Lifelong Learning Programme Leonardo da Vinci

Similar documents
Erasmus+ Vocational Education and Training Mobility Charter. Annex III Instructions for applicants: how to complete the application form

Applicants Manual PART 4: APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT. for the period A stream of cooperation. Version 1.1

FooDrinks - Quality Food&Drink European Training Plan

Teachers and Trainers in Vocational Education and Training

Instructions how to fill in the application form for the VET mobility charter

PART 5: APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT

- ECVET- 19 october 2011

If the expenditure relates to several contracts/procurement procedures, obtain the following information for the contracts to be audited:

VET Mobility Charter. Instructions for filling in the Application Form

Horizon 2020 project evaluator: project writing concerns and hints. Piotr Dymarski Head of Group Information and Communication Technologies

FROM IDEA TO APPLICATION. How to complete an Erasmus + KA1 eform?

Thematic ex ante conditionalities for thematic objectives 8 to 11 and general ex ante conditionalities 1 to 3

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

WORTH. Partners Selection Criteria

NOTIFICATION FOR PRIOR CHECKING INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN(2)

The Joint Secretariat of the Interreg South Baltic Programme is looking for professional experts to support the assessment of project proposals

Elective Course 1 - Quality assurance in TVET and Skills Systems. Elective Course2- Career Guidance:

Evaluation policy PURPOSE

Questionnaire on vocational training needs

Open Call for Consultancy Services. Reference Number:

CREATIVE EUROPE MEDIA SUB-PROGRAMME GUIDE FOR EXPERTS. managed by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

GEROS Evaluation Quality Assurance Tool Version

For more information on how to fill in this application form, please refer to the e-forms Guideline.

modernising their vocational education and training systems in order for Europe to become the most competitive economy, and

THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY

Terms of reference Evaluator for mid-term review of 4.5-year EuropeAid Grant Agreement

Tender Specifications for subcontracting external expertise *

In the finishing straight: From Copenhagen to Bordeaux

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP)

Qualifications Handbook. Internal Quality Assurance

Monitoring and Evaluation Policy

Quality Assurance during Individual Assessment QUALITY ASSURANCE. Key Action 2: Strategic Partnerships

LLL Leonardo da Vinci Sub-Program Support to national projects to test and develop ECVET EACEA/08/2010. Grant Agreement: /

Presentation of TransCSR

CEDEFOP: Reference Centre for a 'Europe of Knowledge'

Disclaimer This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the

Expert Group on Human Resources Development in Sport

16/06/2017. Workshop : How to write a proposal. H2020 in a nustchell. Introduction. 1st phase. Pre writing

E. Specific requirements for innovation procurement (PCP/PPI) supported by Horizon 2020 grants

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION 1. BACKGROUND: ONE UN S PARTNERSHIP WITH THE GIHUNDWE HOSPITAL

First evaluation of Europass

Designing qualifications with ECVET. NICOSIA 18th & 19th November 2015

BRA/99/G32 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses for Urban Transport in Brazil. Terms of Reference. Terminal Evaluation. December 2015

Guidance: Quality Criteria for Evaluation Reports

Terms of Reference (ToR)

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

Il processo di valutazione: criteri e iter

Annex II: Evaluation Procedure

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Ex-ante Evaluation of the Human Capital Investment Operational Programme

Executive Director Decision

Indicative content of evaluation final reports Draft, Jérémie Toubkiss, Evaluation Office, NYHQ (updated 4 February 2016)

Rules governing the 2015 official traineeships scheme of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)

Guidelines for systems of monitoring and evaluation for the Human Resources Initiative EQUAL in the period

Guidelines. Application template Call 2018 KA1 - Learning Mobility of Individuals KA109 - Vocational Education and Training Mobility Charter.

