ISLE - 6th project meeting -Work Package 7: Quality

Work Package 7:

Quality

Project Education: Who are we?

Project Education is a European group dedicated to the development and promotion of educational capital for both individuals and institutions. The group was founded by academics, former University deans, high-level educational managers, entrepreneurs and former top consultants in change and project management, with the aim to encouraging and facilitating synergies between education, research and the business world.

Project Education’s team is today made up of consultants with an excellent understanding of the international stakes at play in higher education, research and innovation, as well as a dedicated pool of specialists who apply their expertise to a wide range of subjects and fields.

Project Education has considerable experience in advising higher education institutions, government institutions, small and medium enterprises, as well as students and families reach their goals of academic excellence and innovation. Project Education has also advised consortiums and clusters on the deployment and implementation of their projects, both in Europe and globally.

Our Key activities

Advising on investing in educational and innovation projects

Facilitating partneships between Universities and Companies

Assisiting in the drafting and editing of written responses and communication tools

Assisiting in the definition and emphasis of the project’s socio-economic impacts

Organising and orchestrate strategic events

Providing with information and benchmarking on higher education

Evaluation and monitoring

Alongside actors invested in training research and innovation

1. Research project

2. Demonstrator

3. Industrial Project

1. An ambition to built

2. Adequate training academic success

3. Professional success

Our team

Kevin Rosier

Aurélien Montagu

Maxime Legrand

Saranne Comel

How will the day be organized?

• During the day we will altern between plenary sessions and small work shops

• Our morning will be focused on understanding the objectives and the stakes related to Quality

• After this 1st plenary session The partners, coordinators and members of the steering committee will be divided in three groups, that are already organized for time and management purposes. These groups will remain the same for the afternoon activity

• A time of restitution will close the 1st part of our day • The afternoon will be focused on developing the different tools related to the quality evaluation of

the ISLE project

• We will present the results of our enquiry as well as the different interviews we have carried out for the past few weeks during the plenary sessions

• The partners will then be divided into their working groups for an activity call World Coffee focused on the ISLE project

• A time of restitution will close the 2nd and last part of our day

Planning

Time Activity

09 : 00 – 09 : 30 Introduction

09 : 30 – 10 : 30 1st Work Shop

10 : 30 – 11 : 00 Coffee Break

11 : 00 – 11 : 30 Restitution of the 1st Work Shop

11 : 30 – 12 : 30 Introduction to quality process

12 : 30 – 14 : 00 Lunch

14 : 00 – 15 : 00 Restitution of the questionnaire enquiry and the interviews

15 : 00 – 15 : 30 Coffee Break & registration

15 : 30 – 17 : 00 2nd Work Shop

17 : 00 – 17 : 30 Restitution of the 2nd Work Shop

17 : 30 – 17 : 45 Conclusion of the day

The rules of the game

Respect the time

The presentation supports will be sent at the

end

No question is useless

If we cannot answer a question

right away we will right

it down

It isn’t a training

1st Work Shop : teams

Role Group 1 Maxime Legrand

Group 2 Kevin Rosier

Group 3 Aurélien Montagu

Team leaders Emilio Chiodo Vesna Weingerl

Cristina Cunha Queda Christina Armutlieva

Valia Triperina Pedro Aguado

Members Christina Yancheva Christine Notté Trude Wicklund

Marin Soare Gurkan Gurdil

Dragan M. Pajic Lucie Vaamonde

Rumi Bakardzhieva Jean-Pierre Lemière

Sandor Makai Sonia Kaminska

Magdalena Lacko-Bartsova Tetiana Ischenko

Susanna Pakkasmaa

Erika Quendler Kjartan Bollason

Manou Pfeiffenschneider Adrian Bugeja

Zeki Kara Sébastien Chevalier

Klaus Wagner David Herak

Maurizio Mariani Anzelika Raskauskiene

Mehmet Kuran Keith Chaney Llic Dalibor

Nidal Shaban Kadri Kalle

Kristine Kilsa Iryna Syniavska

Dave Lamie Lidmila Goncharova Dominique Ladevèze

Elodie Barré Iman Kadhum Krisztina Hracs

Jannie Van der Luit Leticia Chico Santamarta

Susan Oehme

1st Work Shop

1st Work Shop : The rules of the game

• This morning you will be working on the development of the concept of a new car that respects the environment

• As mentioned previously you will be divided into three groups • In each groups there will be two teams : the doers and the evaluators • During 30 minutes, the team “doers” will work on the different processes and

concepts that have to be developed to launch this new car, while the team “evaluators” will work on the different indicators that have to be developed to respect the quality process

• The two teams will then confront their work and their conclusions

As you all know there can be surprises and evolutions in a project, so except the excepted!

