1

Project Title SEE Science

Project Number SEE/B/0048/1.3/X

Document Title FINAL EVALUATION

Document Version 0.1

Document Origin Lead Partner

Document Date 15 February 2014

Character of Document REPORT

Related Document(s)

(Origin Partner, Date)

Target Group SEE Science Steering Committee

Developed by Ms Éva Nádor, external expert

2

FINAL EVALUATION

1. April 2011- 15. February 2014.

February 2014.

3

CONTENT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1. Project objectives and methodology

2. Brief summary of the mid-term and interim reports

3. Objectives and methodology of the final assessment

III. KEY FINDINGS

1. Management issues

- project design

- partners’ change

- project management

2. Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project

- Results in terms of outputs

- Achievement of projected result indicators and targets

- Budgeting issues

- Preliminary assessment of outcome/impact

IV. CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES

SOURCES

4

I. Executive summary

The main objective of the final assessment is to determine the extent to which the objectives as

defined in the AF have been met and describe the extent project management helped project

implementation to achieve project goals.

The methodology of the final assessment was the combination of secondary and primary research.

Secondary research was relying on the previous analyses and the documents elaborated since the

interim report. The primary research also included personal interviews with the members of the LPMT

and interviews with the project partners with the help of a structured questionnaire.

Key findings

1.Management issues

Project design: The SEE Science project was entirely in line with the Application Form. Both the

methodology and the activities followed the revised implementation plan which was approved by the

Steering Committee at its first meeting. The content related issues have been discussed by the PCT.

The project design was mostly adequate to address the problems at hand however some issues have

been raised. At the beginning there were lots of methodological discussions, partners needed a more

pragmatic approach than first provided by the responsible partner. Work Package leaders and LPMT

made lots of efforts to clarify the project design for the partners what made the project partners more

comfortable with the methodology, the coherence of the different activities in the Work Packages.

Partners’ change: The extensive partner change caused permanent difficulties to to follow the work

plan of the AF. The replacing partners had to catch up with the tasks, what required more time than

expected causing scheduling problems. By the end of the 4th period most of the delays have been

covered. However the partners’ change caused delays in activities, it did not influence the final

outputs. The partners’ change primarily challenged the project management.

Project management: In overall the project management of the SEE Science project was good. After

the initial shortcomings significant improvement was noticeable during the implementation of the

project. After the partners’ changes the activities were better synchronized. The change in LP’s

internal team was beneficial, both the cooperation of the partners and the communication among the

partners improved. The recommendations of the mid-term and interim assessments helped the project

5

partners to improve the efficiency of their activities. The stronger internal relationships and the better

understanding of the project had a positive impact on the quality and the delivery of the outputs.

The partner level project management was satisfactory, although the competences of the project

partners were different most of the project partners were active and creative. During the project

valuable professional support was provided by PP3, PP4, PP12 and PP13. The external management

team provided professional management support during the whole project. Due to the long

procurement process and the internal management problems some of the partners had difficulties with

the process of reporting and the related deadlines.

SEE Science is characterised by significant underspending. The SEE Monitoring Committee has

already made a decision about the withdrawal of 111.000 euros. Considering the total budget set in

AF for the whole project, spending is at ~69% at the end of the 6th period. Taking into consideration

the forecasts given by the partners, SEE SC project will exceed the expected minimum (75%) level of

spent budget.

2.Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project

Results in terms of outputs : By and large the number of outputs was in line with the plan.

Based on the partners’ analysis Transnational State-of-the Art was created, SC Service portfolio was

developed. The network of SC agents has been developed, action plans for building or developing

local/regional strategic partnerships have been designed, strategic partnerships have been established.

SC agents coordinated small scale pilots targeted at children in early school age, students/ young

adults and businesses (innovation agencies, research institutes, large companies, SMEs). SEE Science

Centre as a virtual platform was developed, 3 successful Science Festivals have been organised.

Achievement of projected result indicators: Small scale projects and the science festivals increased

the project visibility and accessability. The small scale pilot activities were an opportunity for the

general public and especially children and students to be actively involved in activities a science centre

can offer for them. Partners agree that the SEE Science Festival series, and the small scale pilots

helped all the partners to increase their visibility towards new public.

Most of the other result indicators are close to the accomplishment, stakeholders have been involved

in regional roundtable discussions, local/regional strategic partnerships have been built and public

regional debate started on science, innovation and technology. The most problematic field is the IT,

which expected to be sorted out only by the end of the project.

6

Elaboration of result indicators as “Regional/ local policies improved or developed”, „Set of EU level

policy recommendations formulated” and „Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation” is in

progress, those papers will be discussed at the final event of the project and will be ready by the end of

the 7th period.

Preliminary assessment of outcome/impact: Based on the documents and the partners’ opinion the

primary objective of the project seems to be achieved. All of the project partners feel that the SEE

Science project brought important outputs for them. Most of the partners emphasized the importance

of beeing a part of the SEE Science network. Project partners with existing SCs discovered new

possibilities for their service portfolio, others without SCs feel stronger to establish a science centre. A

wide range of the targeted groups have been reached by the project raising interest for science,

innovation and technology.

WP5 and WP3/3 were fully dedicated to ensure financial / institutional and political sustainability.

This effort was supported by the project design. Strategic Partnerships have been established to

increase the range of funding available to SCs in the longer term based on mutually beneficial

cooperation with the business sector. Policy recommendations will be formulated both on national and

international levels.These will sustain key activities that connect SEE Science with society in raising

awareness and promoting a culture for innovation.

The organised SEE Science Festivals enhanced visibility and accessibility. The joint work and

cooperation of the partners envisage a good chance for the sustainability of the SEE Science network.

The SEE Science Centre will provide virtual access to visitors via online and digital technologies.

Partners are going to define a joint action plan to ensure the institutional and financial sustainability of

the transnational pilots as well as the SEE Science network.

The main guarantee for the sustainability of the project is the commitment of the project partners. At

the 5th PCT meeting ideas were collected which were built in a document commissioned by the Lead

Partner which show directions for further cooperation for SEE Science partnership. Partners are

looking for further funding opportunities to continue the cooperation.

7

II. Project background

II.1. Project objectives and methodology

According to the unanimous opinion of the experts it is obvious that capacity for innovation is a key

driver of economic growth. Key components of innovation are science and technology and promoting

them in the economy and society offers a positive approach to generating innovation and improving

human welfare. Due to several reasons – weak culture for innovation, lack of proper framework

conditions to bridge research, education and business – innovation scores low in SEE.