INTERNAL AUDIT. Application guide for the design and implementation of a Railway Safety Management System. EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY Safety Unit

Concept note. Title of the project: Youth Education for Prosperity (YEP) a) Summary

Climate Action How To Write

SWOT ANALYSIS. Rural Development Evaluation System including CMEF

WHO reform. WHO evaluation policy

Consultation Good Practice Guidelines (Quick Guide Version)

D. 3.1 Job profile description

Section & Overall Rating Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Missing Not Rated Weighting (Score) Implication

COUNCIL DECISION. of 19 December 2006

Quality Assurance for projects requesting up to (and including) 60,000 in funding

COUNCIL DECISION. of 19 December 2006

Cost-Benefit Assessment of the Organisational Impact of a Technical System Proposal

Supporting European SMEs

AD ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR DECISION ON THE EUROJUST INTERNSHIP POLICY

Job PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK JOB PROFILE

Invitation to Tender RGT Evaluation Framework Agreement, 2016 to 2019

Contents I section. IntroduCtIon to Gender equality and diversity (Ged) PlannInG at WorkPlaCes

PRE-WORKSHOP BACKGROUND MATERIAL FOR THE THREE BREAK-OUT SESSIONS STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT FOR POST NUCLEAR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Monitoring Framework

PLAN OF ACTION PARTNERSHIP FOR SUSTAINABLE TEXTILES

H2020 Programme. Self-evaluation form. Form 1: SME instrument phase 1 Form 2: SME instrument phase 2

TAEASS403 Participate in assessment validation. TAE Training and Education Training Package. Trainer and Assessor Guide

A Qualifications Framework for Solid Waste Facilities Managers (SWFM-QF)

Green Week, May 2011 Skills for the low carbon economy: Empirical findings from country and industry case studies

Minimum standards. Guiding principles. National Contact Points

NATIONAL QUALIFICATION AUTHORITY

Join the European Vocational Skills Week in 2017 and Discover Your Talent!

Module 5: Project Evaluation in

An independent review of ILO Global Supply Chains interventions undertaken between with a focus on lessons learned, what works and why

The development of the competencies of Teachers and Trainers has been a major priority area since the start of the Copenhagen Process

IAF Mandatory Document. for the Audit and Certification of a Management System Operated by a Multi-Site Organization (IAF MD 1:2018)

ETF WORK PROGRAMME 2005 APPROVED BY THE ETF GOVERNING BOARD

Context. Project Title. Project Acronym. Project Title in English. Project Start Date (dd-mm-yyyy) Project Total Duration (Months)

National NGO Programme Coordinator (Accelerating Localization through Partnerships (ALTP)

Forestry Training and Education Ireland Ltd

Level 4 Award in the Internal Quality Assurance of Assessment Processes and Practice

Diversity of Cultural Expressions

PROJECT MANAGEMENT BASICS. EC PROJECTS

OPEN CALL FOR CONSULTING SERVICES

H2020 Focused Group Training

Theoretical approaches and evidence in providing insights into the impact of the Lithuanian Qualifications Framework

Self-evaluation form Form 1: Research and innovation actions Innovation actions Form 2: Coordination & support actions

H2020 priorities. Industrial leadership - Priority II Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies Access to risk finance Innovation in SMEs

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Report. Quality Assessment of Internal Audit at <Organisation> Draft Report / Final Report

Transcription:

Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 Leonardo da Vinci TRANSFER OF INNOVATION Model: ASSESSMENT FORM for FINAL REPORT 2007 Content Assessment (for external expert) Grant Agreement number: Grant Agreement period: Year: Country: Project duration (months): Title: Beneficiary: Name of Beneficiary s legal representative: Period covered by the report From: To:

EVALUATION GUIDELINES The evaluator should judge the Final Report against the Application but also against the principles of objectiveoriented project planning and management. What does that mean? The implementation of the project activities should lead to the accomplishment of the project results. A project result can be either a product respectively output, that means tangible and quantitatively measurable, or can be an outcome, that means intangible and therefore only qualitatively measurable. The accomplishment of all project results should lead to the achievement of the project objective/s or, in other words, the intended improvement/s or solution/s (to initially clearly identified problems). The achieved improvement or solution objective/s should be sustainable. Sustainability means that crucial activities and results are maintained and continue to deliver benefits to the target group, structure, sector or system after the end of the EU funding. Ideally, the sustainability of a project also generates impact, that means direct or indirect long-term effects on actors, structures, sectors or systems beyond the original project environment. Example: manual for a new training programme with ECVET drafted (product) Training course for trainers for the new programme developed (product) x courses for trainers have been given (output) trainers have acquired the necessary skills to run the new programme (outcome) x test courses with trainers and test trainees have been given (output) adaptations after testing (outcome) the new training programme is operational and ECVET is applied (project objective achieved) resources (finance, staff, facilities, equipment) are there to keep it running after EU funding (sustainability) the training programme with ECVET is adopted by other VET schools (impact) trainees are very sought after on the labour market because of their state-of-the-art skills (impact) and make/keep enterprises competitive (impact). In the tables in sections B.-G. you should give points from 0-10 to each of the issues addressed (ticking boxes is wrong!). The following ratings apply: Weak: : : : A rating between 0-10 should also be applied for the "Overall rating" at the end of each section. The "Overall rating" should be coherent with the individual points and the comments given in this section. Likewise, the "Global rating" should be coherent with the "Global comments" on the project. Furthermore, the "Global rating" and "Global comments" in section H should be coherent with the "Overall ratings" and "Comments" given in the individual sections B-G. 2

