of effort and measurements of real outcome Additional comments Three SPCs, namely Bulgaria, Ireland and Finland gave additional comments. SPC Bulgaria: o Quantity indicators do not always indicate quality. o Measures of the effectiveness of the activities are needed. o New quality indicators, not conventional indicators, should be discussed and proposed. A new list of indicators is necessary. PROPS should discuss and propose a new list of quality indicators. SPC Ireland: o The Irish SPC is the IMDO (Irish Maritime Development Office) funded by government. The activities of the IMDO coincide in the main (but not entirely) with those of an SPC. o There is no funding from any source to the IMDO for specific SPC activities. 12

13 SPC Finland: o Quality is difficult to measure, but it is a key issue. Country-specific differences should be taken into account. o Proportions are in many cases better indicators than numbers. o Objectives no. 4 and 5: The Objectives, Means and Indicators are not in balance. o Awareness and cooperation should be generated among all target groups, not only among shippers, as co-operation between modes is an important issue. o To the question 6, that is state how often you report your progress by using the indicators. Reporting must be on regular bases, but it does not need to be frequent where changes seldom happen. o The number of donors is not necessarily a good indicator. For example, SPC Finland s donors are on the association/union level, not private companies such as ship owners. Better indicators might be the presence of different transport modes and forwarders, and the extent to which different transport actors are donors. o Another issue is whether the performance indicator list is applicable on the EU, national or other level. If it is used on the EU level, national and regional characteristics should be taken into account. At the national level, SPC Finland does not use these indicators to the full extent. o Some areas or specific themes on which the SPCs are working could be added or taken into account. For example, SPC Finland is working with maritime and environmental issues (and in the future more emphasis will be put on intermodal). Maritime and intermodal IT should also be taken into account. 4. Conclusion Overall, based on the responses received, a number of points can be made: Lack of funding from national governments appears to be a critical concern for SPCs. It largely explains the low response rate to the questionnaire, the limited use of the indicators, and the low level of interest in any evaluation expressed by most, though not all the SPCs. Presumably, most SPCs thought that participation in the study would not benefit them since it was only addressing the PIs, which they did not see as central to their problems. However, in general, those that responded were quite positive about the range of means and indicators, their clarity and the level of detail provided (Table 6). There are, however, a number of areas of concern, some of which warrant further investigation: o The very wide variation in the number of activities that SPCs focussed on (Table 1) 13

14 o The low ranking given to marketing activities 3 (Table 2a, 2b) given that this is supposed to be a central SPCs activity and it was highly rated as a focus area (Table 1) o Two SPCs claimed to be unaware of the PIs and only four making use of them in their daily work o The lack of fit between national reporting and activities and those of the SPCs (raised by Ireland and Sweden). This leads to a further question over whether the indicators should all be applicable at EC, national and other levels. There is here a broader question of the extent to which the PIs should recognise the variation in SPC circumstances and activities (raised by Bulgaria, Finland and Sweden). o The utility of Means 5 (dedicated seminars) and 11 (visit to local regional and national authorities) raised by Bulgaria. o The balance between Objectives, Means and PIs. While this was only raised with respect to Objectives 4 (Enhance awareness in order to get new shippers) and 5 (Stimulate cooperation between shippers in order to generate cargo volumes), consideration might be given to an overall review. Consideration should be given to: o The addition of objectives: two suggestions were made: Marine conferences and events (Denmark) and Advice to government and planning (Ireland). 4 o The removal of objectives: in terms of the use made by the SPCs a case might be made for Efforts towards road hauliers o The addition of a Mean to measure Results from projects raised by Malta o The addition of indicators: Modal split (Objective no. 10) raised by Malta) Number of companies that made a modal shift (Objective no. 6) raised by Bulgaria o The removal of indicators (all raised by Bulgaria): Relative importance of promotion activities (Objective no. 1) Yes/no, page impressions on websites, number of download (Objective no. 3) Number and kind of enquiries (Objective no. 3) Number of replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country (Objective no. 4) Number of meetings, hauliers (Objective no. 6) Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies (Objective no. 6) Number of page impressions on the website, number of download (Objective no. 7) Number of letters (Objective no. 8) Number of meetings (Objective no. 11) 3 For definition and detail of marketing activities, see D Although these have been mentioned as separate activities, Advising might be part of Lobbying, Conferences part of Providing information, etc. That means these activities can be classified in other focus areas. However, that they have been highlighted should be bore in mind in revising the PIs. 14

15 Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport (Objective no. 11) Ensuring that the PROPS proposed indicators provide a balance between measurement of effort and measurement of real outcomes (Table 7). In addition to the comments on existing PIs, one SPC (Bulgaria) suggested that some thoughts should be given to developing new quality indicators, not conventional ones. However, while the various comments of SPCs noted above must be taken into consideration when developing the PROPS indicators, these must be based on the established PROPS methodology, which is rooted in the business networking approach. 5 5 See D