The overall objective of the SEE Science project was to contribute to the image formation of the

SEE region as a place of innovation through increasing public awareness on the importance of

natural sciences, technological progress and innovation. The SEE Science project investigated how

Science Centres could improve in order to better serve the increase of public awareness on the

importance of natural sciences, technology and innovation as key determinants of economic growth.

The project concept was initiated by the Municipality of Debrecen as the Lead Partner inviting science

centres, local authorities, research organizations and universities as PPs. The SEE Science project was

a cooperation of 10 ERDF Partners and 8 Associated Strategic Partners. Among the ERDF partners

there were 3 partners with functioning Science Centres – ERDF PP3 MUSE, ERDF PP4 Science

Center Network Austria , ERDF PP12 CSE –. At this point it has to be mentioned that the planned

contribution of the Associated Partners could only be realised to a very limitied decree.

The project specifically aimed at waking the interest of young people for science, technology and

innovation by creating new methods to increase visibility and accessibility through science centres.

Implementation was broken down to 3 phases, with stakeholder involvement as a continuous overarching

activity.

1. Joint analysis of operation & services of SCs; benchmarking & knowledge building by appointed SC

Agents to create Transnational State of the Art Report and draft SC Service Portfolio.

2. Networking by SC Agents to develop cooperation with innovation actors; implement pilot actions to test

jointly selected SC services and to create & test main transnational outputs of SC cooperation.

3. Finalise core outputs: build pilot results into final SC Service Portfolio; define joint action plan to ensure

sustainability of transnational project outputs and the SEE Science network; finalize action plans for improved

SC operation/ strategies for setting up SCs at PP level.

8

The activities to achieve the project objectives were organised in 5 Work Packages, such as

- Work Package 1 Transnational Project and Financial Management - responsible - LP

- Work Package 2 Communication activities - responsible ERDF PP1- UniDeb

- Work Package 3 Improving the operational management and services of Science Centres in

SEE- responsible ERDF PP 11 SCSTI

(replacing LUDUS )

- Work Package 4 Improving the role of Science Centres as catalysts of innovation - responsible

ERDF PP4 SCN

- Work Package 5 Sustainable SEE cooperation of SCs for increased awareness on the role of

technical sciences on innovation- responsible ERDF PP3 MUSE

In the course of December-January 2013 a Mid-term assessment has been conducted. The main

objective of the evaluation was to provide the Joint Technical Secreteriat (JTS) South East Europe

Programme, the Lead Partner, the Municipality of Debrecen and the project partners an independent

review of the status, relevance and performance of the project as compared to the project documents.

The primary task of the Mid-term report was to determine the extent to which the objectives as defined

in the Application Form have been met as of the date of the assessement, and estimate the likelihood

of achieving them upon project completion.

In September 2013 an Interim report has been prepared. The main objective of the evaluation was to

provide the LP an interim review of the project progress based on the continuous monitoring activity.

The recommendations aimed to help the LP and the partners to make the necessary measures to ensure

the successful execution of the project.

II.2. Brief summary of the Mid-term and Interim reports

Methodology of the Mid-term evaluation

In order to achieve the goals of the Mid-term evaluation integrated research methods such as

- secondary and

- primary researches were applied.

The evaluation were based on the findings and factual statements identified from the review of the

relevant documents; Application Form “Boosting innovation through capacity building and

networking of science centres in the SEE region”, Implementation Plan, Progress reports/ Amended

9

Progress reports and AfR, Minutes of the Steering Committee and the Project Coordination Team

meetings, Applications for Reimbursement, the project website.

Besides secondary sources the evaluation also included field research. Visits and interviews with the

LPMT; the Overall Coordinator, the Project Manager, the Project Communication Manager and the

External Management Team members were interviewed personally. The project partners were

interviewed by the help of a structured questionnaire. The aim of the methodology was to be able to

gain opinions, expectations and vision of the project partners towards the achievement of its

objectives.

Evaluation criteria:

- Operation of the Project Management; Lead Partner (Project Management Team, External

Management Team), Steering Committee, Project Coordination Team - responsibilities, tasks,

documentation

- Implementation by the project partners; in terms of quality, timing, activity and spendings

- Activities, outputs by Work Packages, deviations in the plan.

Key findings of the Mid-term analysis

The Mid-term evaluation pointed out that the Partnership is relatively strong. The cooperation with the

LP and the LPMT is excellent, the cooperation among the project partners is good. The partnership

can be described by a good team work. Taking into account the strong commitment of the LP and the

expectations of the project partners the realization of the SEE Science project seemed to be feasible in

case the necessary changes in managing the process and finances will be made as intended. By and

large the Municipality of Debrecen, as Lead Partner, was managing the project efficiently. The internal

and external management was working closely together both on strategic and operational level. The

leadership of the project was in the hands of the Lead Partner’s Internal and External Project

Management Team having a wide range of competences and the capacity to guide the partners.

The assessment revealed also the key problems the SEE Science project. Due to some delay in the

official notification of approval from the JTS the actual project activities started 2 months later. 4

partners withdrew from the project after the kick - off meeting which caused a hiccup in the actual

project start. The detailed analysis of the activities in the Work Packages showed that there were

always significant deviations concerning timing compared to the timeframe of the AF. It caused

temporary difficulties in the implementation of the project for the partnership. The replacing partners

had to catch up with the tasks, what required more time than expected causing scheduling problems.

10

By the end of the 4th period (30. November 2012) most of the delays have been covered. The

performance of the Work Packages differed. The evaluation of the WP2 was contraversial. Although

the delay of activities was obviously affecting the communication the intensity of communication

could be improved. More proactivity and creativity was expected. WP3 management and operation

was satisfactory, problems arised regarding the SWOT methodology what caused significant delay in

implementation. Management of WP 4 and WP5 was strong. Major problem occurred in terms of

financing. SEE Science was characterised by significant underspending. The SEE Monitoring

Committee has already made a decision about the withdrawal of 111.000 euros. Some of the replacing

partners could not validate their progress reports by the National Controller. Partner change has also

contributed to the high level of underspending.

Key findings of the Interim report

Mid - September 2013 an Interim assessment has been conducted. The evaluation was based on the

findings and factual statements identified from the review of the relevant documents elaborated

between December 2012 and September 2013. Based on the Interim evaluation it was clear that the

partnership is strong, project partners are committed to the project success. LPMT is managing the

project efficiently. Although the major content related activities were going to be accomplished in the

6th and 7th period the realization of the SEE Science project seemed to be feasible in the period of the

Interim report.