REPORT ASSESSMENT Please provide an assessment and detailed comments for each section (or sub-section) while referring to the corresponding sections of the Final Report, the Grant Agreement and Amendments (where applicable) and the Application Form. In order to help evaluators to navigate between Final Report and Application Form a comparative table has been annexed to the content assessment part (annex 1). In the following tables you should give ratings from 0-10 to each of the points addressed (ticking boxes is wrong). The summary rating at the end of each table should be the arithmetic average of the individual ratings given. In case it is not, this should be explained in the comments. D. Results D.1 Type of Transfer (section D.1 of Final Report) Weak 1. The transfer methodology was suitable to adapt the existing innovation to the needs of the target groups/end-users 2. Adaptations to the existing innovation are clearly demonstrated and appropriate to the needs of the target group 3. Comments (please explain why the transfer was successful or why it was not): 4. Description of the permission for use is provided YES NO N/A Sub-rating D.1: D.2 Results (sections C.1, C.2 and D.2 of Final Report) Weak 1. All expected results were achieved 2. Comments: 3. Suitable and relevant methods were applied for quality control, evaluation and testing 4. Relevant partners participated in evaluation and testing 5. Relevant target groups were involved in evaluation and testing 6. Lessons were learned from evaluation and testing 7. If applicable: changes to the originally foreseen result/s were necessary and relevant 8. Comments: 3

D.2.1 Conformity 1. Outputs are available in all languages as planned and contractually agreed Weak Sub-rating D.2: 2. Outputs have been produced to the appropriate number of copies as planned and contractually agreed 3. Results has been introduced across the consortium (beyond, see below ) as planned and contractually agreed 4. Results comply with the current state-of-the-art as regards vocational training in the sector / of the target group 5. Comments (note any changes to originally agreed quality, quantity and other parameters): D.2.2 Purpose 1. The results meet the needs of the target groups as described in the application 2. Results have the appropriate pedagogical quality for use with the target group/s 3. The results are user friendly for the target group/s 4. The context for use is clearly described 5. Results can be easily and consistently used across the involved partner countries (as foreseen and contractually agreed) 6. The project objective/s were achieved 7. Comments: Sub-rating D.2.1: Weak Sub-rating D.2.2: D. General Comments on Results. Please structure your comments around the issues below: - obstacles overcome or deficiencies addressed and lessons learned - indicators that show results relative to what was planned - strengths and weaknesses of each result - content quality - overall significance of each result for target audience (user friendliness), structures or systems Overall rating D: 4

E.1 Dissemination and Exploitation of Results (section E of Final Report) Weak 1. Activities for dissemination and exploitation of results were carried out in relevant partner countries (as a minimum) as planned and contractually agreed 2. Methods for dissemination and exploitation of results were relevant to the target groups. 3. Target sectors/target groups that were concerned or even involved in dissemination and exploitation activities gave positive feed-back 4. If applicable: changes to the originally foreseen activities were necessary and relevant 5. Comments: Overall rating E: F. Impact and Sustainability (section F of Final Report) Weak 1. The project has an impact on the target groups/end-users 2. The project has an impact at geographical level (local, regional, national European) (the higher the level the more points are to be given) 3. The project has an impact at sector level 4. Quantitative indicators have been achieved 5. Qualitative indicators have been achieved (see above D.2.3-6 evaluation and testing) 6. The plan for sustaining certain activities and results is realistic (staff, equipment, finance available) 7. The project has institutional, regional/national and or socio-economic support 8. The project has an impact on the national VET system of the beneficiary and/or on the national VET systems of the partners 9. Comments. Try to evaluate the worth or significance of the project to the target group, sector, structure or system: Overall rating F: G. Contribution to EU Policies (section G of Final Report) Weak 1. The project has effectively contributed to the EU policies, in particular to the Leonardo da Vinci Strategic Priorities 2007, specifically targeted in the project proposal 5

