ATLANT- KIS Final Evaluation Report
-
Upload
derville-brennan -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
1
description
Transcript of ATLANT- KIS Final Evaluation Report
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
ContentsSECTION ONE1.- Introduction
1.1.- Structure of the Evaluation Report
1.2.- Evaluation objectives
1.3.- Evaluation constraints
2.- Contextualization
2.1.- Transnational Territorial Co-operation Programme - Atlantic Area: Interreg IV B
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 2 de 134
2.1.- Transnational Territorial Co-operation Programme - Atlantic Area: Interreg IV B
2.2.- ATLANT KIS Project: definition; scope; objectives and actions;
target public and organisation and management structure.
3.- Methodological approach
3.1.- Types of Evaluation
3.2.- Evaluation criteria and key questions
3.3.- Gathering information tools
3.4.- Timeline and field research
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Contents (II)
SECTION TWO4.- Evaluation o the ATLANT KIS Project’s Implementation
4.1.- Project's envisaged activities physical execution analysis
4.2.- Project’s management and co-ordination processes analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 3 de 134
4.2.- Project’s management and co-ordination processes analysis
4.3.- Achievement analysis of the below criteria
o 4.3.1.- Consistency and relevance
o 4.3.2.- Effectiveness
5.- Evaluation on the results achieved by ATLANT KIS project
5.1.- Achievement analysis of the below criteria
o 5.1.1.- Impact
o 5.1.2.- Satisfaction /Expectations
o 4.3.3.- Efficiency
o 4.3.4.- Comunication and Visibility
o 5.1.3.- Sustainability
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Contents (III)
5.2.- The specific case of the region of Navarra
SECTION THREE6.- Conclusions related to the criteria and issues raised in the evaluation.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 4 de 134
6.- Conclusions related to the criteria and issues raised in the evaluation.
7.- Answers to the Evaluation key questions
8.- Recommendations
9.- Appendix
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Section one
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 5 de 134
Section one
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 6 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction1.1.- Structure of the Evaluation Report
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 7 de 134
Report
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
With the purpose of structuring the available information in a selective manner, this report is divided
into three sections, detailed below:
� Section one: To bring into context, the Co-operation Programme - Atlantic Area: Interreg IV is
previously analysed, more specifically, its geographical scope, description and development phases
and the areas of planning and management. Then, the ATLANT KIS project is presented. Apart from
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 8 de 134
and the areas of planning and management. Then, the ATLANT KIS project is presented. Apart from
that, this section explains the methodological approach used for the project evaluation as well as the
job’s constrains.
�Section two: This section contains, on the one hand, an analysis of the processes and actions
carried out to implement the ATLANT KIS project -establishing the grade of physical execution of the
activities, and a management and coordination process analysis- and a study on the fulfilment criteria
through the execution phase of the project. On the second hand, this section offers an assessment of
the results reached and effects caused by the project in accordance with the objectives and
expectations set.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Section three: This section compiles the main conclusions reached after analysing each
evaluation criteria (in both implementation and results areas), which make it possible to answer
the two key questions posed in the evaluation.
Finally, this part includes a series of recommendations to be considered by the involved
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 9 de 134
partners, that may give cause for reflection and serve as a guide for future projects.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction1.2.- Evaluation objectives
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 10 de 134
1.2.- Evaluation objectives
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�Overall Objectives:To evaluate the implementation of the activities and actions carried out from
June 2009 to May 2012 on the ATLANT KIS project and give an overview of the
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 11 de 134
June 2009 to May 2012 on the ATLANT KIS project and give an overview of the
main results achieved and the effects brought about for both internal and
external beneficiaries.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�Specific Objectives:
• Monitor achievement of goals and objectives
• Describe the life cycle of the project throughout the reporting period
• Reflect on management ’s execution performance
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 12 de 134
• Reflect on management ’s execution performance
• Provide useful information orientated towards decision-making for
designing and executing of new projects and/or future actions.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction1.3.- Evaluation processconstrains
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 13 de 134
constrains
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� The non-existence of a previous evaluation -Conceptual Evaluation or Design Evaluation- limits the
possibility to study the actual consistency and pertinence of the ATLANT KIS project, that is, its internal logic.
This type of study is intended to analyse the excellence of the diagnosis executed prior to the initiation of the
intervention, verify the existence of clearly defined and measurable objectives, analyse the connexion with the
problems observed and finally, to examine the logic of the type of intervention designed, from both programme’s
internal perspective and in comparison to other policies’ and programmes’ (benchmarking).
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 14 de 134
internal perspective and in comparison to other policies’ and programmes’ (benchmarking).
� The evaluation process was assisted by the participation and cooperation of KIS suppliers from all the
regions involved, with the exception of Galicia. A list containing KIS suppliers having participated in any
action promoted by the partners in their territories was requested with the purpose of knowing their
opinion, expectations, motivation and grade of satisfaction on their participation on the project and on its
resultant tools and products. In the cases in which the list was not provided, the suppliers’ details were obtained
among those suppliers registered in the KIS platform. Nevertheless, in the case of Galicia, no supplier from the
region was registered in the platform. Therefore, they were unable to cooperate with the evaluation.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Systematicity and information gathering: No unique data. As a result of the analysis carried out on
information gathering for the evaluation, the evaluators consider that, despite the project coordinator’s efforts
(Iniciativas Innovadoras) to elaborate a homogeneous procedure of data collection for all entities, this does not to
cover all aspects of the global monitoring of the intervention (actions and participants), as it was noticed
that neither all organisations collected the same information, nor the same fields were systematised; the manner
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 15 de 134
that neither all organisations collected the same information, nor the same fields were systematised; the manner
in which the information was processed and the level of dissemination, also varied from one to another.
That is, the mechanisms started do not guarantee, either homogenously or systematically, an appropriate
monitoring of the physical execution and the impact of the project.
�Evaluation process tight schedule >> This prevented the evaluation team from gathering all associated
partners’ opinions, with the exception of those located in the region of Navarre.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
2. Contextualization
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 16 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction2.1.- Transnational Territorial Co-
operation Programme - Atlantic
Area: Interreg
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 17 de 134
Area: Interreg
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Mean goal >> the attainment of significant and tangible advances in transnational cooperation with aim of furthering the
cohesive, sustainable and balanced territorial development of the Atlantic Area (with the exception of the regions of the
Azores and Madeira and the Canary Islands, the Atlantic regions included in the territory are Spain, France, Ireland,
Portugal and United Kingdom) and its maritime heritage.
The programme is financed through ERDF for the period 2007-2013.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 18 de 134
The programme is financed through ERDF for the period 2007-2013.
The "Atlantic Area 2007-2013" programme is the fourth transnational cooperation programme in the area and seeks to:
� enhance the Atlantic maritime heritage;
� valorise the maritime resources of the Atlantic area;
� contribute to the emergence of new economic activity clusters;
� promote accessibility and logistic conditions;
� contribute to the balanced and sustainable development of the Atlantic area.
Differences in comparison to previous programmes >> It focuses on concrete achievements, the exchange of
experience as well as the transfer of know how and cross fertilisation between projects that address similar issues.
Whereas, the previous programmes were limited to studies or exchange of information.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The Operational Programme "Atlantic Area 2007-2013" is structured along the following priorities:
PRIORITY OBJECTIVES
1. Promote transnational
entrepreneurial and
innovation networks
• the development of knowledge transfers between companies and research centres;
• the enhancement of competitiveness and innovation capacities in the maritime economy of the Atlantic
area;
• the stimulation of economic conversion and diversification by promoting regional potential.
2. Protect, secure and
enhance the marine and
coastal environment
• the improvement of maritime safety;
• the sustainable management and protection of the resources of marine spaces;
• the exploitation of the renewable energy potential of the marine and coastal environment of the Atlantic
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 19 de 134
coastal environment
sustainably
• the exploitation of the renewable energy potential of the marine and coastal environment of the Atlantic
area;
• the protection and promotion of natural spaces, water resources and coastal zones.
3. Improve accessibility
and internal links
• the promotion of the interoperability and continuity of existing transport networks as well as sea, road, rail
and air intermodality;
• the promotion of short sea shipping (SSS) and cooperation between ports.