1st Work Shop : Teams

Role Group 1 Maxime Legrand

Group 2 Kevin Rosier

Group 3 Aurélien Montagu

Team leaders

Emilio Chiodo Vesna Weingerl Cristina Cunha Queda

Christina Armutlieva

Valia Triperina Pedro Aguado

doers

evaluators

doers evaluators doers evaluators

Members Christina Yancheva Christine Notté Trude Wicklund Marin Soare Gurkan Gurdil Dragan M. Pajic Lucie Vaamonde Ali Galip Onal Erika Quendler

Rumi Bakardzhieva Jean-Pierre Lemière Sandor Makai Sonia Kaminska Magdalena Lacko-Bartsova Susanna Pakkasmaa Georghes Matei

Kjartan Bollason Manou Pfeiffenschneider Adrian Bugeja Zeki Kara Sébastien Chevalier

Klaus Wagner David Herak Andrea …. Anzelika Raskauskiene Keith Chaney Llic Dalibor

Nidal Shaban Kadri Kalle Kristine Kilsa Dave Lamie Lidmila Goncharova Dominique Ladevèze Elodie Barré

Iman Kadhum Krisztina Hracs Jannie Van der Luit Leticia Chico Santamarta Susan Oehme Amelie Jaillé

Restitution

Let’s focus on Quality

Quality is characterized by the ability of the studies produced to address the real

objectives of the project and fully meet the expectations

Why is the quality approach crucial?

• The Quality approach is necessary for a reliable project management, using different tools standardization of working methods and verification.

• The adoption of this approach should lead to better control costs and project duration

• The objective of the Quality approach is to find the balance between meeting the needs of the project, the correct expression of these needs through appropriate specifications that pass through careful listening to the different needs and a realization that meet the needs expressed.

The evolution of Quality

FIRM

The Global Management of

Quality

Quality Management

Quality Control

Products Services

Making process

Management Process

C U S T O M E R

R E Q U I R E M E N T

The evolution of Quality

The look over Quality has changed all over the years

Before Quality was only necessary to involve indicators and make assesses to control it

#

Nowadays Quality is more seen like a global management model which could lead economic actors to improve their

competitiveness

Four steps lying on the Deming wheel

Plan

Which were/are the objectives and

processes necessary to deliver the results

expected

Do

How did you implement the plan,

executed the processes and produced the deliverables

Act

What corrective action would you

request on significant differences between actual and planned

results

Check

What are the actual results and are they comparable to the results expected?

Deviations?

And for ISLE Project?

Elaborate your project

with the partners

Follow your project

Underlight the

progression of the project

Acknowledge the results of the project

Better the project

The SMART Model for each package: set achievable

objectives related

Achievement reporting per action

Add material and human resources needed

Be careful to evaluate also the project in it’s globality

What was the link between your work package and the global

project? With the other workpackages?

Restitution of the enquiry and the

interviews

What did we expect?

What do we understand?

SPECIFIC WORK

Quantitative study

Based on two complementary tools

Qualitative study

Enquiry Questionnaire

Personnalised Interview

Get an transversal vision

Improve aspects of Quality

27

Go forward : Interest of the Deming Wheel

P

C

A Plan Act

Check

D Do

Establish the

objectives and

processes necessary

to deliver the results

Processes execution

Study the actual results

and compare with the

expected results

Request corrective

actions on significant

differences between

actual and planned

results

ISLE Objectives

TARGET :

LET THE NUMBERS SPEAK !

Quantitative Study

Four axes related to Quality : Consortium (7 questions)

Deliverables (5 questions)

Dissemination (6 questions)

Project Management (5 questions)

Briefly: 23 questions

Rating format : “1” indicates people strongly agree with the statement and “5” indicated that people strongly disagree …

… Each answer “1” represents 5 points as the “5” only represents 1 point.

The Questionnaire

• National Institute of Higher Education in Agronomy, Food and Environmental Sciences, DIJON

• Agricultural University – Plovdiv

• Czech University of Life Sciences Prague

• Aarhus University

• University of Leon

• Estonian University of Life Sciences

• University of Teramo

• University of Foggia

• Efor-Ersa Consulting Engineers

• University of Craiova - Faculty of Agriculture

• Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics

• Agro-Know Technologies

• Lithuanian University of Agriculture

• School of Agronomy – Technical University of Lisbon

• Norwegian University of Life Sciences

• University of Maribor, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences

• Harper Adams University College

• Ondokuz Mayis University

• Holar University College

• University of Forestry, Sofia

• Agriculture academy, Sofia

Who answered ?