16 ANNEX 1: Existing SPCs performance indicators Objectives: Target groups: Means: Performance Indicators: 1 Sound organisational and financial basis Donators/sharehold ers regular incomes from diversified sources activity-based management ex-post reporting number of donators/shareholders relative importance of promotion activities availability to donators/shareholders 2 Acceptability by the private sector, neutrality Shippers, forwarders, transport operators, shipping agents (updating) users satisfaction surveys Positive results 3 Information gathering and dissemination for existing or potential SSS users Shippers, forwarders, transport operators, shipping agents meetings to disseminate information/best practices and to promote new SSS services (updating) website updated database on SSS services, set up of an intermodal service data base newsletter and/or news enquiries by phone, mail etc. (updating) benchmarking/best practices studies number of persons present and number of meetings yes/no, page impressions on web site, number of downloads number of inquiries, number of updates per year, customers number of hits (website), number of addressees on mailing list number and kind of enquiries number of studies/best practices and potential users 4 Enhance awareness in order to get new shippers Shippers, forwarders, transport operators, shipping agents answers to enquiries participation as speaker to seminars involving (potential) users brochures and other publications press articles number of enquiries answered number of seminars attended number of brochures/publications disseminated number of press articles EU Internet consultations number of replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 16

17 5 Stimulate cooperation between shippers in order to generate cargo volumes Shippers, forwarders, transport operators, shipping agents dedicated seminars number of seminars, industry 6 Specific effort towards road hauliers Road Hauliers meetings to promote roro services information sent to hauliers number of meetings, hauliers specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 7 Extension of scope to promotion of intermodal transport Shippers, forwarders, transport operators, shipping agents transformation into a intermodal promotion centre mastering of know how on intermodal transport set up a general brochure on intermodal transport extension of the website extension of newsletters, mailing lists and target audience fact sheet on intermodal transport set up of a standard multi media presentation workshops to analyse bottlenecks take over of a broker functions; matching inquiries with service providers extension of intermodal service data base number of modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre number of co-operation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations numbers of copies number of page impressions on the web site, number of downloads number of addresses number of distributed sheets number of events participated, quality assessment of the event number of solutions identified, number of participants number of inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts number of inquiries, number of up dates, quality assessment 8 Follow-up of identified bottlenecks, identify new bottlenecks and contribute towards a solution SSS operators, ports, intermodal operators contribution to the EU bottlenecks exercise letters to inform Authorities about bottlenecks number of new bottlenecks identified number of measures proposed number of bottlenecks solved number of letters 9 Promote participation to Transport operators, ports, disseminate information to potential proposers number of contacted companies 17

18 Marco Polo II and TEN-T programmes shippers number of inquiries handled time spend in assistance number of proposals initiated number of successful proposals initiated 10 Contribute to a help desk for Motorways of the Sea Shippers, forwarders, transport operators, shipping agents mastering of know how on EU funding programmes disseminate information support financial engineering of MoS projects number of seminars/meetings attended on EU funding instruments (EC, EIB, Agencies) publication of contact person ( address, website and phone/fax number) for help desk number of calls; messages, meetings number of successful Motorways of the Sea project proposals 11 Promote participation to Cohesion and Structural funds programme Governments, EU visit to local, regional and national authorities number of meetings amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport 12 Promote SSS in logistics and international flora Organisations (logistics, international) exchange of information and best practices contribution to the ESN website, number of best practices on the ESN website 13 Contribute to reinforcing networking activities in ESN SPCs exchange of best practices number of participation to events updating liner services news items on website other work done e.g. organising meetings etc. treasury for ESN 14 Inform young people about SSS-awareness for a career in maritime business Young people presentations, disseminate information, awareness campaign, website, subject for thesis number of students contacted, number of presentations given 18

19 ANNEX 2: Use of indicators by SPCs Note: * The number here refers to the objective number ** When asked which indicators it wished to remove, SPC Bulgaria replied they wished to remove these. SPC Very often Often Occasionally Never Indicators Bulgaria 1*. - Number (no) of donators and shareholders; (Bulgaria wished to remove: - Relative importance of promotion activities)** - Availability to donators, shareholders; 2. Positive results; 5. seminars, industry 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations; - No of copies; - addresses; - distributed sheets; - events participated, quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update; (wished to remove: page impressions on the website, no of downloads) 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated. 10. seminars and 3. - persons and meetings; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - studies/best practices and positive assessment by potential users (wished to remove: - Yes/no, page impression on website, no of downloads; - No and kind of enquiries) 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; - press articles; (wished to remove: replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the MoS concept from the SPC country) 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - No of bottlenecks solved; (wished to remove: - No of letters) 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies (wished to remove these two indicators) meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport (wished to remove these two indicators) students contacted, no of presentations given 19

20 meetings attended on EU funding instruments; Publication of contact person for help desk; - calls, messages, meetings; successful MoS project proposals 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website Croatia participation to events; - Updating liner services; news items on website; other works done, e.g. organising meetings; Treasury for ESN 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - bottlenecks solved; - No of letters 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport 1. - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders; 2. Positive results 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users 5. seminars, industry 4. - enquires answered; - seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 7. - modes represented in the 20