4. Promote transnational
synergies in sustainable
urban and regional
development
• the pooling of resources and skills in the field of sustainable urban and rural development in the Atlantic
area;
• the increase of the influence of cities and regions and their attractiveness trough networking;
• the conservation and promotion of the Atlantic cultural heritage.
5. Technical assistance • Financial support is available for administration, monitoring, evaluation and control of the programme.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction2.2.- ATLANT KIS Project
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 20 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
ATLANTIC-KIS aims to provide an answer to the first priority of the Operational Programme (OP): : Promote
transnational entrepreneurial and innovation networks; contributing thus to the “Cohesive development of the
Knowledge Economy” challenge. Specifically the project falls under Objective 1.1. leading to the
“Development of knowledge transfers between companies and research centres”.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 21 de 134
Overall goal>> To enhance the Knowledge and Technology Transfer and innovation processes on SMEs through
the promotion and co-operation of Knowledge Intensive Services (KIS) at the Atlantic Area.
Long term goal >> To contribute to the development of Clusters of KIS at the Atlantic Area, that might help identify
the area as an excellent one in the supply of KIS.
Length of the project>> From 1 June 2009 to May 31 of 2012.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Specific Objectives of the project:
1. To design a methodology for the mapping of regional and transregional demand and supply of KIS, transferable toother regions.
2. To develop and disseminate 7 Audits on KIS demand and supply from involved regions.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 22 de 134
3. To design a methodology for the identification and transfer of Best Practices at the regional policy level, enabling the promotion and dynamisation of KIS.
4. To identify, exchange and disseminate to other EU regions Best Practices resulting from successful regional experiences on the field of KIS promotion and dynamisation.
5. To transfer the Best Practices identified to the regional policies of involved regions, and to experiment newmodels and approaches based upon the latter, aimed at the promotion and dynamisation of KIS.
6. To create stable communication links among KIS of involved regions, to foster their networking and cooperationby the development of a collaborative platform, open to all KIS from the Atlantic Area.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Geographical Scope >> The project involves 8 partners from 5 different countries (7 European
regions) constituted as a Consortium:
COUNTRY INSTITUTION REGION
SPAIN
Dirección General de Empresa e Innovación (Gobierno de Navarra)
Navarra
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 23 de 134
SPAINConsellería de Innovación e Industria (Xunta de Galicia)
Galicia
FRANCE Bretagne Développement Innovation Bretaña
PORTUGAL Agência de Innovaçao
UNITED KINGDOM Devon and Cornwall Business Council Devon y Cornualles
IRELAND
South and Eastern Regional Assembly Southern and Eastern
WestbicBorder, Midland and WesternBorders, Midlands and West Regional
Assembly
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Work Plan (matrix of the project)
Activities Partner leader
of the activity
Actions Follow-up indicators
1. Preparation Activities
1. Development of the project idea, taking into consideration the Programme.
2. Identification and contact of relevant partners .
3. Design and agreement of the proposal, following the Applicant's Handbook.
- 1 Project Proposal submitted.- Consortium of 8 partners agreed.- 8 Co-financing declarations agreed.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 24 de 134
Dirección General de Empresa e Innovación (Gobierno de Navarra)
following the Applicant's Handbook.
2. Management and Co-ordination
1. Design of management and co-ordination system and tools
2. Project Co-ordination3. Quality Management
1 Partnership agreement signed.1 Steering Committee1 Technical Committee constituted.1 Project Implementation Guide.1 Intranet.6 Consortium Meetings.4 Progress Reports and 1 Final Report.1 final external Evaluation Report.
3. Audit on KIS demand and supply on involved regions
1. Definition of Methodology for Audit2. Development of Audit3. Dissemination of Audit
1 Methodology agreed on the definition of KIS, the scope of the study, and the outreach tools.7 regional Mappings on KIS demand and supply.More than 500 KIS contacted.
1 Audit Report on 4 languages.
7 Dissemination Workshops: 300 part.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Work Plan (matrix of the Project) (II)
Activities Partner leader of the
activity
Actions Follow-up indicators
4.
Benchmarking
Study on Best
Practices for
Bretagne
Développement
Innovation
1. Good Practices Methodology
definition
2. Identification and analysis of Good
Practices
1 Methodology Guide for identification
of Good Practices and Transfer check.
60 Good Practices identified.
1 Exchange Workshop: 30 part.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 25 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project EvaluationPractices for
KIS promotion
Practices
3. Exchange of Best Practices and
development of new models
4. Selection of Good Practices to
transfer
5. Dissemination of Best Practices and
Lessons Learnt on experimentation
1 Exchange Workshop: 30 part.
1 Guide on 4 languages.
7 Action Plans on GPs transfer.
7 Dissemination Workshops: 300 part.
5. Transfer of
Best Practises
and new
models on the
promotion of
KIS
Consellería de
Innovación e Industria
(Xunta de Galicia)
1. Transfer framework definition
2. Transfer and new models
implementation
7 Transfer Implementation Plans and
Evaluation Reports.
Good Practices effectively transferred:
20.
Stakeholders involved: 500.
7 Seminars: 300 part.
Nº of new clusters and networks : 3.
Nº of new links at transnational level: 20.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Work Plan (matrix of the Project) (III)
Activities Partner
leader of the
activity
Actions Follow-up indicators
6. Atlantic
Area KIS
Platform
South and
Eastern
Regional
1. Platform services definition and
development.
2. Platform launch and maintenance
1 Virtual Platform in 4 languages.
Visits to Platform: 10,000.
Nº of registered users: 500.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 26 de 134
Platform Regional
Assembly
2. Platform launch and maintenance
3. Transnational KIS Market Place event
4. Platform Sustainability study
Nº of registered users: 500.
Nº of enquiries received: 100.
1 KIS Market Place: 150 part.
Nº of networks: 25.
Sustainability Scheme and Action Plan: 1
7. Promotion,
Dissemination
and
Exploitation
Activities
Agência de
Innovaçao
1. Communication Strategy and Plan
2. Development of communication tools
3. Implementation and monitoring of
Communication Plan
4. Final Dissemination Seminar
1 project website : 500 visits/month.
4 E-Newsletter: 1,000 recipients.
1 Project Brochure: 1,200 copies.
1 Final Seminar: 150 part.
Articles published: 20.
Presentation at other EU fora: 12.
10 Press Conferences: 100 media reached.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Target audience
DIRECT BENEFICIARIES INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 27 de 134
� Partners involved in the project
�KIS suppliers
� Associated partners involved in the project
�Knowledge and technology sources
(universities, technological centers, higher
education bodies…)
� KIS
demanders
From public sector
(PA)
From private sectors
(SMEs, Chambers of
Commerce, business
associations)
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Bodies for management and coordination of the Project
Management>> Lead partner
of the project = DG
Enterprise, Department of
Innovation (Government
Navarre)
Project coordinator>>
external technical assistance
(Iniciativas Innovadoras, S.L.)
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 28 de 134
Navarre)
STEERING GROUP (SG) TECHNICAL COMMITTEE (TC)
� Composed by 1 representative from each partner .
� Tasks: to give strategic advice and guarantee the
adequacy to the general objectives.
� 6 meetings in conjunction with the TC. Managing
ERDF, Environmental and Equal Opportunities Authorities
from host regions were invited to the SG.
� Composed by all partners.
Tasks: to agree on the contents, work plan and
monitoring of the programmed activities; validation of
outputs; assurance of the involvement of all partners in
shared tasks, accomplishment of the objectives and goals
and conflict resolution among partners.
� 6 meetings.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
3. Methodological approach
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 29 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction3.1.- Methodological Approach of the evaluation: types of evaluation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 30 de 134
the evaluation: types of evaluation
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
2 different
Analysis Approach
PROCESS
(Tasks and Actions taken to
achieve results)=
EVALUATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 31 de 134
2 different
analysis
approachesRESULTS
(outputs and outcomes) = EVALUATION OF
RESULTS
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Methodological Approach of the evaluation
Types of Evaluation
• Evaluator-based:>> external evaluation.
• Content-based:>> evaluation of implementation and outcome evaluation.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 32 de 134
• Based on the time perspective:>> intermediate evaluation as it is conducted previous to the
end date of the project: 31 May 2012 and ex post evaluation.