2. Comments: Overall rating G: H. Report Assessment - Global Comments Please provide a global assessment of the project as a whole, in which you refer to strengths and weaknesses as well as to sustainability and impact, and in which you justify the global rating: 1. Global Comments: 2. Strengths: 3. Weaknesses: 4. Recommendations for Sustainability and Impact: 5. Immediate information/action necessary to complete the current assessment GLOBAL RATING: 6

GUIDELINES FOR GLOBAL RATING A global rating of 0-2 (weak) should only be applied where project results (products / outputs / outcomes) have not been delivered and the contractual objectives have not been achieved. Where a rating of 0-2 is awarded, assessors should provide full detailed justification both within each section and in the final comments. A global rating of 3-4 (weak) should be applied where reductions in the planned activities led to considerable reductions in the project results (products /outputs / outcomes) or where the content of certain products / outputs have little or no relation to the original proposal without evident explanation, i.e. changes in technology, consequences of adaptations in work plan. The project objective/s have hardly been achieved. Where a rating of 3-4 is awarded, assessors should provide full detailed justification both within each section and in the final comments. A global rating of (fair) should be given if there is a global respect of the work programme, i.e. if the core of the planned project results (products / outputs / outcomes) has been achieved and is usable but where the project objective/s have nevertheless not completely been achieved. A global rating of () should only be awarded where the planned project results (products / outputs / outcomes) and the project objective/s have been achieved, and where the Final Report demonstrates a high probability that the achieved project objective/s will be sustained. The Final Report must demonstrate that crucial activities and results will be maintained after the end of the EU funding and that the appropriate resources are available. A project is sustainable when it continues to deliver benefits to the project beneficiaries and/or other constituencies for an extended period after the Commission s financial assistance has been terminated. A global rating of (very ) should only be awarded where the planned project results (products / outputs / outcomes) and the project objective/s have been achieved with a high quality, and where the Final Report demonstrates not only a high probability that the achieved project objective/s will be sustainable but also first indicators for impact or "mainstreaming". Impact is for example an increased employability, while mainstreaming is when programmes, systems, practices or tools are adopted in a wider context beyond the original project environment. ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN BY (name) FURTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED ON (date of request) REQUEST MADE BY ( fax, e-mail, mail) STATUS OF REQUEST (received / pending) 7

Expert's Declaration of Non-conflict of Interest and Declaration of Confidentiality Final Content Assessment 1 I (Name) declare that I have no link with the project or any personal interest in its success or otherwise that could influence my impartiality. I will not disclose any information concerning this project or my assessment or any other matter relating to it outside the agreed assessment procedure. Signature: Date: Name of the Expert s Organisation (where applicable): Address: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: 1 does not apply to National Agency staff involved in the evaluation exercise. 8

Final report Application form C.1 Outcomes and Results C.2 Expected results C.2.1 Did the project achieve its objectives? C.3 Expected impact C.4 Valorisation C.1.1 Rationale and Background C.1.2 Aims and Objectives C.4 Work packages E.1.1 Work programme D.1 How are you exploiting innovative results which your project has transferred E.2.2 Quality management plan C.1.6 How does the proposal use the results D.1 Description how the result has been transferred B.2 Results/innovative content of previous projects your proposal is based upon D.2 Results (as in application form) - evaluation and testing C.1.3 Type of Transfer how does your proposal implement the transfer C.1.8 Indicators C.2 Expected results E.1.2 Quality management plan E. Dissemination and Exploitation of Results C.4 Valorisation F. Impact and Sustainability C.3 Expected Impact C.5 Sustainability G. Contribution to EU Policies B.1 General Information B.4 Summary C. Project aim Horizontal: C.2.2 Contribution of trans-national work? C.4 Work packages - Partners particpating in WP C.1.7 European Dimension 2 D. Partners D.2 Results - Partners involved E. Dissemination Name of implementing partner/s C.4.3 Valorisation demonstrate that the partnership has the capacity and necessary experience 2 Diversified input of partners; benefits to all partners, not only to the importing one 9