The SEE Science project was still facing considerable underspendings and due to that another possible

decommitment. The reason behind that was that some partners were not able to report costs in time or

costs cannot be declared in time.

In order to meet the project objectives further control of the activities in the Work Packages, based on

personal relationships, communication and output monitoring was suggested. The Interim analysis

also recommended the strict monitoring of the preparation of the interim financial report, keeping the

deadline of submission.

II.3. Objectives and methodology of the final assessment

The main goal of the final assessment is to determine the extent to which the objectives as defined in

the AF have been met and describe the extent project management helped project implementation to

achieve project goals.

The final assessment is focusing on the following issues:

1. Management issues-

11

Project design: Changes in context and review of assumptions: Is the project’s design

adequate to address the problems at hand? Does the project remain relevant considering

possible changes in context?

Changes in partnership: Has the partner changes any consequences on the partnership,

on the project implementation, the final outputs of the project?

Project management on project and partner level: To what extent the project

management helped the project implementation to achieve the project goals? Have the

project’s activities been in line with the schedule of activities as defined by the work plan

in AF? Have the project expenditures been in line with expected budgetary plans? What

internal and external factors have influenced the ability of the LP and the partners to meet

projected targets?

2. Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project

Results in terms of outputs achieved vis-á-vis projected targets (efficiency): Has the

project reached the expected number of outputs (i.e.. analysis, partner meetings,

conferences, transfer visits to be implemented etc?)

Achievement of projected result indicators and targets (effectiveness): What has the

performance been like with respect to the projected result indicators? Have there been any

unplanned effects?

Preliminary assessment of outcome/impact (effectiveness): Has the project generated

any results so far that could indicate that the implemented actions have had an impact on

the waking the interest of young people for science, technology and innovation and that

the visibility and accessibility of science centres were successfully increased in partner

cities.

Methodology

The final assessment adopted both secondary and primary research. Secondary research was relying on

the previous analyses – Mid-term and Interim reports – and the documents elaborated since the

Interim report – 5th PCT meeting, 5

th Progress report and project outputs –.

The primary research included personal interviews with the members of the LPMT and interviews

with the project partners with the help of a structured questionnaire.

12

III. KEY FINDINGS

III.1. Management issues

Project design

The SEE Science project was entirely in line with the Application Form. Both the methodology and

the activities followed the revised implementation plan. The content and administrative issues have

been discussed at the PCT meetings while strategic decisions were made at the SC meetings. At the

beginning there were lots of methodological discussions, partners needed a more pragmatical approach

than first provided by the responsible partner.

The project partners expressed that the project’s design was mostly adequate to address the problems

at hand however some issues have been raised. In the opinion of some project partners lower number

of participating partners could ensure bigger transparency and a more effective communication among

them. Another key issue is the selection of the project partners. In the opinion of some partners it is

crucial to select committed partners. It was also mentioned that higher involvement of the partners in

the project design and more meetings, conferences during the project could ensure better

understanding of the project methodology and contribute to the project success.

Partners’ change

4 partners withdrew from the project after the kick-off meeting which caused a hiccup in the actual

project start. The extensive partner change caused deviations in timing compared to the AF. It caused

temporary difficulties in the implementation of the project for the partnership. The replacing partners

had to catch up with the tasks, what required more time than expected causing scheduling problems.

By the end of the 4th period (30 November 2012) most of the delays have been covered.

However the partners’ change caused delays in activities, it did not influence the final outputs. The

partners’ change primarily challenged the project management. LPMT had to make lot of efforts to

handle the problem, to replace the former partners and to manage the administrative processes.

The project partners emphasized that the delays in activities did not change the final outputs, the catch

up of the new partners went smoothly, however they needed more time than expected.

13

Project level and partner level management

Organisational structure

TRANSNATIONAL PROJECT LEVEL TASKS

● LEAD PARTNER Responsible for the coordination, supervision and

management of the project. Reporting and setting

up and maintaining good working relations with the

programme authorities and the partners.

● LEAD PARTNER’s MANAGEMENT TEAM

(LPMT) (certain changes in the internal team

later)

- Internal (Overall Coordinator, Project Manager

(PM), Communication Manager (PCM), Financial

Manager (PFM)

- External (Project Manager, Financial Manager)

Appointed by the LP is responsible for the daily

management and coordination of activities.

External experts assist the internal team in the

efficient project management and implementation.

● PROJECT COORDINATION TEAM (PCT) LPMT and PPM form the PCT. PCT is discussing

both professional and operational issues regarding

implementation and results.

● PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (SC) SC members are appointed by the Project Partners.

SC is a strategic decision making body ensuring

that the project objectives are fulfilled. The major

task is to approve basic project documents, to

monitor implementation and take decisions on key

issues and intervene, if needed.

PARTNER LEVEL

● PARTNER LEVEL PROJECT

MANAGEMENT TEAMS (PPMT)

- Project Partner Manager (PPM)

- Project Financial Manager (PFM)

Responsible for the project implementation on

partner level.

In charge of project activities, reporting to the

National Controller and the LP (Partner reports etc.)

14

Project level management

Lead Partner’s Management Team

Municipality of Debrecen as Lead Partner, was responsible for the successful implementation of the

SEE SC project. The management team was composed of internal and external project management

team, working closely together. The ultimate performance of the project management was the result of

this cooperation.

Initially the Internal Management Team involved the overall coordinator, the thematic expert, the

project manager, the project assistant and the financial manager. There were significant administrative

changes at the LP. The project manager who was also in charge of communication left the project in

February 2013, the new project manager was active since then. The overall coordinator left the project

in June 2013. The new project manager successfully caught up to the project relying strongly on the

external project management working closely together.

Internal staff strengths: commitment, motivated employees, expertise in project management, good

relationship with the project partners and the programme bodies (VÁTI, JTS).

Internal staff weaknesses: heavy workload, other responsibilities, staff changes, lack of international

experiences, weak leadership in terms of motivating the project partners.

The work of the Lead Partner was supported by the External Project Management Teamand they

worked closely together, management issues were thoroughly discussed. LP was delegating part of its

responsibilities to the external consultant.

The External Project Management Team members have a long record in project management as such

and in EU Interreg programmes as well. The external advisor is characterised by professionalism, in

aware of the methodologies and procedures. The SEE Science program faced lots of difficulties what

could not be bridged without this problem solving capability.

External Project Management Team Strengths: professionalism, experience, expertise, good

management skills, good problem solving capabilities, good communication skills, efficient

relationship management, language skills, effective cooperation with the internal staff and the JTS.