• Purpose-based:>> formative evaluation –it is intended to be a tool which enables the
evaluator to gather useful feedback to improve future actions (recommendations)- and
summative evaluation -gives an overview of the tasks carried out while starting-up and
implementing the project by the various agents involved, with a view to render a final and
conclusive judgment on the results –products- achieved-.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Some clarifications on the methodology approached
�The coincidence in time of submission of the project’s intermediate-evaluation report and the
project’s scheduled finish date (May 2012), makes it truly difficult to asses the impact and
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 33 de 134
effects reached, as a longer period of time would be necessary to determine if the changes and
effects anticipated to result from the implementation of the intervention have made satisfactory
progress.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction3.2.- Key Questions that this
EVALUATION aims to answer
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 34 de 134
EVALUATION aims to answer
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Concerning evaluation of implementation
Has the project been developed in accordance with the management, execution and
accessibility terms foreseen?
Concerning evaluation of results
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 35 de 134
Concerning evaluation of results
Has the project produced a desired effect/changes on the project’s beneficiaries?
What is the immediate impact?
The strategy-formulation tool used to carry out the evaluation is the EVALUATION
MATRIX. The evaluation criteria have been based on the following key issues:
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
CONSISTENCY: A measure which verifies appropriate connection between the
project’s objectives and the strategic tools established.
RELEVANCE: The extent to which the project's objectives and actions are pertinent
in relation to the framework in which they are developed.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 36 de 134
in relation to the framework in which they are developed.
EFFECTIVENESS: The extent to which the activities and indicators are fulfilled when
analysing management and internal coordination processes and with no regard to
inputs.
EFFICIENCY: A measure of how economically resources/inputs (time) are converted
to results.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
TRANSFERABILITY/VISIBILITY: The extent to which the project has been visible
in those areas involved. Transferability assesses performance of communication
actions for dissemination in order to determine if they have succeeded in
transferring objectives, activities, good practices and results.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 37 de 134
transferring objectives, activities, good practices and results.
IMPACT: Term to describe the effects of the project. Impacts are the changes
produced, which can be either foreseen, as the achievement of overall
objectives, or unforeseen.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
SATISFACTION: The acceptance level of all partners involved as well as both
direct and indirect beneficiaries with regard to the project. It addresses various
issues: drawing up and implementation processes and outcomes achieved.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 38 de 134
SUSTAINABILITY: The extent to which the project's positive impacts can be
expected to last after its termination
Additionally, the evaluation includes an assessment on management and
monitoring procedures in the Atlankis Project.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction3.3.-Gathering Information Tools
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 39 de 134
3.3.-
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Objective >> Encouraging participation among partners and beneficiaries of
the implemented actions, in order to gather information on their
participation, experiences, assessment and level of satisfaction upon outcome
being achieved.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 40 de 134
Partners’ questionnaireAssociated partners’
questionnaire
KIS suppliers’
questionnaire
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
1. Introduction3.4.-Timeline(evaluation phases
& work shedule)
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 41 de 134
& work shedule)
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
• Phase I : Analysis of Project Information Requirements
Primary Sources Analysis Secondary Sources Analysis
• Project intranet •Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006
•Atlant KIS Website •Transnational Cooperation Operational Programme
"Atlantic Area 2007-2013"
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 42 de 134
"Atlantic Area 2007-2013"
• KIS platform (www.kis4smes.com) • Spain’s National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-
2013
• Project candidacy form • A variety of studies and reports on KIS:
•COTEC 2011 report
• Technology Knowledge Intensive Based Services
(TKIBS). A competitiveness tool for businesses and
regions
• “El uso de las PYMEs de servicios intensivos en
conocimiento. Factores relacionados e implicaciones
de política “.
• Reports to JTS (Joint Technical Secretariat)
• Balanced Scorecard
•Meeting Minutes
• Outputs: Regional Diagnosis of Supply and Demand; BPs
Identification Report; Several guides and PPT among others.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
• Phase II: Matrix evaluation elaboration phase
• Identification of both criteria and key questions in accordance with the envisaged time to
perform the evaluation.-meeting with Iniciativas Innovadoras (lead partner-technical
assistance) 22nd February 2012-.
• Phase III: Planning of applicable tools for data collecting and field researching
• Quantitative techniques
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 43 de 134
• Quantitative techniques
Type Sample Participation
KIS suppliers’ questionnaire 120 32
Partners’ questionnaire 8 8
Associated partners’ questionnaire 2 2
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
• Phase IV: Preparing Outputs
• Exploitation and analysis of the information gathered through the surveys.
• Drawing up and presentation of the evaluation outputs:
• A report on preliminary conclusions.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Final Report – May 2012Página 44 de 134
• A performance indicator report (performance-based and outcome-based).
• A final evaluation report.
• A database including compiled information from the questionnaires.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
TIMELINE OF THE EVALUATIONPROCESS
2012
FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY
ACTIONS TAKEN (By week) W4 W5 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4
PHASE I. Designing and validation
Workshop (Discussion on the different approaches
and criteria that will lead the methodology and
more specifically both the evaluation matrix and
the validation of the evaluation work plan).
Sources analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012
Sources analysis
Tool designing for data collection
PHASE II. Execution: field research
Surveying process
Phone and mailing reminder
PHASE III. Evaluation ending
Findings analysis
Preliminary conclusions’ presentation 22nd
March
Preliminary conclusions ‘ validation by partners27th
March
Drawing up and rendering of evaluation outputs
Final Evaluation Report ‘s presentation2nd
May
Draft validation by lead partner
Drawing up and presentation of the final evaluation
report
28th May
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Section two
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 46 de 134
Section two
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4. Evaluation of the ATLANT KIS Project’s
Implementation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 47 de 134
Implementation
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.1. Project's envisaged activities
physical execution analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 48 de 134
physical execution analysis
Note: The data shown in this document were analysed
and assessed in April 2012, thus the outcome obtained
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 49 de 134
and assessed in April 2012, thus the outcome obtained
can be considered as partial and not definitive, as
project completion is programmed for May 2012, when
all planned activities are expected to be completed.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
ACTIVITIES ACTIONS HIGH AVERAGE LOW
1. Preparation Activities
1. Development of the project idea X 2. Partnership constitution X 3. Design and agreement of the proposal X
2. Management and Co-ordination
1. Design of management and co-ordination system and tools X 2. Project Co-ordination X 3. Quality Management X
Degree of fulfillment of the project work plan (I)
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 50 de 134
3. Quality Management X 4. Fulfillment of contractual obligations with Managing Authority X
3. Audit on KIS demand and
supply on involved regions
1. Definición de la metodología del diagnóstico X 2. Development of Audit X 3. Dissemination of Audit X
4. Benchmarking Study on Best
Practices for KIS promotion
1. Good Practices Methodology definition X 2. Identification and analysis of Good Practices X 3. Exchange of Best Practices and development of new models X 4. Selection of Good Practices to transfer: X 5. Dissemination of Best Practices and Lessons Learnt on experimentation X
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Degree of fulfillment of the project work plan (II)
ACTIVITIES ACTIONS HIGH AVERAGE LOW
5. Transfer of Best Practises and new models on the
promotion of KIS
1. Transfer framework definition X
2. Transfer and new models implementation X
6. Atlantic Area KIS Platform
1. Platform services definition and development X
2. Platform launch and maintenance: X
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 51 de 134
6. Atlantic Area KIS Platform X
3. Transnational KIS Market Place event X
4. Platform Sustainability study
X
7. Promotion, Dissemination and Exploitation Activities
1. Communication Strategy and Plan X
2. Development of communication tools X
3. Implementation and monitoring of Communication Plan
X
4. Final Dissemination Seminar X
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Most of the partners consider the ATLANT KIS project to be effective. 87%
of them consider the general objective achieved and give an overall score of 7.6 to
� About the objectives achievement…
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 52 de 134
of them consider the general objective achieved and give an overall score of 7.6 to
the degree of achievement of the specific objectives.
This statement does not coincide with the perspective of the KIS suppliers>> (only
41% of KIS suppliers consider the general objective achieved).
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
40%
60%
80%
100% 72%
24%
GRADE OF EXECUTION OF THE ATLANT KIS ACTIVITIES (May 2009 -April 2012)
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 53 de 134
0%
20%
40%
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
4%LOW
�This appreciation about the effectiveness is reinforced by the high level of physical execution
of the project, given that 81% of the monitoring markers have been fulfilled.