21 intermodal promotion centre; - cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations; - No of copies; - page impressions on the website, no of downloads; - copies; addresses; - distributed sheets; - events participated, quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; Publication of contact person for help desk; - No of calls, messages, meetings; - successful MoS project proposals 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website participation to events; - Updating liner services; news items on website; other works done, e.g. organising meetings; - Treasury for ESN 14. students contacted, no of presentations given Cyprus 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of 1. - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results; 5. seminars, 4. - enquires answered; - no seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission 21

22 enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users industry 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; Publication of contact person for help desk; - No of calls, messages, meetings; - successful MoS project proposals 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website participation to events; - Updating liner services; - News items on website; - Other works done, e.g. organising meetings; - Treasury for ESN 14. students contacted, no of presentations given consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - No of cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organ isations; - no of copies; - No of page impressions on the website, no of downloads; - addresses; - distributed sheets; - No of events participated, quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful 22

23 facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - bottlenecks solved; No of letters 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport Denmark 1. - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results; 5. seminars, industry 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a 23

24 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated. 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website 13. participation to events; Updating liner services; news items on website; other works done, e.g. organising meetings; Treasury for ESN potential users 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - No of bottlenecks solved; - letters 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; Publication of contact person for help desk; - No of calls, messages, meetings; - successful MoS project proposals meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport 14. students contacted, no of presentations given maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 6. - meetings, positive assessment by hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - No of cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organ isations; - copies; - No of page impressions on the website, no of downloads; - addresses; - distributed sheets; - No of events participated, quality assessment of the event; 24

25 - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update Finland 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 1 - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results; 5. seminars, industry 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; bottlenecks solved; letters 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; Publication of contact person for help desk; - No of calls, messages, meetings; successful MoS project proposals 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website 14. students contacted, no of presentations given meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations; - no of copies; - page impressions on the website, no of downloads; - addresses; - distributed sheets; - events participated, quality assessment of the participation to events; - Updating liner services; news items on website; other works done, e.g. organising meetings; Treasury for ESN 25

26 France event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - No of bottlenecks solved; - letters meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website 13. participation to events; - Updating liner services; - News items on website; other works done, e.g. organising meetings; - Treasury for ESN 14. students contacted, no of presentations given 1 - donators and shareholders ; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results 5. seminars, positive assessment by industry 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - No of cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organ isations; - copies; - No of page impressions on the website, no of downloads; - addresses; - distributed sheets; - No of events participated, 26

27 quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated Italy 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, 1. - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; - Publication of contact person for help desk; - calls, messages, meetings; - successful MoS project proposals 27

28 website no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - No of bottlenecks solved; - letters 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; - Publication of contact person for help desk; - No of calls, messages, meetings; - successful MoS project proposals participation to events; - Updating liner services; news items on website; - Other works done, e.g. organising meetings; - Treasury for ESN promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results; 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 5. seminars, industry 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations; - No of copies; - page impressions on the website, no of downloads; addresses; - distributed sheets; - events participated, quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport 14. students contacted, no of 28

29 Ireland 1 - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - No of bottlenecks solved; - letters meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport presentations given 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; - Publication of contact person for help desk; - No of calls, messages, meetings; - successful MoS project proposals 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 5. seminars, industry 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations; - No of copies; - page impressions on the website, no of downloads; - addresses; - distributed sheets; - events participated, quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - 29

30 participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated. 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website participation to events; - Updating liner services; - News items on website; other works done, e.g. organising meetings; Treasury for ESN 14. students contacted, no of presentations given Malta 10. seminars and meetings attended on EU funding instruments; Publication of contact person for help desk; - calls, messages, meetings; successful MoS project proposals meetings; - Amount of regional funds allocated to MoS and maritime transport participation to events; - Updating liner services;- News items on website; - Other works done, e.g. organising meetings; Treasury for ESN 3. - persons and meetings; - Yes/no page impressions on website, no of downloads; - enquiries, updates per year, positive assessment by customers; - hits (website), no of addresses on mailing list; - No and kind of enquiries; - studies/best practices and potential users 4. - enquires answered; - No seminars attended; - press articles; - replies to Commission consultation on a maritime transport space without barriers and on the extension of the Motorways of the Sea concept from the SPC Country 1. - donators and shareholders; - Relative importance of promotional activities; - Availability to donators, shareholders 2. Positive results 5. seminars, industry 6. - meetings, hauliers; - Specific country info or SPC journal or mailing to haulage companies 8. - new bottlenecks identified; - measures proposed; - No of bottlenecks solved; - letters 14. students 30

31 7. - modes represented in the intermodal promotion centre; - cooperation agreements with intermodal actors/organisations; - No of copies; - page impressions on the website, no of downloads; addresses; - distributed sheets; - events participated, quality assessment of the event; - No solutions identified; - participants; - inquiries, share of successful facilitation of business contacts; - inquires, no of update contacted, no of presentations given 9. - contacted companies; - inquires handled; - Time spent in assistance; - No of proposals initiated; - successful proposal imitated. 12. Contribution to the ESN website, no of best practices on the ESN website 31