The conclusion of the Mid-Term analysis was that the LPMT is highly motivated, the project partners

are satisfied with the support provided by the LPMT however more direct contact was expected. The

overall impression was that a stronger leadership by the LP could be more effective. The performance

of the External Project Management Team was highly ranked by the project partners. Among others

15

the extensive knowledge of the SEE Programme and the good leadership qualities were highly

appreciated. At the same time some project partners mentioned that the split of the leadership between

the LP and Grants Europe is not explicit what is sometimes weakening the overall lead of the project.

The Interim monitoring report showed certain improvement, the direct involvement of the LP was

higher. The new project level manager established direct relationship with the project partners, mostly

in form of e-mailing. Another improvement in the project management was the newly introduced

output monitoring system what made the up-to-date monitoring possible. Lead Partner was able to

follow the status of the Work Packages’ outputs and to intervene if necessary.

Based on the PCT and SC minutes and the partners’ opinion the recommendations of the Mid-term

evaluation contributed to the improvement of the project implementation. The project partners agreed

that the recommendations have been taken into consideration. LPMT improved the communication

with the project partners, the links among the WPs were better explained, the project partners got more

explanation about the expectations regarding results and outcomes. Due to those changes the deadlines

were kept better than before,

Project Coordination Team (PCT)

The Project Coordination Team consisted of the members of the LPMT and PPMT. The PCT is the

overall operative, decision preparatory body of SEE Science, serving as a base for the whole

implementation of the project. During the SEE Science project 6 PCT meetings were planned. The 6th

meeting will be held in February 2014.

At the 1st meeting PCT Rules of Procedures were discussed. The key content issues presented by the

WP leaders and discussed by the PCT were the common SWOT methodology, the Communication

Plan, the Knowledge sharing strategy, the task of the SC agents, SEE Science Centre start-up activities

and the preparation for science festivals.

The 2nd PCT discussed the revised Implementation Plan, the Financial Management issues, the ASP

Management, the Science festivals’ methodology and the progress of SWOT analyses.

The 3rd PCT meeting among others discussed further the SEE Science festival methodology, the

benchmark visits, the upcoming events and included a website training a knowledge sharing session.

Formulation of pilot teams, first ideas for the small pilot actions and management issues were also

discussed.

The 4th PCT meeting discussed the key issues of the project implementation in WP3, WP4 and WP5.

Among others how the results of the TSAR are going to be utilised in the Operational Plans for

Improved Operation/Strategies for setting up SCs, how findings of the TSAR will be integrated to

Small Scale Pilots and Transnational Pilots, issues related to the project Policy Recommendations on

local level (Municipality or region or national level) and EU level, SC Agents and their network and

the operation of the Virtual Science Center.

16

On the agenda of the 5th PCT meeting there were general project and financial issues, among others

the Interim report and the financial issues regarding the project closure. PCT members reviewed the

final documents of the Work Packages and the tasks regarding SC agent network, strategic

partnerships, SC Science Centre and Science festivals. Partners agreed on the methodology of policy

recommendations and discussed the ways of sustainable cooperation.

In general the PCT was functioning well, the meetings were efficient, discussing content related

issues. Based on the minutes project partners participated on the PCT meetings and the activity of the

members was sufficient. PCT meetings were pragmatic in the sense that the upcoming tasks, deadlines

and responsible partners were always defined.

Steering Committee (SC)

The Steering Committee was the supreme decision-making body of the SEE Science Project. In

principle it involved decision makers of the project partners representing the decision making level of

the partner organisations. During the SEE Science project 3 SC meetings were planned, the 3rd SC

meeting will be held in February 2014.

The 1st meeting was attended by all project partners. The partners approved the Rules of Procedures of

SC, discussed and approved the Project and Financial Management Guidelines. The LP gave an

overview of the SEE Science Project. Furthermore the SC approved the revised Implementation Plan.

The 2nd

SC meeting discussed the financial issues and made recommendations for the partners.

Furthermore the results of the Mid-term analysis – making recommendations for the partnership –

have been presented and approved by the SC. Finally the partners discussed the possibility to join the

European Science Events Association (EUSEA) in terms of sustainability of SEE Science Festival and

the Virtual Science Center.

Considering the whole SEE Science project the project partners expressed a very positive opinion

regarding the LPMT. The efficiency of the internal team was improved with the help of the new team

members. The LP and its team provided a big support for the project partners in the daily project

management. They appreciated the professionalism, expertise and competence of the Grants Europe,

particularly its leadership, efficient trouble shooting, successful cooperation, quick response and

consultation on reports, spendings and management issues have been emphasized. Some negative

comments have been made too: some partners would expect more meetings, conference conversations,

better mediation of issues among the partners and stronger lead on content level. One partner was in

the opinion that updating of the implementation plan would be more efficient than new schedules

defined in the PCT memos.

17

All of the project partners agreed that significant improvement was noticeable during the

implementation of the project. After the partners’ changes the activities were better synchronized. The

change in LP’s internal team was beneficial, both the cooperation of the partners and the

communication among the partners improved. The recommendations of the Mid-term and Interim

assessments helped the project partners to improve the efficiency of their activities. The stronger

internal relationships and the better understanding of the project had a positive impact on the quality

and the delivery of the outputs.

Partner level project management

In overall the partnership became a good team, the competence profile of the partners was beneficial

regarding the projects’ objectives, balancing the different competences of the partners. However the

competences of the project partners were different most of the project partners were active and

creative. Valuable professional support was provided by PP3, PP4, PP12 and PP13.

Due to the long procurement process, the internal management problems, the strict rules regarding the

expenditures some of the partners had difficulties with the process of reporting and the related

deadlines. Despite the ongoing deviations from the original implementation plan by the 5th period

most of the activities have been in line with the schedule.

Majority of the partners assessed the partner level project management good, regarding timeliness and

contribution of the partners the number of good and satisfactory opinions were equal. Some of the

partners mentioned the lack of support from their local representatives and their heavy workload as

hindering factors.

Problems occurred during the project

However there was ongoing delay in the activities by the end of the 4th period most of the outputs have

been reached. There were both project and partner level reasons of deviations from the

schedule

defined in the AF. The delayed start of the SEE SC project, the extensive partners’ change and the

long administrative process of the partner changes caused constant delays in the activities. The new

partners had to catch up to the project what took more time than expected. Furthermore there were

some methodological issues to be solved, rather pragmatic than academic methods have been

expected. Less experienced partners needed some explanation on the project design, particularly on the

coherence among the Work Package activities.

18

Budgeting

According to the Progress Reports the SEE Science project generated substantial under spending

during the whole project. Due to the under spending in October 2012 a decision was made by the MC

about the de-commitment of 111.000 euros.