Regarding the degree of execution of the actions, 72 % have been carried out at a high level
of execution, 24% at a medium level and 4 % at a low level.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.2.- Management and monitoring
process analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 54 de 134
process analysis
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Based on the obtained data, it is possible to state that the Lead Partner has performed a strategic and decisive rol
during the project life cycle.
The partners assess at an excellent level of fulfilment, the tasks relating to the Project Coordination and the
Secretary tasks.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 55 de 134
The remaining assessed tasks (project planning, implementation and monitoring) obtain a good level of
fulfilment.
As for the aspects that could be improved, some partners claimed that the Lead partner should have had more
control and resolution over those partners who didn’t fulfil their tasks and deadlines, taking into account that, in
some activities, the organizations had to work in a parallel way, which has caused some delays, non-fulfilments
and scarce outcomes in some actions.
In any case, the great majority of partners answered affirmatively to this question: Would you use again, on a
second stage of the project, the Lead partner services?
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
It can be said that, as part of the coordination tasks, appropriate tools have been created
(intranet, templates, forms…) for the correct technical and administrative project management. All of
them have been positively assessed by partners. The use of these tools has been increased all
along the project. More specifically, the use of the Intranet as a means of storing files and
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 56 de 134
exchanging information. This tool was rather underused at the beginning of the project.
Seven Consortium meetings have been adequately held. Partnership is satisfied with both the
number of meetings and the communication mechanisms used among partners (an overall score of 8
out of 10). Each Consortium meeting has been led by a host partner covering the meeting costs .
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Date Place Entidad anfitriona
July 2009 Pamplona (Spain) Dirección General de Empresa e Innovación (Gobierno de Navarra)
March 2010 Rennes (France) Bretagne Innovation
October 2010 Bruselas (Belgium) Dirección General de Empresa e Innovación (Gobierno de Navarra) y Fundación Galicia Europa
February
2011
Santiago de Compostela (Spain) Consellería de Innovación e Industria (Xunta de Galicia)
May2011 Cork (Ireland) South and Eastern Regional Assembly (SERA)
October 2011 Exeter (UK) Devon and Cornwall Business Council (DCBC)
March 2012 Oporto (Portugal) Agência de Innovaçao (ADI)
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 57 de 134
All efforts have been made to make coincide the great majority of meetings (Rennes, Brussels, Santiago, Cork
and Exeter) with the most important workshops (brainstorming and discussion for GP selection; a regional
transfer programme presentation …), and/or with project dissemination events (KIS market place held in Cork
and Atlant-KIS Final Conference in Oporto). All of them have enabled partners to deal with the various issues
raised while becoming the most important coordination and communication tools among partners and, at
the same time, a good opportunity for partners to come together to network and exchange experience with
projects beneficiaries (KIS suppliers, associated partners, and innovation centres among others).
March 2012 Oporto (Portugal) Agência de Innovaçao (ADI)
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
On the other hand, partners said that business meetings had served them to reach the necessary
agreements for effective progress making.
INTERNAL PROJECT CONSTRAINTS …
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 58 de 134
INTERNAL PROJECT CONSTRAINTS …
After analysing the answers given by partners to the questionnaire, we conclude that, overall, there
are not significant internal constrains affecting project implementation. If anything, the more
highlighted issues seem to be the fact that the ATLANT KIS is “too ambitious” (2.7 out of 5) and
“partners’ lack of experience in projects of this nature.” (2.6 out of 5).
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.3.- Achievement analysis of the
below criteria
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 59 de 134
below criteria
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.3.1.- CONSISTENCY and
RELEVANCE analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 60 de 134
RELEVANCE analysis
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Overall, the partners consider the project’s objectives to be clearly defined but perhaps, too
ambitious.
The planned measures in order to achieve the outcomes and objectives are adequate. However, a
greater dedication and effort to some of them has caused unbalanced outcomes.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 61 de 134
The schedule has distributed the tasks in a coherent way, although some partners consider the
number of activities to be excessive with regard to the scheduled execution periods.
On the other hand, all partners agreed that the envisaged actions and activities meet the specific
needs of their regions; however, the Lead partner highlights that due to the fact that the contents of
the programme were defined prior to the regional diagnosis, there was little room for adjustment in
accordance with the regional needs expressed in the aforementioned diagnosis.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
50%37%
13%
PARTNERS ASSESMENT ON THE GRADE
OF PERTINENCE OF THE ATLANT KIS
PROJECT
MUCHO BASTANTE SUFICIENTE POCO NADA
Following what it was mentioned before and as set
out in the chart, 87% of the partners assessed
the ATLANT KIS project as “pertinent”, in the
sense that it is considered to be valid and useful
for the future.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 62 de 134
The factors which encouraged partners to participate in the project were:
� Learn from other regions how to identify and develop pilot projects, through other EU regions GPs
knowledge transfer and exchange, focused on the development and promotion of KIS to encourage
SMEs innovation and growth.
�Gain knowledge on other innovation systems from the regions involved.
� Create regional and transregional networks.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Compare the various regions’ situation with those having a similar economic and sectorial
structure.
� Enhance communication among different agents: SMEs and KIS.
� Own region knowledge sharing.
� KIS sector analysis and knowledge.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 63 de 134
� KIS sector analysis and knowledge.
These expectations are in line with the overall goal and the specific objectives of the project.
However, no aspect related to the overall long-run goal is mentioned: “the development of Clusters of
KIS in the Atlantic Area”, it is for this reason, that the goal set for this project may be considered
overly ambitious.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
As to the KIS suppliers’ answers …
The project objectives are clearly understood and identified by all beneficiaries. Once the answers to the
following questions have been analysed: “Overall, could you indicate what you have heard or you know about the
ATLANT KIS Project? What are the project’s objectives?, the below conclusions have been rendered:
• Out of the total KIS suppliers surveyed, 34% answered in line with the overall goal: enhance the Knowledge
and Technology Transfer processes on SMEs through the promotion and co-operation of KIS.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 64 de 134
• 30% focused their answers on the specific objectives: They stated that the project aims to: create a virtual
platform for KIS supply and demand matching, disseminate GPs in the KIS area, boost co-operation among
SMEs to develop strategic interests for products and services; help companies’ growth through innovation and
raise awareness of KIS demand and companies’ resources .
• 16% identified the ATLANT KIS project as a European project joining 5 countries of the Atlantic Area.
• Only one out of the all respondents highlighted the overall long-run goal : “development of Clusters of KIS in
the Atlantic Area”.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.3.2.- EFFECTIVENESS analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 65 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�Out of all partners, 62% reported that the ATLANT
KIS project is efficient, with 50% gauging that
objectives had been “highly achieved” and the
remaining 12% claiming that the objectives had been
“achieved”.38%
PARTNERS ASSESMENT ON THE GRADE OF
EFFICIENCY OF THE ATLANTKIS PROJECT
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 66 de 134
�A Cluster, made up of universities and firms from the
medical technology industry in the region of BMW
Assembly, has been created as a result of the
ATLANT KIS project,
�The KIS market place celebrated in Cork along with
the development of the virtual platform
(kis4smes), have given rise to the creation of a new
KIS Cluster at the transnational level.
50%
12%
38%
VERY MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NOTHING
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Partners assesment on project’s achievement of overall goal and specificobjectives
1
Partners thinking the ATLANT KIS
overall goal is achieved
YES
ASSESMENT ON THE ATLANT KIS
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVES
HALF EVALUATION (1 TO 10 SCALE)
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 67 de 134
� Out of all partners, only one reported that
“it is too soon to gauge whether the overall
goal has been achieved...”
7
YES
NO
To develop and disseminate 7 Audits
on KIS demand and supply among
participants involved .
To develop a KIS platform aimed at
matching the supply and demand of
KIS across the Atlantic Area.
8,5
7,8
6,6
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� KIS suppliers assessment on project’s achievement of the overall goals
Chart showing percentage of KIS suppliers thinking the ATLANT KIS overall
goal is achieved
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 68 de 134
41%
12%
47%
YES
NO
NOT KNOWS/ NOT
ANSWERS
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Most of the executant partners consider the ATLANT KIS project to be effective. 87% of them
consider the general objective achieved and give an average score of 7.6 to the degree of
� About the objectives achievement…
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 69 de 134
achievement of the specific objectives.
