Transcript Slide 1

Nacionalna Tempus kancelarija
www.tempus.ac.rs 1
Analiza neuspešnih projektnih prijava iz
trećeg konkursnog roka
Nacionalna Tempus kancelarija
Jasmina Gajić, Sofija Dukić
EACEA Skala ocenjivanja po bodovima
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
Analiza neuspesnih prijava iz RS
17%
25%
Kategorija I
Kategorija II
Kategorija III
58%
Sadržaj
Pregled nedostataka neuspešnih projektnih prijava
Saveti zarad izbegavanja uočenih nedostataka
Relevance
JPCR
JPHES
-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
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
Quality of the Partnership
JPCR
JPHES
-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
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
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,
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;
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
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
Sustainability
JPCR
JPHES
-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
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
Budget and Costs Effectiveness
JPCR
JPHES
-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);
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
Često postavljana pitanja za pripremu projekata na Tempus sajtu
Tempus kancelarija u Srbiji
Lazarevićeva 9/14
11000 Belgrade, Serbia
+381 11 32 33 409,
+381 11 33 47 389
[email protected]
www.tempus.ac.rs
www.tempus.ac.rs