Considering the total budget set in AF for the whole project, spending is currently only at ~69% at the

end of the 6th period.

The main reasons of the under spending were the followings:

- The actual start of the project was 2 months later than officially announced.

- The extensive partner change caused delays in the activities, most of the

events have been postponed.

- Due to the problems related to National Controls some partners were not

able to report costs in time or costs cannot be declared in time.

- ASP participation in the SEE Science Project is far less active than planned.

The travel cost of ASPs was supposed to be financed by the project

partners. Lack of those activities is also decreasing the level of under

spending.

There are significant differences in the spending of the project partners. They mentioned several

problems regarding budgeting. Some partners were not able to report costs on time in lack of clear

assignments and staff member selection. Others mentioned the long procurement process locally. In

other cases the different financial systems, strict national rules regarding staff costs made the financing

more difficult. For the Greek partner the necessity of pre-financing resulted a limited spending.

Taking into consideration the forecasts given by the partners, SEE SC project will exceed the expected

minimum level of spent budget (75%). The only one partner not able to spend the budget due to lack

of pre financing possibilities is CSE. LP has already given notice to JTS about the remaining 120 000

euros at CSE.

The SEE Science project was entirely in line with the Application Form. In overall the project

management of the SEE Science project is good. After the initial problems significant improvement

was noticeable during the implementation of the project. The LPMT helped the project partners to

feel more comfortable regarding the methodology of the project. The extensive partners’ change

caused delays in activities. The partners’ change primarily challenged the project management.

LPMT had to make lot of efforts to handle the problem, to replace the former partners, to manage

19

the administrative processes and help the new partners to catch up. Due to several reasons SEE

Science project generated substantial underspending during the whole project.

III.2. Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project

The main objective of the SEE Science project was to wake the interest of young people for science,

technology and innovation by creating new methods to increase visibility and accessibility through

science centres. A detailed analysis of its implementation follows below.

III.2.1. Results in terms of outputs

The assessment of the results is based on the outputs of the content related Work Packages. (WP3-4-5)

The activities in the WP3, WP4 and WP5 were closely interrelated.

Work Package 3 Improving the operational management and services of Science Centres in SEE

Responsible partner: ERDF PP11 - SCSTI

This activity served as a base for the other content related Work Packages, therefore its role was

crucial regarding the performance of WP4 and WP5.

Science centres are the main pillars of SEE Science project due to their potential to become main

communicators of innovation and technology development for the public and awaken interest of the

young. The activities in WP3 were aiming to enable SCs in being more efficient in their operation and

in fulfilling this communicator role, and intended to combine the complementary strengths of

individual SCs in the SEE area. For the partners currently not operating SCs it gave a strategy how to

set up a SC and how to ensure its efficient operation.

Based on the conclusions of the Transnational State-of-the-Art Report (TSAR), the finalised SC

Service Portfolio and the Strategic Partnership Action Plan the project partners prepared their Action

Plans for Improved SC Operation (existing SCs) and Strategies for setting up SCs in case where SCs

do not exist yet. This way SCs could fulfil their potentials as catalysts of innovation.

Activity 3.1:State of the Art

The work started with creation of SWOT and/ or Feasibility studies of each project partner and SEE

Science Benchmark Studies on good practice in European science centres. Based on the regional data

a SEE Science Transnational State-of-the-Art Report(TSAR) was created defining common

development opportunities for the SCs in SEE.

20

Activity 3.2: SC Service Portfolio

Project partners developed a SC Service Portfolio, what means an inventory of efficient services,

awareness raising tools and methods for Science Centres collected from practices of other science

centres and from the partners’ small scale pilot activities.

Activity 3.3: Stakeholders and policy makers

To successfully promote the role of the SCs in facilitating innovation and increasing public awareness

roundtable discussions were organized by the project partners. The actual value of the stakeholders

involved in regional roundtable events and consultations is close to the targeted. The roundtable

discussions proved to be very efficient involving representatives from the fields of business, education

and policy level such as enterprises, universities, schools, research institutions, NGOs, government

bodies.

One key result of the SEE SC project will be the policy recommendation what is based on the key

messages of local SWOTs and the TSAR, the conclusions of small-scale pilot reports, the evaluation

of Science Agent activities and the Science Centre Service Portfolio. All will be channelled into policy

recommendations with the aim to result in effective policies at local and EU level which contribute to

improved environment for functioning of the SCs so that they better fulfil their mission. Development

of policy recommendations for policy makers and funding programme authorities on partner level is in

progress, 4 policy recommendations have already been prepared.

Based on the partner level recommendations a EU level policy recommendation will be elaborated in

the 7th period.

Work package 4 Improving Role of SCs as catalysators of innovation

Responsible partner: ERDF PP 12 - SCN

The key actors of WP4 were the SC Agents and their network. In line with the overall project

objectives, the mission of SC Agents was to help SCs extend their competences and functions,

strengthen linkages with regional SEE innovation actors and build up a network of SCs based in SEE

and beyond, contribute to the visibility of SC activities.

Activity 4.1 Knowledge building of SC agents

SC Agents have been appointed by the project partners. After the SC agents have been appointed and

the knowledge sharing strategy was finalised an in-house training of SC agents was organised. The SC

agents gathered a solid knowledge base through benchmark visits, training sessions and sharing of

experience within the transnational SC network. SC agents conducted more than 25 benchmark visits

21

to science centre institutions. The results fed partly into the SEE Science Service Portfolio, but also

contributed to the internal profile development and improvement of partners’ operation with a focus

on innovation.

Activity 4.2. Knowledge sharing within the partnership and the SC agents network

Internal knowledge sharing workshops in partners’ organisations - PP4 SCN, PP3 MUSE, PP13

SEERC, PP14 CRA - and a transnational knowledge sharing session were organised.

Activity 4.3. Developing strategic partnerships to promote innovation

One of the key tasks of the SC Agents was to establish strategic partnerships through networking.

Strategic partnerships enable SCs to enhance the effectiveness of cooperation with innovation actors

and to increase the efficiency and significance of SC services offered. Such partnerships are also

envisaged increasing funding possibilities (business and public) for SCs, and the dialogue with

stakeholders will contribute to creating supportive policy frameworks.

Based on the methodology elaborated by PP13 SEERC SC agents were drawing up their Action Plans

for building and/or developing local/regional strategic partnerships (PP13 SEERC, PP3 MUSE, PP4

SCN, PP8 BM, PP10 UniOr, PP11 SCSTI, and P14 CRA).