This statement does not coincide with the perspective of the KIS suppliers>> (only 41% of KIS
suppliers consider the general objective achieved).
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Added-value of the ATLANT KIS project for…Partners reported that the programme has brought them and KIS demanders, as direct beneficiaries of theproject, the added-value described below:
PARTNERS KIS DEMANDERS
•Gain Knowledge in local KIS supply and demand • KIS platform (kis4smes)
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 70 de 134
•Gain Knowledge in local KIS supply and demand • KIS platform (kis4smes)
• Transregional networking and experience exchange.
•Gain knowledge in the various types of KIS services
offered in their regions and the benefits of using them.
•Enhance relationship between Policymakers on the
innovation field and Public Agencies.
•Research Vouchers Scheme
•Raise awareness of their KIS specific needs
•Pilot experiences/GPs testing.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Added-value of the ATLANT KIS project for… The ATLANT KIS added-value for KIS suppliers varies depending on the group surveyed:
KIS SUPPLIERS (main beneficiaries of the project)
According to Partners
•Services promotion through the KIS platform
• KIS market place•Gain knowledge in the most demanded KIS services
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 71 de 134
• KIS market place
• Pilot tools for sector development.
•Gain knowledge in the most demanded KIS services
• Possibility to be in contact with other suppliers and find new
partners.
According to KIS Suppliers (18% of those surveyed stated that, the ATLANT KIS project has brought NOTHING into their
company so far)
•Raise awareness of the importance of KIS and the
possibilities they offer.
•Advertisement through the KIS platform
• Gain knowledge in their company’s KIS needs
• Possibility to gain new clients and increase revenue
• Network with the various agents and/or potential partners for
global projects development.
• Access to key service providers
• Gain knowledge in the variety and volume of KIS services
available in their region.
• Financial support for SMEs growth
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.3.3.- EFFICIENCY analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 72 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�Out of all partners, 63% gauged the project as “efficient”.
� Inputs to carry out the various actions were considered to be
“average”. However, partners struggled to justify expenditure.
Valuation of the grade of
efficiency of the project
ATLANT KIS according to
the partners
VERY MUCH MUCH
SOME LITTLE
NOTHING
Grade of the partners' agreement regarding the
following aspects of the efficiency of ATLANT KIS
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 73 de 134
37%
63%
NOTHING
There have been sufficient resources available
to perform the actions in terms of economy
There have been sufficient resources available
to perform the actions in terms of material
There have been sufficient resources available
to perform the actions in terms of human team
My organisation had no problems to
economically justify the expenditure involved
2
2
3
3
6
5
4
3
1
1
1
1
following aspects of the efficiency of ATLANT KIS
VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED AVERAGE DISATISFIED VERY DISATISFIED
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Timeline and deadlines
� It is noted that initial delays forced some partners to ask for up-to-six-month extensions.
� The communication activities were the most delayed ones due to -according to ADI, the partner responsible
for the initiation of the activity- internal cost-cutting measures, which impeded personnel allocation. It is for
this reason that at the last Consortium Meeting held in Oporto on 28th March 2012 it was agreed to outsource
an associated partner (SEBIC) to accomplish this task. SEBIC will also try to follow indicators and fulfil the
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 74 de 134
an associated partner (SEBIC) to accomplish this task. SEBIC will also try to follow indicators and fulfil the
objectives set for the last stage of the project.
� Principal constraints>> reporting to the STC and Managing Authority was slower than expected
caused by the online certification platform and the European Authorities’ late response.
� In some cases, partners’ performance has been unbalanced. This, has posed problems and delays in some
particular actions that were programmed to start sequentially.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�Project financial management
� The lack of flexibility of the computer application to validate expenditure led to continuous
budget modifications adjusting the expenses to the corresponding budget headings established
in the agreed budget. Consequently, three budget modifications were requested –the last one
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 75 de 134
has been introduced along the current month, April 2012-. The first to modifications have mainly
enabled performance of activity nº.5, (Transfer of Best Practices).
�STC flexibility to approve changes is positively assessed. However, it should be remarked that
changes were made at a slow pace.
�Difficulties were encountered for project’s financial management co-ordination, they were
caused by the different First Level Controls timeframe set up in each region.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
4.3.4.- COMMUNICATION
AND VISIBILITY analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 76 de 134
AND VISIBILITY analysis
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Analysing the answers given by the partners of the ATLANT KIS project…
The activities related to project communication and dissemination carried out
within the various regions have been truly unbalanced, no only in terms of the
number of de actions put into place, but also in terms of coverage and reaching
the target public.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 77 de 134
Whereas five partners believe that the actions carried out in their regions were
“sufficient and clear” , three of them think that they were “insufficient” (BMW
Assembly, SERA and ADI).
The great majority of partners consider the grade of coverage of the project to
be “acceptable”(with the exception of one of the partners involved who rated it
“high”), however, they have pointed out that this is due to the goods
produced, rather than the actual promotion and dissemination of the project.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Among all communication tools used in the project, the partners involved have
experienced various visibility levels:
Low rated tools: “Digital newsletter”, “Press conferences” and “Project’s website”
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 78 de 134
Average rated tools: “Articles in press”, “Project presentation in other EU forums “ and
“Project’s brochure”
Tools having more impact and visibility: “Seminars ”, “Workshops organised in the various
regions participating in the project” and “KIS market place held in Cork”
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Conclusions to evaluation of the organisation responsible for project’s communication and
dissemination .
Overall, in reference to the tools developed along the project, they achieved an “acceptable”
level of satisfaction (with the exception of one of the partners who thinks they are
insufficient).
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 79 de 134
insufficient).
It should be said that, detailed monitoring of the regional and transregional activities carried
out was missing, as well as detailed information for the rest of the partners.
Partners believe that external co-operation from professional organisations is needed. They
also suggest that an organisation working on online promotion and dissemination (e.g.
twitter, facebook) be considered for future interventions, this could be done throughout
consortium, clusters...
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Assessing answers from KIS suppliers involved in the ATLANTKIS project…
� More than 50% of the KIS suppliers surveyed stated
that they had been able to join the ATLANT KIS project
because of the dissemination job done and contacts
made by the partners.5%
2%
2%
2%
Half of communication through
which KIS suppliers met ATLANT KIS
projectDirect contact from an
institution
Workshop/regional forum
Project’s website
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 80 de 134
� However, as set out in the chart on the left, the action
of gaining beneficiaries through the various
communication tools developed has been limited. Only
6% of the respondents were aware of the project
existence through brochures, digital newsletters, articles
in press...
33%
18%16%
11%
11%
Project’s website
Attendance at the KIS
Conference held in Cork
Project’s platform
(www.kis4smes.com)
Project’s brochure
Project’s e-newsletter
Article in press
Other
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Assessing answers from KIS suppliers involved in the ATLANTKIS project…
� It should be remarked the important dissemination job done
by partners for KIS platform promotion, this is proved by the
fact that out of all KIS suppliers surveyed, 75% know of the3%
Grade of knowledge of the KIS
platform (www.kis4smes.com)
YES
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 81 de 134
fact that out of all KIS suppliers surveyed, 75% know of the
platform existence.
75%
22%
3%NO
NOT
KNOWS /
NOT
ANSWERS
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
5. Evaluation on the results achieved by
ATLANT KIS project
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 82 de 134
ATLANT KIS project
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
5.1.- Achievement analysis of the
below criteria
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 83 de 134
below criteria
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
5.1.1.- IMPACT analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 84 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
ECONOMIC IMPACT
SOCIAL IMPACT
POLITIC IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
37,5%
12,5%
37,5%
12,5%
12,5%
37,5%
25,0%
12,5%
50,0%
25,0%
25,0%
12,5%
12,5%
37,5%
12,5%
25,0%
12,5%
Assesment on the ATLANT KIS impact according to partners
VERY MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NOTHING NOT KNOWS/NOT ANSWERS
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 85 de 134
� According to the partnership, the ATLANT KIS project has made a “high” political impact, while
the social impact is believed to be rather “moderate” (37.5% of the partners rated the impact
“high” and 25% “average”).
