Lec. 11. Evaluation Process & Evaluation Criteria
description
Transcript of Lec. 11. Evaluation Process & Evaluation Criteria
PRINCIPLESPRINCIPLES
Objectivity
Fairness
Competence
Professionalism
Relevance to the results to be achieved
UDG REVIEW PANEL UDG REVIEW PANEL (UDGRP)(UDGRP)
UDGRP will consist of min 5 members
one of the Reviewers will be designated as the Anchor Reviewer
Appointed by the UGC/MoHE
Any potential conflict of interest should be prevented in the evaluation process
reviewers will not be allowed to evaluate proposals submitted by his/her own university or the institution that he/she has affiliation, financial connection or personal interest
KEY STEPSKEY STEPS
RatificationRatification
RecommendationRecommendation
Desk EvaluationDesk Evaluation
Site EvaluationSite Evaluation
Eligibility CheckEligibility Check
ELIGIBILITY CHECKELIGIBILITY CHECK
will be conducted by the MoHE
those satisfying the eligibility criteria will be forwarded for Desk Evaluation
Updated University/Institution Corporate Plan will also be forwarded to the review panel along with the proposal
DESK EVALUATIONDESK EVALUATION
Undertaken by a UDG Review Panel (UDGRP) – 5 members; One as the Anchor
Reviewer
Carried out according to a set of evaluation criteria
Detailed Feedback will be provided to all– in the form of Reviewers’ Comments
DESK EVALUATIONDESK EVALUATION
If the proposal meets the selection criteria only partially, then
Revise and Resubmit
If the proposal fully meets the selection criteria, then Site Evaluation
SITE EVALUATIONSITE EVALUATION By the same UDGRP that has conducted the
Desk Evaluation
Main Objective
– to assess the conformity between the written proposal & the ground realities, and
– to draw a final judgement on the feasibility & implementability of the proposed plan
In particular
– Validation of the data included in the proposal
– Clarification of issues that have arose during the desk evaluation
– Assessment of the university/institution’s commitment to the project activities outlined in the proposal
EVALUATION CRITERIAEVALUATION CRITERIA
Institutional Commitment, Institutional Commitment, Feasibility & ImplementabilitFeasibility & Implementabilityy
Relevance & Quality Enhancement
Efficiency & EffectivenessEfficiency & Effectiveness
Relevance & Quality EnhancementRelevance & Quality Enhancement
Relevance – responsiveness to the social demand & labour market needs universities are encouraged to make their
programs more demand driven
Also, Relevance to the Results to be Achieved (Performance Targets)
Proposed plan should also be in line with the updated University/Institution Corporate Plan
Relevance & Quality EnhancementRelevance & Quality Enhancement
Proposal should demonstrate how the proposed activities would improve the quality & relevance of programs as a result provide graduates with knowledge,
capabilities, skills and attitudes required by the labour market and the society
special emphasis on the employability of graduates of Arts & Humanities, Management and General Sciences
Proposal should demonstrate the commitment
to submit a separate proposal for improving the quality & relevance of the EDPs, where applicable
Innovation and creativity in designing the activities is encouraged and will be highly appreciated
Relevance & Quality EnhancementRelevance & Quality Enhancement
Improvements in Teaching & Learning Process
Corporate Plan
Mechanism & Design of Activities
Improvements in Assessment Methods
Performance Targets
Reviewers Reviewers will look at will look at
Institutional Commitment, Institutional Commitment, Feasibility & ImplementabilityFeasibility & Implementability
Institutional Commitment
Provision of Tangible Support to the Proposed Plan
Feasibility & Implementability
Availability of Physical & Human Resources
Availability of Required Conditions
Realistic Time Schedules
Some Examples of Hindering Factors Unrealistic and/or Over Ambitious Targets Over Optimistic Assumptions Inadequate Number of Qualified & Experienced Staff
to carry out the project activities Other Limitations due to external factors
etc.
Institutional Commitment, Institutional Commitment, Feasibility & ImplementabilityFeasibility & Implementability
Project Planning
Access to Data & Information
Space to carry out activities
Physical & Human Resources
Proposed Budget
Performance Targets
Activities & Activity Plan
Reviewers Reviewers will look at will look at
Efficiency & EffectivenessEfficiency & Effectiveness Efficiency – Relationship between Input & Process
shows the degree of the proposed plan’s frugality in using resources
Effectiveness – Relationship between Process & output shows the results of a process using specified
resources to achieve the objectives
Proposed Budget should be based on Solid Rationale efficient and effective use of proposed investment
as well as the existing resources to achieve the objectives
Beneficiary Population & Performance Targets would also demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed plan
Efficiency & EffectivenessEfficiency & Effectiveness
Improvement Plan – Mechanism & Design of Activities
Utilization/Sharing of Resources
Beneficiary Population
Performance Indicators
Reviewers Reviewers will look at will look at