In order to build capacity in the South East Europe as a whole developmental block, a Joint action plan

for strategic partnerships has been devised in order to build strategic partnerships at the wider regional

and transnational level towards increasing the powerful impact of the SEE Science project outcomes.

Activity 4.4. Implementing small-scale pilots

The idea of the pilots was to develop and test innovative science centre services and activities, and

share experiences and advice within the partnership through peer visits. Small-scale pilots targeted 3

groups: children in early school age, students/young adults especially young women, innovator

agencies, research institutes, large companies, SMEs.

The small scale pilots were coordinated by the SC agents. 13 different pilot activities – based on the

state of the art analyses and good practices collected - were developed and implemented by the

partners. About 4000 individuals have been reached through the pilot activities so far and some peer

visits were accomplished too.

The small-scale pilot was successful not only in terms of numbers but the new workshop formats and

contents. New forms of science communication such as virtual workshops were tested and innovative

information materials for potential strategic partners and stakeholders were developed as hands-on

mini-exhibits etc.

22

WP5 Sustainable cooperation of SCs for increased awareness on the role of technical sciences on

innovation

Responsible partner: PP3 MUSE

Activities within WP5 contribute to the sustainable cooperation of SCs in SEE for increased awareness

on technical sciences to boost innovation by implementing two transnational pilot activities (SEE

Science Centre and SEE Science Festivals) and developing a Joint Action Plan for sustainable SEE

cooperation.

Activity 5.1: Transnational pilot 1: SEE Science Centre

The SEE Science Centre is a virtual platform that aims to strengthen existing relationships within the

SEE Science consortium and to create new ones through networking and the sharing of resources.

Inspite of some technical problems since the start of the platform in Spring 2012, the successful

operation of the platform could be indicadted by figures below:

10 educational activities, shared among the partners through the ‘library section’ of the portal;

16 video clips, 5 of which were specifically produced for the web portal, showing important

Science events in the SEE region;

22 picture galleries, containing more than 2000 original pictures with benchmark examples of

Science centre activities from all across Europe;

65 blog posts by all 10 SEE Science partners, covering a wide array of subjects from robotic

road show to zombie lab;

1 online Science Centre services portfolio, serving as an interactive database for innovative

Science Centre activities in the SEE region.

During the last 12 months the portal received more than 7000 visits from almost 4000 unique visitors

with an average visit time of 5 minutes.

The portal served also as a hub and showcase for all the other activities of the SEE Science project,

such as the SEE Science Festival series, the small scale pilot activities, and the Science Centre agent

network.

Activity 5.2: Transnational pilot 2: SEE Science Festival

The SEE Science Festivals were supposed to contribute directly to raising public awareness on science

and technology. These events created a more inclusive environment and made innovation more

accessible to the wider public. The most important aim was to turn these events into a sustainable

instrument to support the image formation of South-East Europe as a place of innovation and

economic growth.

23

During the project 3 Science Festivals have been organised: 18. October 2012. in Thessaloniki, 22

March 2013 in Debrecen and 26-27 September 2013 in Burgas. The 4th Science Festival will take

place 21 February 2014 in Trento. All festivals had different main topics, presented in different zones.

The festivals were succesful, with 1700, 3600 and 1000 visitors respectively.

In the opinion of the project partners the number of outputs – partner meetings, analyses, conferences,

roundtable discussions, trainigs, festivals – was in line with the plan. The only one shortage within this

activity was mentioned regarding the benchmark visit to Scientival in Ljubljana Due to the fact that

the study visit to Sciencetival (Ljubljana) could not been organised together with the kick-off meeting

less project partner had the budget to finance the travel to the study visit. That resulted in that fewer

participants attended the study visit (4 compared to 20 indicated in the AF).

Achievement of projected result indicators

However an entirely precise evaluation of the SEE Science project will be possible only after a couple

of month after the project end, there are still some results we can rely on to predict it now.

The previous point reviewed the activities of the Work Packages, evaluating the project efficiency in

terms of outputs and numbers. Another issue is the effectiveness of the project, what has the

performance been like with respect to the projected result indicators.

The AF contained the following result indicators:

- Public regional debate started on science, innovation and technology,

- Regional/ local policies improved or developed,

- Set of EU level policy recommendations formulated,

- Stakeholders involved in regional roundtable events and consultations,

- SC Centres with improved capacities raise awareness of and facilitate

innovation,

- Partners with improved capacities to set up SCs with innovation facilitator

role.

- Improved capacities of the staff through trainings and knowledge sharing ,

- Local/regional strategic partnerships built,

- SEE Science festival tool to increase the project visibility,

- IT infrastructure to increase the project visibility,

- Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation,

- Individuals directly reached by the transnational SEE Science Festivals.

24

The project partners evaluated the achievement of the result indicators. Most of the partners agree that

the following results have already been fully achieved by the SEE Science project:

- Stakeholders involved in regional roundtable events and consultations,

- Improved capacities of the staff through trainings and knowledge sharing ,

- Individuals directly reached by the transnational SEE Science Festivals,

- SEE Science festival tool to increase the project visibility,

- Partners with improved capacities to set up SCs with innovation facilitator

role.

Project partners emphasized the importance of small scale projects and the science festivals in the

increase of project visibility and accessability. The small scale pilot activities were an opportunity for

the general public and especially children and students to be actively involved in the „life” of the

Science centres. Partners agree that the SEE Science Festival series, and the small scale pilots helped

all the partners’s science centres to increase their visibility towards new public.

Most of the other result indicators are close to the accomplishment, local/regional strategic

partnerships have been built and public regional debate started on science, innovation and technology.

In the opinion of the project partners the most weak field is the IT, there are still lots of problems with

the IT infrastructure.

Elaboration of result indicators as “Regional/ local policies improved or developed”, „Set of EU level

policy recommendations formulated” and „Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation” is in

progress, those papers are going to be ready by the end of the 7th period.

Preliminary assessment of outcome/ impact

Based on the documents and the partners’ opinion the primary objective of the project seems to be

achieved. The science festivals attracted a great number of visitors, the roundtable discussions resulted

expanding relationships with the stakeholders. The pilot projects generated interest for science and

innovation and attracted new target groups as well.

The project partners agreed that thanks to the dissemination of information about SCs, the efficient

advertisement of the science festivals the visibility and accessibility of science centres were

successfully increased. The information available on the Virtual Science Centre also helped to increase

the visibility, giving information for students and stakeholders however there are still problems to be

sold.