�The environmental impact of the project is, overall, the lowest rated, as 62.5% of the partners rated
it “very poor”.
�As shown on the chart above, there are different points of view as to the economic impact of the
project is concerned (half of the partners stated that the project had “very high” or “high” economic
impact, while the other half rated it “average”).
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�ATLANT KIS EFFECTS
As the project is not yet finished, it is technically too early to evaluate the ATLANT KIS effects
in terms of impact.
Therefore, the ATLANT KIS benefits must be assessed, in terms of efficiency, as outputs derived
from project participation (gain KIS knowledge and its possibilities, make contacts and exchange
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 86 de 134
from project participation (gain KIS knowledge and its possibilities, make contacts and exchange
experiences with other SMEs and entities; a chance for promotion in the industry).
However, there are some possible effects that, according to the stakeholders surveyed
(partners, KIS suppliers and associated partners) start to show:
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�ATLANT KIS effects for…
PARTNERS
•50 % of the partners said that after the ATLANT KIS project, new opportunities of exchanging ideas havearisen among them:
• Galicia >> Cooperation among clusters while sharing synergy and taking as reference other projects, inwhich Galicia, Bretagne and Ireland have been involved, e.g. AT Clusters.
• Attempts to hire teaching staff and experts from Exeter for BP exchange.• Agreement with Porto Business School to run the course “Innovation Managers”.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 87 de 134
• Agreement with Porto Business School to run the course “Innovation Managers”.• BMW Assembly >> Co-operation with DCBC
•75 % of the partners stated that the ATLANT KIS project has made an impact on the creation of publicpolicies and programmes in their regions:
• DCBC >> Redefine their innovation strategy to support the growth of potential KIS companies and otherindustries under the experience of some pilot projects already implemented and transferred.•Navarra >> 4th Technology Plan in Navarra• Galicia >> The project have enabled this region to update the Innovation Managers Network of GaliciaProgramme set up in 2010 (Rede Xiga). A Dirección Xeral (The General Secretariat )is currently going
through a transition period and, consequently, La Axencia de Innovación de Galicia (The Innovation GalicianAgency) will be shortly implemented. One of its first missions will be the implementation of the “Registro deAgentes del Sistema Gallego de Innovación.” (“Agents of the Galician Innovation System Registry”).• ADI >> They expect to adopt some of the identified BPs in any future programmes.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
KIS SUPPLIERS
• The ATLANT KIS project has had no effect on the principal beneficiaries of the project in terms of
business growth so far:
• None KIS supplier has received any service request or query via the KIS platform.
�ATLANT KIS effects for…
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 88 de 134
• None agreement has been signed between KIS demanders and suppliers after their
registration in the platform.
• There is only one supplier who stated that they had been able to contact other supplier as a result
of their participation in the programme.
• Some of the suppliers surveyed agreed that, as a consequence of their participation in the ATLANT
KIS programme:
• Awareness of the importance of these services has increased.
• Their services have been widely promoted.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
5.1.2.- SATISFACTION
analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 89 de 134
analysis
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The partners involved are satisfied with the overall performance of the project. Yet, there are important
issues, among the various aspects evaluated, that should be pointed out.
Of the total number of items assessed, the greatest level of satisfaction was found at performance of co-
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 90 de 134
Of the total number of items assessed, the greatest level of satisfaction was found at performance of co-
ordination, organisation and management tasks, with an overall score of 8.2 out of 10.
Partners are specially satisfied with the distribution of tasks and duties arranged to achieve project’s
success, more specifically with the procedures and methods used for information gathering.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
With another high score (7.8), partners expressed their level of satisfaction in reference to
“Outcome and achievements reached after implementation of the actions and activities
scheduled”, and “level of co-operation and experience exchange reached ” (7.3).
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 91 de 134
“Communication and dissemination strategies” (5.6) is the lowest rated item.
It should be said that there is no consensus among partners in regard to the communication and
dissemination strategies defined for the project as 3 out of 8 of the partners involved rated it
“poor” (scores ranking between 1 and 3 out of 10), 2 of them “good” and the remaining partners
“very good ” or “excellent”.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The final beneficiaries are highly satisfied with the activities promoted throughout the project.
The overall score obtained concerning their satisfaction level is 7.2 with the items being rated -from
highest to lowest- as follows:
-Contactable institution in charge of the project in my region
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 92 de 134
-Contactable institution in charge of the project in my region
-The objectives and goals pursued by the project meet my business sector’s needs
-Innovative nature of the activities
-Length and timetable of the workshops and seminars run in your region
-Accessibility to the information, material and products processed during the project
-Opportunity to exchange experiences with other companies from my region
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
5.1.3.- SUSTAINABILITY
analysis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 93 de 134
analysis
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The great majority of partners (five out of eight) thinks that the Atlankis project is sustainable and has a
“high level “ of continuity.
ATLANT KIS has produced outputs lasting beyond project life such as handbooks and
methodologies, however, the Sustainability Study aimed in activity nº6, whereby continuity of the virtual
KIS platform after project’s completion is to be raised, has not yet been conducted by partners.
As regard to transferability, 50% of the partners believe that the ATLANT KIS project is “highly”
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 94 de 134
As regard to transferability, 50% of the partners believe that the ATLANT KIS project is “highly”
transferable to other regions.
50%
25%12,5%
12,5%
PARTNERS’ ASSESMENT ON THE GRADE OF
TRANSFERABILITY OF THE ATLANT KIS
VERY MUCH MUCH SOME LITTLE NOTHING
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
5.2.- The specific case of the region of
Navarra
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 95 de 134
Navarra
The DG Enterprise and Department of Innovation from Navarra Government was mainly assisted by two entities
acting as associated partners for the development of the ATLANT KIS project in the region: The European Business
and Innovation Centre of Navarra (CEIN) and the Navarra Association of Consulting (ANEC).
� Previous experience: While, CEIN had participated in other programmes assigned to Interreg
(EURIS, Organza, ICT Value…) before the ATLANT KIS project, ANEC had no previous experience.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 96 de 134
(EURIS, Organza, ICT Value…) before the ATLANT KIS project, ANEC had no previous experience.
�Project involvement (specific actions): ANEC has been involved in the development, implementation and
dissemination of activity nº 6: KIS transregional co-operation platform (www.kis4smes.com), by advising and
acting as a link between other key entities and beneficiaries, as well as drawing up reports/studies and arranging
events and workshops. More precisely, they have participated in the platform’s launching and maintenance activities
related to act 2 by performing the following actions : They presented the use and operation of the platform at the KIS
Regional Forum held on 8th February 2012 in Navarra Factori (CEIN), while encouraging the attendees to join it.
Promotion and dynamisation actions: ANEC has provided access to the platform through a link on ANEC’s
website as well as on the main business and innovation portals: business portal “Navactiva”; Navarra’s
innovation portal “Navarrainnova”; “Navarra.es”; business press “Nueva Gestión”.
ANEC has participated in the Transregional Market place as well as in the platform sustainability study.
They believe that the objectives related to these actions are accomplished as far as the platform facilitates
communication among SMEs while helping internationalisation and online work and gives KIS suppliers visibility.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 97 de 134
communication among SMEs while helping internationalisation and online work and gives KIS suppliers visibility.
Constraint >> attract KIS demanders to the platform
In addition to this, ANEC has supported the activity nº 3 Audit on KIS demand and supply on involved
regions, by delivering two presentations in two different fora:
• 18th May 2010. KIS Sector Navarra Discussion Forum: “Regional Diagnosis of Supply and Demand in the KIS
sector in Navarra”, at CEIN’s premises
•16th February 2011: KIS Sector Discussion Forum: “Transregional Diagnosis of the KIS Sector”, at CEIN’s
premises.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� CEIN: CEIN has participated in activities nº 4 and nº 5, identification and implementation of GPs. More
precisely, they have contributed to the GPs Guide and the implementation and transfer of the three GPs which
were identified by the region of Navarra. The actual implementation status of these GPs is as follows:
1. Business Accelerators (transferred by DCBC): It consists of a course to foster business growth and mentoring of a
limited number or companies (6 companies). Run by the Instituto de empresa, this course offered high quality
contents, speakers and mentoring network . The course comprised two phases:
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 98 de 134
contents, speakers and mentoring network . The course comprised two phases:
•A training programme: A five-day training programme was held (from 7th to 16th November) from 9 .00 to 18.30.