• 50 % of Universities taking part to the project answered the questionnaire (21/39)…

• … In total 87 participants answered the questionnaire (out of 125 questionnaires sent)

Comments

Communication works well between partners involved in the same WP as some involved on different Workpackages

The high diversity of partners with complementary skills is seen as a big opportunity for the project

Partners don’t feel that every partner is invested at the same level

The Quality of the consortium

44

69 76

4 5 7

Number of points (over 80 points)

11,0

17,3 19,0

4 5 7

Average over 20

Best and worse comparison

The Quality of the deliverables

Comments

The deliverables achieved look as good as expected at the beggining of the mission

Monitoring on Workpackage leads to good distribution of tasks between partners

Sometimes the lack of respect in the deadlines may have threaten the work unity


68 72

56

14 15 17


17,0 18,0

14,0

14 15 17

Average over 20

The Quality dissemination

Comments

• Positive feeling about the organized events : conferences, workshops …

• … as special events of I.S.L.E : the Green Week and the sustainable Week

The Newsletters may be improved (form and frequency)


72 73

57

10 11 13


18,0 18,3

15,2

10 11 13

Average over 20

The Quality of the project management

Comments

The Project coordinator’s investment is applaud by everyone

The division of the Project into 8 Wps is justified and useful because of partners skills

Budget Management has not always been efficient


76

62

20 23


19,0

16,5

20 23

Average over 20

Global View

Comments

Each axe looks healthy getting good marks

Lot of similar written answers

Investment in the process of finding solutions shows that partners feel invested in the project and its aspects of Quality as well

15,63

17,74

16,05

17,38

The Quality ofconsortium

The QualityDissemination

The Quality of thedeliverables

The Quality of theproject

management

Average over 20

SWOT Matrix Strengths Weaknesses

Unique, strong network involving 39 partners from 30 European countries

Good and productive working environment and climate within the consortium. Friendly collaboration organized around Corinne

Dedicated people passionate about Sustainable Development and International relations

Large range of skills and know-how

Holistic approach

Almost every deadlines were meat

Lack of non-academic stakeholders (policy makers, companies,

public administrations like education ministries…)

Not all the partners are equally involved

Difficulties in finding the link between ISLE project and Industry, firms,. It seems to depend on local relationships and involvements

Exceeding deadlines for some deliverables (could become a tendency)

Opportunities Threats Development of new relations and possible connections with

other networks or associations

Connect students, academics and managers : Cross fertilization of ideas

Advices for civil society

Post project strategy: ISLE 2 follow-up project ISLE Association

Not to exploit results Low number of publications A weak recognition at EU and academic level of the project

results

Objectives :

Get partners’ feelings

Getting insights from different partners

In general : work closely with you

Briefly:

10 persons mobilized

Two ways : Phone calls and Skype meetings

Choosen persons : 2 by Work Packages (1 leader + 1 coordinator)

Interviews

Emergency points

Each partner institution doesn’t seem to be involved in the production of the deliverables

The link between ISLE project and companies depends more on local issues and individual behaviors

ISLE project should also lead to build a specific knowledge and methodology on : interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary contents of SD

specific aspects concerning SD teaching and education

WP leader’s side

Emergency points

Communication and connexions might be improved going over the planned schedules

The quality of deliverables could be implemented : deadlines respect, tasks distribution between partners

Variety of partners : Different aims and approaches to the core topic

Maybe it would have been easier for the coordinator if each partner would have stick to one package during the project

Coordinator’s side

Consortium Remember that “lack of investment's impressions” may sometimes express a

different way of working

Deliverables Tasks distribution has to be more inclusive and lead partners to work as far as

possible on the same level Dissemination The newsletter should be improve on its form (be more entertaining) and its

frequency (2 per years is not enough) as the Organized Events should mobilize a stronger variety of partners (origins and activities)

Project Management Not specific things to involve, except Corinne should begin to sleep a little more

First pieces of advice

2nd Work Shop

2nd Work Shop : The rules of the game

• This afternoon you will be working more specifically on the quality process of the ISLE project . You will be divided in the same three work groups than this morning

Each group will meet up for 35 minutes:

- The group 1 will discuss about the work package 6 and will build a SMART model

- The group 2 will discuss on the work package 5 and will build a SMART model

- the group 3 will discuss about the work package 8 and will build a SMART model

After these 35 minutes the groups will shift.

- The group 1 will change rooms and go in the room of the group 2 and analyze de de SMART Model



After 25 minutes the groups will shift again for 15 minutes:

- The group 1 will change rooms and go in the room of the group 3 and will provide eventual solutions and recognitions to the situation analyzed by the two previous groups



Restitution

Conclusion

Go forward

Always keep in mind our

focus :

With all of our differences

we have to get a continual

improvement process !

ISLE - 6th project meeting -Work Package 7: Quality

Business

Transcript of ISLE - 6th project meeting -Work Package 7: Quality