25

On a 1-10 scale where 10 means that all of your expectations have been met, 1 means that none of the

expectations has been met project partners ranked the project 8 as average. However the overall

picture is positive both strengths and weaknesses could be mentioned.

In the opinion of the partners the major strength of the project was that the primary objective have

been met, the interest on sciences and innovation have been raised. This is due to the engaged and

committed project partners, the good cooperation among most of the partners. The small scale pilot

projects, the SC agents, the festivals helped to establish a strong and reliable network. By the end of

the project a strong and proactive partnership was established.

The project partners mentioned a couple of weaknesses, among others the great bureaucracy and the

different legislative systems of the partners’ countries. In view of a few project partners a lower

number of project partners and a higher ratio of project partners with Science Centres might be more

efficient.

All of the project partners feel that the SEE Science project brought important outputs for them. Most

of the partners emphasized the importance of beeing a part of the SEE Science network. Project

partners with existing SCs discovered new possibilities for their service portfolio, others without SCs

feel stronger to establish a science centre. The research documents, analyses, action plans developed

both on project and partner level will be utilised in the phase of the development of a science centre.

Science festival methodology made the partners more confident and motivated in organising science

festivals. SEE Science Festival methodology, the SC service protfolio, the SC agent network and the

policy recommendation roundtables are highly appreciated by the project partners.

Besides the achieved results problems regarding the website were mentioned. In partners’ opinion it is

still not easily accessable for uploads.

Sustainability

SEE Science emphasizes on creating durable project outcomes and results: WP5 and WP3/3 were fully

dedicated to ensure financial / institutional and political sustainability. This effort was supported by

the project design. Strategic partnerships have been established to explore the range of potential

funding available to SCs in the longer term based on mutually beneficial cooperation with the business

sector. Policy recommendations will be formulated both on national and international levels.These will

sustain key activities that connect SEE Science with society in raising awareness and promoting a

culture for innovation.

26

The organised SEE Science Festivals enhanced visibility and accessibility. These will ensure

sustainability of the SEE Science network. The SEE Science Centre will provide virtual access to

visitors via online and digital technologies. Partners are going to define a joint action plan to ensure

the institutional and financial sustainability of the transnational pilots as well as the SEE Science

network.

Almost all project partners believe in the sustainability of the project. They see certain guarantees for

that. First of all the project partners’ commitment, the partners realized the importance of

sustainability. The confirmed need of SC’s to become catalysts of innovation and their confidence

through the SEE Science project will help to sustain the project results. At the 5th PCT meeting ideas

were collected on how to ensure and broaden future cooperation for SEE Science partnership. Several

recommendations – in line and beyond project requirements - have been made by the partners:

Carry on with SC Festivals, virtual SC Centre, SC Agent network

Networking with well-established associations (Eusea, Ecsite, other partners)

Identify new project ideas to strengthen current network and apply for future funding, training

opportunities, exchange of knowledge, exchange of staff, etc.

The positive attitude of the project partners is well demonstrated by the fact that except one all of the

partners are ready to participate in another EU project. They expect further know-how, new ideas,

competitive knowledge. In their opinion a transnational project helps to overcome the local limitations

and acquiring new perspectives. Partners are looking for special funding opportunities, Horizon 2000

initiative seems very promising.

The impact of the EU level policy recommendations and the joint action plan for sustainable SEE

cooperation can be seen only on a longer perspective.

Besides the positive remarks a few partners raised the question how to continue and fully capitalize the

established SC agent network. Another key issue is the support from local authorities.

By and large the number of outputs was in line with the plan. Targeted outputs have been delivered:

Transnational State-of-the Art was created, SC Service portfolio and the network of SC agents have

been developed, action plans for building or developing local/regional strategic partnerships have

been designed, strategic partnerships have been established. SC agents coordinated small scale

pilots, SEE Science Centre as a virtual platform was developed, 3 successful Science Festivals have

been organised.

Most of the other result indicators are close to the accomplishment. The SEE Science Festival

series, and the small scale pilots helped all the partners’s science centres to increase their visibility

towards new public. Elaboration of result indicators as “Regional/ local policies improved or

27

developed”, „Set of EU level policy recommendations formulated” and „Joint action plan for

sustainable SEE cooperation” is in progress, those papers are going to be ready by the end of the

7th period.The most problematic area is the IT, there are still technical problems to be solved.

Sustainability of the project is unquestionable, both the project design and the positive attitude of

the project partners make it likely.

28

IV. Conclusions

Continous thorough review of the SEE Science project and a longer record in this field make possible

to draw conclusions both on general and project specific level. The most important conclusion are

summarized below.

Project partners

Project partners are the key success factors. Committed, motivated and knowledgeable project partners

are the main guarantees of a successful implementation. It shows how important the selection of

project partners is from the very beginning of project design.

Although the SEE Science project had a long preparation phase some project partners were forced to

withdraw due to unforeseen financial difficulties after the Subsidy Contract was signed. The modified

partnership includes partners with same motivations and visions, however, the number of function

Science Centres was decreased.

Despite the problems mentioned above SEE Science project is clearly successful. Due to the

professional project management, the experienced Work Package leaders and the outstanding

cooperation among the partners the problems faced the project have been successfully solved.

Project design

Good design is the base for a successful project implementation. It should be comprehensible for all of

the project partners. Project partners should understand the objectives, the methods, the tasks, the

coherence among the different activities. Therefore the greater the involvement of the partners, the

easier the implementaion of the project is.

The structure designed for the SEE Science project is a rather complex one because of the

interlinkages between the different Work Packages and activities. This complexity was not easily

comprehensible and applicable for the partners in the implementation phase of the project.

Methodological problems also occured, especially when theory needed to be turned into practice,

hindering timely implementation of the project.

According to the Mid-term report recommendations more discussions have been made on those issues,

Work Package leaders and LPMT made lots of efforts to clarify the project design for the partners.

This way the project partners became comfortable with the methodology, the coherence of the

different activities in the Work Packages.

29

Project management

Basic elements of a good project management are the followings: commitment, expertise, leadership,

good communication skills, effective cooperation with the project partners. In case this capacity in not

available internally, it is suggested choosing experienced external advisors.

SEE Science Centre project management met those requirements. It was committed, especially the

new members of the internal team were open to communicate with the partners. The external team is

characterised by professionalism, in aware of the methodologies and procedures. The SEE Science

project faced lots of difficulties what could not be bridged without its excellent problem solving

capabilities. The LPMT helped the project implementation to achieve the project goals. The

management bodies – SC and PCT – were functioning well, members actively participated in the

meetings.

Budgeting

Records show that majority of the transnational cooperation projects face budgeting problems. In

general the main reason is the different regulation system and procurement process in the countries.