Number of participants: 12 companies.
• Mentoring: Out of the 12 participants, 6 were involved in this activity. They were selected following companies’
greater growth potential criteria. By means of an individualised meeting, each company and its mentor defined the
mentoring process objectives, the working procedure and the milestones follow-up. This activity is aimed at: review
the business plan; enhance marketing and commercial plans; open new distribution channels and guide companies
throughout their internationalisation process. Mentoring was carried out from December 2011 to March 2012.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
2. Research Vouchers Scheme: They aim to promote cooperation between SMEs and knowledge centres to foster
innovation and companies’ development throughout technology transfer. Firms can apply a basic research voucher for
research service assistance to technological experts. The vouchers can cover advice and technical research. (They
provide up to €5,000). Voucher recipients assist companies with processes and procure product analysis to boost
productivity by providing technical knowledge. Firms are obliged to put proposals into practice within three months
from the study completion. A total of 5 firms participated in this scheme. This BP finishes in May 2012.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 99 de 134
from the study completion. A total of 5 firms participated in this scheme. This BP finishes in May 2012.
3. IDEAGEN: A structured brainstorming session allows participants to generate entrepreneurial ideas and also network
within the larger group situation. They are led by innovation experts. Firms, technology centres, universities and
entrepreneurs are brought together in a dynamic and interactive online forum. A session is planned for the 24th April
2012 and will focused on new software technologies. Experts from the Public University of Navarra will lead the activity
and, it is expected that entrepreneurs working on new business ideas and willing to set their own businesses attend
the session.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
�Opinion of the associated partners from navarra about the added-valueof the ATLANT KIS project for…
ASSOCIATED PARTNERS
•Greater visibility as an entity representing the sector
KIS SUPPLIERS (main beneficiaries of the
project)
• Closer links between SMEs, Technology centres and
Universities.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 100 de 134
• Gain knowledge on european projects
• Network with other entities and regions
• Broader knowledge of KIS supply and demand in the
region.
• Broader knowledge of KIS research centres and teams
•Learn from the implemented BP
Identity ideas through three creative challenges:
• What can be done to jointly create an EXPERT
NETWORK of use to companies?
• What can be done to learn more about TCs and
Universities’ know-how and thereby help business
innovation?
• What role can our company play to CONNECT ideas
and entrepreneurs?
• A growing awareness of the importance of the KIS
sector
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Assesment on their participation on the ATLANT KIS project
Both entities CEIN and ANEC rated the overall work carried out by the entity they have cooperated
with with a 7.3 on a scale of 10, being the more valued aspect the “level of involvement of the partner
in the project” (8.5), followed by the “level of communication with the partner” and the “coordinating
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 101 de 134
activities carried out by the partner” (both items were rated with 8).
The activity planning in which they have been involved is highly rated (7.2 out of 10), being the
more valued aspects: the “activity planning”; “activity designing: development and contents”; “the
adequacy of inputs to goal achievements” and the “time scale and envisaged planning adaptation” (all
items were rated with 8 out of 10).
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Regarding the overall assesment of associated partner on the ATLANT KIS project…
Usefulness of guides and other material produced throughout the project.
Direct contact with the institution in charge of the project in my region.
Opportunity to exchange experiences with other with other knowledge centres …
7
8,5
8
7
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 102 de 134
The associated partners from Navarra rate the ATLANT KIS project with anoverall score of 7.3 out of 10.
0 2 4 6 8 10
The objectives and goals pursued by the project meet my KIS business sector’s …
Innovative nature of the activities.
Planning and arrangement of the activities in your company has been involved.
Length and throughout timetable of the workshops and seminars run in your region
Accessibility to the information, material and products processed he project.
Project advertisement
6,5
6,5
8
8
7,5
6,5
7
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� ATLANT KIS Strengths and areas of improvement according to the associatedpartners from Navarra...
STRENGTHS AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT
• The project has raised awareness of a sector which
was unknown for the great majority of agents and
enterprises in Navarra.
• To enhance innovation and creativity for workshops and seminars.
• It has enhanced estate promotion of the KIS • Delays in some activities.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 103 de 134
• It has enhanced estate promotion of the KIS
companies, this sector did not receive public support up
to now.
• Delays in some activities.
• The project is well structured and planned. • Low level of attraction of KIS demanders.
• The dissemination of KIS has made it possible to bring
them to the public and acknowledge that they are
services related to innovation and knowledge.
• To boost dissemination and promotion of the project. The
communication process all along the project has been slow . The
web page has not been developed until the project was well under
way.
• The synergy created among participants (entities and
companies).
• There should have been more meetings for KIS companies fostering
networking and joint projects working, among others, not only in
transatlantic areas but also in the region of Navarra.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
� Regarding the impact of the ATLANT KIS in Navarra…
The DG Enterprise and Department of Innovation of Navarra Government, states that the
ATLANT KIS project has made an impact in public policies within the Navarra area, more
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 104 de 134
ATLANT KIS project has made an impact in public policies within the Navarra area, more
specifically in the development of the 4th Technology Plan of Navarra.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Section Three
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 105 de 134
Section Three
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
6.- Conclusions related to the criteria and
issues raised in the evaluation.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 106 de 134
issues raised in the evaluation.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
PROJECT MANAGEMENT and
COORDINATION
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 107 de 134
COORDINATION
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The assessment team considers the coordinating organization to have made
an important effort in order to develop a homogenized procedure for all the
organizations of information collection (monitoring system).
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 108 de 134
Nevertheless, this should be revised for future interventions since, despite
fulfilling the minimum information requirements, it does not allow to cover all
the aspects relating to a comprehensive monitoring of the intervention
(actions and participants), as well as not incorporating the gender
perspective.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
With regard to the indicators, which are understood as project advance andprogress measures, it can be confirmed that their level of suitability is rather one of a
general type (physical and financial execution).
That is to say, quantitative indicators of fulfilment have been envisaged but no
qualitative indicator has been designed. It can also be said that two different toolshave been observed to asses the degree of fulfilment of indicators for information
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 109 de 134
have been observed to asses the degree of fulfilment of indicators for informationgathering: the Balanced Scored Card and the indicator suite of the project’sapplication form.
This has given rise to misunderstandings related to the project’s performance and
results, therefore, the measurement and knowledge of the project effects in the variedterritories have been limited.
On the other hand, it does no exist a global criterium which allows partners to
understand the indicators set, this has led to important differences in informationgathering.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The assessment team states that when all the data has been collected is the moment in
which the results of the project start to be visible.
Up to the date of handing in this report, the degree of advance and progress regarding
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 111 de 134
Up to the date of handing in this report, the degree of advance and progress regarding
the physical execution of the measures is “adequate”. In general, the degree of
achievement is acceptable.
However, if we analyse and compare each of the activities in the project, significant
differences in advance and progress have become evident, being even clearer in some of
the regions.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
EFFICIENCY
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 112 de 134
EFFICIENCY
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
After analysing the aspects in which this criterium is specified, the assessment
team, considers the AtlantKis project to be efficient and well-measured with regard to the
fact that the available resources have been enough to carry out the scheduled activities.
It is not possible to make the same value judgment about the pace of project development
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 113 de 134
It is not possible to make the same value judgment about the pace of project development
since some delays in the initial stage caused some of the expected products not to be
finished at the time of the final seminar (especially, those related to the activity no 7:
communication and dissemination).
The ineffectiveness of the administrative systems of account submission and accountability
is confirmed as the main reason for the mismatches which have been detected in the
project and the unbalanced performance of the partners.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
CONSISTENCY and
RELEVANCE
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 114 de 134
RELEVANCE
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The assessment team confirms that the good coordination of project objectives, scheduled
actions and expected outcome is adequate, to a large extent, for the specific context and needs
of the involved regions, not only from the partners’ perspective but also from the KIS suppliers’.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 115 de 134
However, in a higher level of planning there are certain doubts whether the Atlankis
performance strategy will enable the accomplishment of the overall goal in the long run:
“contribute to the development of Clusters of KIS in the Atlantic Area, which will help to ensure
that the area is recognised for its ecellence in the field of KIS”. It seems that, the way this goal is
stated, the key question fitting into this criterium can not be answered: Which visible or
measurable outcome will show that the project’s goal is accomplished?
