Post on 25-Jun-2020
Pisa, september 8th
Marina Otero IEPL- Spanish Institute for Development of Labor Productivity
This project (“European Entrepreneurs Campus n. 2012-1-IT1-LEO05-02794 - ) has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein
PLANNING
IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION
It is the systematic application of social research procedures for
assessing the conceptualization and design, implementation
and utility of social intervention programs. Rossi, P. y Freeman, H. (1993). Evaluation: a systematic approach. Sage Publications.
Campus Project
evaluation
e
valu
ati
on
eva
lua
tion
evaluation
1.1.1. Activities conducted with the tools
From total activities (97), the great part have been conducted in BMC tool:
From total activities , US conduced 76,3%.
Innovation Camp; 7,2%
BMC; 92,8%
3,1% 9,3%
3,1%
76,3%
2,1% 4,1% 2,1%
CEDIT REGIONETOSCANA
UNIPI US IEPL VSFS AMSP CR
Number of activities conducted with the tools
1.1.1. Activities conducted with the tools
The way we have worked with…
Innovation Camp BMC
50%
20%
30%
Participatory workshop Reading Working in groups
40%
30%
30%
Participatory workshop Reading Working in groups
1.1.2. Shares held broadcast
The number of broadcast actions is rather more about BMC tool
If we analyse data respect differents territorial levels…
30%
70%
Innovation Camp BCM
50,0%
25,0%
33,3%
37,5%
66,7%
37,5%
Innovation Camp BMC
Local Regional National
Actions by partners:
1.1.2. Shares held broadcast
15,0% 15,0% 15,0% 15,0%
10,0% 10,0%
20,0%
CEDIT REGIONETOSCANA
UNIPI US IEPL VSFS AMSP CR
1.1.3. Tools necessary adaptations/changes
3
0 0
3
0 0 0
1 1
2
0 0
2
0 0 0
Total REGIONETOSCANA
UNIPI US IEPL VSFS AMSP CR
Number of tools necessary adaptations/changes
Number of changes IC
Number of changes in BMC
Partners data:
1.1.4. People envolved per activity
Target people:
Students distribution by gender:
4,7%
1,5%
12,2%
71,6%
3,4%
3,1%
3,6%
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0%
CEDIT
REGIONE TOSCANA
UNIPI
US
IEPL
VSFS
AMSP CR
Number of people involved per activity
21,4% 19,6%
48,7%
78,6% 80,4%
51,3%
Total Student Others
Innovation Camp BMC
46,0% 32,7%
49,6%
54,0% 67,3%
50,4%
Total Innovation Camp BMC
Men Woman
With each tool:
1.1.5. Skills worked Leadership;
34,3%
Creativity; 22,9%
Personal autonomy;
17,1%
Business skills; 25,7%
35,7%
21,4% 21,4% 28,6%
35,0%
25,0% 15,0%
25,0%
Leadership Creativity Personal autonomy Business skills
Innovation Camp BMC
1.3.1. Degree of suitability to transfer the know-how of the tools to partners
Excellent (4) Good (3) Enough (2) Poor (1)
Exc
elle
nt
(4)
Go
od
(3)
En
ou
gh
(2
)
Po
or
(1)
Exc
elle
nt
(4)
Go
od
(3)
En
ou
gh
(2
)
Po
or
(1)
Innovation Camp BMC
CEDIT
REGIONE TOSCANA
UNIPI
US
IEPL
AMSP CR
1.3.2.Difficulty in adapting tools to the needs of each country
Veryhigh (1)
High (2) Low (3) Verylow (4)
Veryhigh (1)
High (2) Low (3) Verylow (4)
Innovation Camp BMC
CEDIT
REGIONE TOSCANA
UNIPI
US
IEPL
AMSP CR
• We only have available information in our monitoring system from US
• University of Seville can confirm us that the people envolved in
the Project activities have created a total of 5 companies or businesses, of which 4 were founded by men and one by women.
• Total business created 15 jobs, hired 9 men and 6 women.
• We have to continue to feed over time, tracking the people who participated in the workshops and meetings during the project.
• We have not available information yet in order to complete these indicators.
• But we have the indicators.
• So, we must continue to get useful information for the final impact evaluation to measure the indirect effects of the project.