SEE Science project also faced budgeting problems. The project is characterised by underspendings.

Its major reasons rely in the partners’ changes and the different regulatory environment.

Therefore careful planning, preliminary review of the procurement processes and regulations is

inevitable.

Outputs, results

In overall most of the outputs have been already reached and it is evident that the objectives defined in

AF will be achieved upon project completion.

SEE Science established the sustainable cooperation of SCs in SEE through intensified transnational

cooperation, improved the operation and built the capacity of the SCs, developed tools and activities to

raise awareness and generate interest in science, technology and innovation amongst communities,

enterprises and decision-makers, particularly focusing on the young people as primary target group.

Within individual SEE Science partner countries infrastructure exists at local level to promote

innovation. Connecting this infrastructure through cooperation at transnational level will not only

increase capacity to advance innovation but increase visibility of SCs by working with new partners to

target new audiences. This will increase the quality and relevance of the services of the SCs.

30

31

Appendix 1

Project Partners participating in the survey:

LP Municipality of Debrecen

PP1 Debrecen University -UniDeb

PP3 Natural Science Museum of Trento - MUSE

PP4 Science Center Network Austria - SCN

PP8 Burgas Municipality – BM

PP10 University of Oradea-UniOr

PP11 Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information - SCSTI

PP 12 Centre for Science Education – Patras Science Centre

PP13 South East Europe Research Center - SEERC

PP14 Centre for Research & Analysis, Sofia, Bulgaria

32

Appendix 2

QUESTIONNAIRE

for final- evaluation

of the SEE SC project

PROJECT PARTNERS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1. How do you evaluate the project level management regarding its support to meet the project’s

objectives! Please evaluate it on a 1-5 scale! ( 5 means very supportive, 1 means lack of support!)

1 2 3 4 5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What did you appreciate in the LP’s project management activities? Please give examples!

………………………………………………………………………………............................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................

What would you critisize in the LP’s project management activities? Please give

examples!………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………

2 . How do you evaluate your partner level project management regarding the followings?

Timeliness/ delivering on time □ good □ satisfactory □ fair

Cooperation with project partners □ good □ satisfactory □ fair

33

Participation / activity

on project level (PCT, events, etc.) □ good □ satisfactory □ fair

Contribution to project outcomes/ results □ good □ satisfactory □ fair

What were the major negative factors (external, internal) influencing your performance?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………

3. Arriving to the end of the project do you feel that the project’s design was adequate to address

the problems at hand?

□ fully

□ mostly

□ to some extent

□ no, it was not

If you would start it again what kind of changes you would suggest in terms of project design?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………

4. Looking back to the beginnings did you notice any changes in the project design compared to

the Application Form?

YES NO

If yes, what kind of changes and for what reason?

……………………………........................................................................................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………….

34

5. In your opinion did the partner changes influence the project implementation, the final

outputs of the project?

□ YES □ NO

If your answer is yes, please describe the influences!

...................................................................................................................................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………..

6. Did you notice certain improvement during the implementation of the project? (delivery on

time, quality, internal relationships, cooperation etc.)

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

7. Please describe the extent the recommendations of the mid term report was taken into

consideration!

□ fully □ to some extent □ not at all

If your answer is fully or to some extent, please describe the impact of the recommendations on

project results!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If your answer is not at all, please explain why!

POJECT EVALUATION (RESULTS, EXPECTATIONS)

1. What is your evaluation of the SEE Science project in terms of outputs?

Has the project reached the expected number of the major outputs?

35

number of analyses □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

number of partner meetings □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

conferences □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

number of benchmark visits □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

number of roundtable discussions □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

number of trainings □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

number of festivals □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected

2. Has the project generated any results so far that could indicate that the SEE Science project is

going to wake the interest of young people for science, technology and innovation by creating

new methods to increase visibility and accessibility through science centres? You can give more

answers!

□ more visitors at functioning Science Centres,

□ growing number of visitors at the Virtual Science Centre,

□ high number of visitors at the Science Festivals,

□ expanding relationship with schools, higher education

□ others: ………………………………………………………………………………………...

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. Have the project’s activities been in line with the schedule of activities as defined by the work

plan in AF?

□ most of the activities have been in line with the schedule

□ only few activities have been in line with the schedule

□ hardly any activites have been in line with the schedule

What were the main reasons of those deviations in your opinion?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

36

4. What were the main problems leading to the significant underspendings and decommitment

regarding the project budget?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Do you agree with the statement that the visibility and accessibility of science centres were

successfully increased in partner cities?

□ I fully agree □ I agree to some extent □ I don’t agree

Why? Please give an explanation!.....................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

6. What is your opinion about the result indicators? You find a list of the major result indicators

below, please cross the indicators have been achieved in your opinion!

□ Public regional debate started on science, innovation and technology

□ Regional/ local policies improved or developed

□ Set of EU level policy recommendations formulated

□ Stakeholders involved in regional roundtable events and consultations

□ SC Centres with improved capacities raise awareness of and facilitate innovation

□ Partners with improved capacities to set up SCs with innovation facilitator role

□ Improved capacities of the staff through trainings and knowledge sharing

□ Local/regional strategic partnerships built

□ SEE Science festival tool to increase the project visibility

□ IT infrastructure to increase the project visibility

□ Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation

□ Individuals directly reached by the transnational SEE Science Festivals

7. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the SEE Science project in your opinion?

Strengths: ………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………...

Weaknesses: ……………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

37

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

8. How do you evaluate the SEE Science project on a 1-10 scale taking into account your

expectation towards the project? (10 means that all of your expectations have been met, 1 means

that none of your expectations has been met)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9. What are the most important outputs/results for you?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

10. Arriving at the end of the project are there any results you miss ?

□ YES □ NO

Please explain your answer!

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

11. Would you like to participate in another transnational project?

□ YES □ NO

Why?.................................................................................................................................

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

12. Do you believe in the sustainability of the SEE Science project?

□ YES □ NO

If your answer is yes, what are the main guarantees?........................................................

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………….

If your answer is no, why are you sceptical?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

38

39

SOURCES:

SEE Application Form

Partnership Agreement

Project Management Handbook

Financial Management Guideline

Implementation Plan

Communication Plan

Progress report 1.

Progress report 2

Progress report 3

Progress report 4

Progress report 5

Applications for reimbursement

Newsletters

Website

Project brochures

Minutes: Steering Committee Meetings, Project Coordination Team Meetings

Mid-term report

Interim report

10 Project Partners’ Questionnaires

Personal interviews