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
SATISFACTION and
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 116 de 134
SATISFACTION and
EXPECTATIONS
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The evaluation team states that, the partners along with the beneficiaries and the
associated partners assessed a “high level” of satisfaction as to management,
performance and results achieved is concerned.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 117 de 134
It became clear that the goods produced by the project have met their expectations,
although some of them (especially the KIS platform) will require that a strategy be
developed to ensure their future continuance.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
COMMUNICATION AND
VISIBILITY
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 118 de 134
VISIBILITY
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
From the evaluation team side, we can confirm that there is a lack of an actual
Communication Plan being more effective and suited to the regional and inter-regional
framework and in which partners specify: objectives, expected results, indicators,
activities, reach and/or media foreseen to make the project visible.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 119 de 134
activities, reach and/or media foreseen to make the project visible.
Various communication tools have been delineated as it was anticipated. Nevertheless,
we think that they could have been re-defined to ensure accomplishment of the effects
foreseen. Our view is that criteria should have been clearly stated in advance. That is,
“what?” and “for what purpose?”, as well as “use” and “effects and impacts foreseen”, in
both coverage and visibility areas .
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
ATLANKIS PROJECT RESULTS AND EFFECTSPARTNERS
50 % of the partners involved stated that new opportunities to share experiences have arisen
as a result of the ATLANT KIS project.
75 % of the partners involved stated that the ATLANT KIS project made an impact on the
development of new schemes and policies in their region.
KIS SUPPLIERS
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 121 de 134
KIS SUPPLIERS
To date, the ATLANT KIS project has not caused any effect on the major beneficiaries of the
project in terms of business development.
It can be observed that , in regard to the impact and effects attributed to the project, they
seem to be more noticeable within the framework of the development of new insights, tools
and methodologies , as well as within experience exchange among partners.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
The impact and effects derived from the implementation of the ATLANKIS project would mainly
remain among the institutions (project partners), being less noticeable for the beneficiaries in
each of their territories.
Yet, most long-term effects/impacts, could only be verified several years after the end of the
project. It will be necessary for 2/3 years to have passed to be able to confirm if the success
factors, which are associated with the actions carried out along the project, have evolved as
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 122 de 134
factors, which are associated with the actions carried out along the project, have evolved as
successfully as it was expected.
It is for this reason that, the benefits attributed to the ATLANTKIS project should be
considered, in terms of efficiency, as the resultant outputs (gaining greater KIS knowledge;
networking and experience exchange opportunities among SMEs and entities; advertising ... ).
At this stage of the project, it is not possible to come to a solid and reliable conclusion with
regard to either the outcome reached in the long term or the sustainability of the results.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Having received feedback from partners, beneficiaries and associated
partners, based on the answers obtained from surveys, the evaluation team
can state that:
The lack of inputs and funding represents the weakest point of the Atlankis
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 124 de 134
The lack of inputs and funding represents the weakest point of the Atlankis
project.
New cooperation formulas as well as new tools and methodologies which
may contribute to innovative solutions beyond the life of the project
(mainly guides and the KIS platform), along with knowledge transferability
to different frameworks and a key sector within the Atlantic area, are the
project’s biggest success factors.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
7. Answers to the key questions
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 125 de 134
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Has the project been developed in accordance with the
management, execution and accessibility terms foreseen?
Answer: The objectives and goals set have been largely achieved, however there have been different
Concerning evaluation of implementation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 126 de 134
Answer: The objectives and goals set have been largely achieved, however there have been different
levels of involvement and performance among partners. In addition to this, different responses concerning
the grade of execution of the envisaged activities have been observed.
On the other hand, variations in the budget and schedule have forced partners to excessive dedication to
paperwork and setting-up time.
This fact has significantly limited the top performance of certain activities, from the physical and financial
execution perspective.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Concerning outcome evaluation
Has the project or programme produced a desired
effect/changes on the project’s beneficiaries? What is the
immediate impact?
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 127 de 134
Answer: The impact and effects that the implementation of the Atlant Kis Project has
produced on stakeholders are more noticeable among institutions (partners involved), the
effects have been less noticeable, in the short term, among KIS suppliers (as direct beneficiaries)
in each of their territories. As for KIS demanders, we do not have any information about their
opinion on the level of influence that the project has exercised over them.
CONCLUSIONS OVERVIEW LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA
ANALYSIS
APPROACH
CRITERIA (KEY ISSUES) ACHIEVEMENT
/SCOPE
CONSISTENCY �
RELEVANCE �
SYMBOL MEANING
�Satisfactory level
of achievement
and scope of the
evaluation criteria
�There are some
aspects that
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 128 de 134
Evaluation of
Implementation
RELEVANCE �
EFFECTIVENESS �
EFFICIENCY �
TRANSFERABILITY/
VISIBILITY
Outcome
Evaluation
IMPACT ����
SATISFACTION �
SUSTAINABILITY �
�aspects that
could be
improved
This criterion
requires
immediate
attention, as
there are various
threats that may
put the
achievement of
the foreseen
objectives, results
and/or effects at
risk
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
8. Recommendations
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 129 de 134
8. Recommendations
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
In general terms:
To carry out a design assessment of any future action in order to guarantee that the objectives
and strategy are COHERENT AND APPROPRIATE in the context(s) in which they are developed.
Likewise, this is going to allow to make the appropriate modifications and reorientations, thus the
achievement of the expected outcomes and their contribution to the objectives and specific
characteristics of the Community Initiative INTERREG IV Atlantic Space will be of a greater scope
and adjustment.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 130 de 134
and adjustment.
Cooperation and experience learning among different territories with similar geographical
characteristics are possible and generate good results.
With reference to the information, tracking and assessment systems, to improve observation
tools (results and impact indicators) and data collection techniques (quantitative and
qualitative) in order to get them to be more suitable and appropriate to answer the key
questions, taking into account both our own information availability and others’.
It will be necessary to design them from the beginning of the program and as broken down as
possible, taking into account the principle of equal opportunities.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
In specific terms:
To compile a TERMS GLOSSARY at the beginning of the project, with the aim of making the
main and most common concepts which are used in the project easier to understand and
favoring the usage of a common language among partners of different nationalities.
In the project draft process, to spend more time on a detailed definition of objectives,
activities (including feasibility and sustainability) and budget, with the aim of avoiding
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 131 de 134
activities (including feasibility and sustainability) and budget, with the aim of avoiding
subsequent modification and rescheduling requests which slow down the start-up of the
project.
To improve the administrative processes of management and certification in order to
ease and speed up the report and justification tasks.
Put more effort into the project communication and spreading actions in order to ensure
a wider visibility of the project, from a coverage and impact criterium. (the success in the
design of powerful working tools such as the KIS platform is blurred because of its scarce use
and impact in terms of visibility).
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
For similar projects to ATLANT KIS, in which sequential working activities are
proposed, it is necessary that mechanisms be established so as to ensure that
deadlines are strictly met and a backlog is not produced for the rest of the activities . In
addition to this, it is necessary that, when monitoring and managing, a certain timeline
flexibility be foreseen for the tasks to be carried out in order to have other alternatives
available as well as to be able to move forward in the event that the project has not yield
any results in its first stages.
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 132 de 134
any results in its first stages.
Consortium meetings should represent the main partnership meeting point, however, this
should not be the only means of communication and cooperation among partners. The
added-value of co-operational projects should be displayed, by all or some partners, in a
greater number of communication spaces, in which specific issues, related to project
execution, be tackled in view to obtain a shared and global orientation. Special attention
should be focused on time gap between meetings in order to pursue cooperative dynamics.
ATLANT KIS Project Evaluation
Once the objective of performing a “Sustainability study” on the ATLANT KIS project is
accomplished- this has determined the preservation of the KIS platform for at least a year after
project’s completion- it is recommended that both the sustainability concept and scope of
the project should be defined. In addition to this, a programme should be drawn up
Seminario Final - 27 de Marzo de 2012Página 133 de 134
the project should be defined. In addition to this, a programme should be drawn up
establishing objectives and key challenges and serving as a base for project’s sustainability, it
should also include partners’ commitments.
In addition to this, it will be necessary to establish some action lines and measures, and
implement a management and feasibility model.