Welcome and Introduction
10.15: Coffee and Registration10:30 Understanding Strategic Partnerships 10:50 Needs Analysis/Proportionality/Priorities 12.00 Understanding Impact 12:30 LUNCH13.30 Writing Comments 14:00 Budget Assessment 14:45 Consolidation process 15:15 Questions and Close
Programme
Key Action 2 and Strategic Partnerships
Key Action 2
• Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices
• Targets the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices
• Targets positive and long‐lasting change on the participating organisations
Centralised
• Knowledge Alliances
• Capacity‐building for Higher Education
• Capacity‐building for Youth
• Sector Skills Alliances(separate Call)
Decentralised
• Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation
• Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices
• School Exchange Partnerships
Understanding Strategic
Partnerships
1. GOALS AND AMBITIONSUnd
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
Strategic Partnerships aim to support the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices as well as the implementation of joint initiatives promoting cooperation, peer learning and exchanges of experience at European level.
Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation: to develop innovative outputs and engage in intensive dissemination and exploitation actions associated with new/existing products and innovative ideas.
Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices: to develop or reinforce networks, to increase capacity to operate at transnational level, and to share and discuss ideas, practices and methods.
In 2018, two new formats have been introduced for Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices, namely:School Exchange Partnerships and Transnational Youth Initiatives.
2. FIELDS and FORMATSUnd
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
FIELD Strategic Partnerships: Types and Formats
Adult Education SP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good Practices
Higher Education SP supporting Innovation
School EducationSP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good PracticesSchool Exchange Partnerships (new for 2018)
Vocational Education and Training
SP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good Practices
YouthSP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good PracticesTransnational Youth Initiatives (new for 2018)
2. FIELDS and FORMATSUnd
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
Cross‐Sectoral Partnerships
Projects can also choose to run cross‐sectoral Strategic Partnerships
There is no separate application form for a cross‐sectoral Strategic Partnership, applicants must still choose the main field under which the application is to be
presented
There is no specific location in the application form for the project to identify themselves as a cross‐sectoral partnership. They may specifically state this in the
narrative or it may be clear from the chosen priority.
3. NEW FORMAT FOR SEUnd
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
School Exchange Partnerships aims to provide mobility opportunities for pupils and staff in the school sector to help the participating schools to develop as organisations, to increase their ability to work internationally and to strengthen their European dimension.
only schools from Programme countries can participate: minimum of 2 and maximum of 6 schools from at least 2 different Programme countries.
supports mobility activities (LTTs) of staff, pupils and accompanying staff, as well as PMI, exceptional and special needs costs (according to standard rules for
KA2‐SPs); no funding available transnational partner meetings, IOs or MEs.
funding limited to €16,500 per school per year (special needs funding is extra).
Und
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
Strategic Partnership for Innovation
[all fields]
Management
Project Meetings IOs MEs LTTs Exceptio
nalSpecial Needs
targeting the development of innovative outputsalongside intensive dissemination and exploitationactions associated with new or existing products
and innovative ideas
7a. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE
Und
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
Strategic Partnership for Exchangeof Good Practices (not HE)
Management
Project Meetings LTTs Exceptio
nalSpecial Needs
targeting those wishing to develop or reinforce networks,to increase their capacity to operate at transnational level, and to
share and discuss ideas, practices and methods(such partnerships might also produce tangible outputsand are expected to disseminate the results of theiractivities albeit in a manner proportional to the aim
and scope of the project)
7b. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE
Und
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
School Exchange Partnerships (SE only)
Management LTTs Exceptio
nalSpecial Needs
targeting mobility opportunities for pupils and staff in the school sector, to help the participating schools to develop as
organisations, to increase their ability to work internationally and to strengthen their European dimension; important for quality
assessment to be proportional aligning actions and activities with the type and format of this funding action
7c. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE
4. PARTNERS AND ACTORSUnd
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
Most Strategic Partnerships are required to involve at least 3 partners from 3 programme countries (Youth SPs and SEPs reduce this to 2 partners from 2 programme countries)
No upper limit to the number of partners yet management (PMI) contributions are paid for a maximum of 10 organisations.
Strategic Partnerships are open to organisations active in any field of education, training and youth, or other socio‐economic sectors, including those with a transversal remit (e.g. local and regional authorities, recognition bodies, trade organisations, chambers of commerce, guidance centres, cultural bodies).
Strategic Partnerships should involve an appropriate range of partners bringing forth complementary experience and expertise that will enable goals and objectives to be delivered, with participation having confirmed strategic value in all cases (SEPs are an exception for which schools only participation is targeted).
4. PARTNERS AND ACTORSUnd
erstan
ding
Strategic Partnerships
Programme Countries
A PARTNER COUNTRY (from anywhere in the world) can participate where there is genuine added value with specific skills, experience or expertise brought forth that is essential for successful project achievement (and which is not able to be found in Erasmus+ programme countries). Receives funding but cannot host LTTAs (apart from Short‐term Staff Training)
• UK participation continues as previously• Associated partners can participate (no funding can be accessed, but roles must be described)
Assessment and Scoring
Assessment and Scoring: Criteria and Ceilings
ASSESSMENT CRITERION MAXIMUM SCORE
Relevance 30
Quality of Project Design 20
Quality of Project Team 20
Impact and Dissemination 30
Note 1: scores apply to all KA2 Strategic Partnerships (including SEPs)
Note 2: to be considered for financing, projects must achieve atleast 50% under each criterion plus at least 60 points in total.
Assessment and Scoring: Use of Scoring Bands
Scoring Ceiling
VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK
…application addresses all relevant
aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and successfully; the
answer provides all the information and evidence needed and
there are no concerns or areas of
weakness.
…application addresses the criterion well,
although some small improvements could be made; the answer
gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed.
…application broadly addresses the
criterion, but there are some
weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is
lacking or the information is
unclear.
…application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or
incomplete information; the answer does not
address the question asked, or gives very
little relevant information.
30 POINTS 26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14[fails threshold]
20 POINTS17 ‐ 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 ‐ 9
[fails threshold]
Note: additional scoring bands exist in other funding actions
Thinking about Priorities
The application form asks…
• Please select the most relevant horizontal or sectoral priority according to the objectives of the project.
• Please comment on your choice of priorities.
Thinking about Priorities
• The evaluator must evaluate if the project addresses at least one of the priorities ( either horizontal OR field specific) as specified in the Programme Guide.
• If the project addresses a Horizontal Priority, it must clearly prove the impact in the field under which it is applying.
• If a project addresses the horizontal priority ‘inclusive education, training and youth’ it will be considered highly relevant.
• The Irish National Agency is not prioritising a European priority in a national context.
• If a proposal does not provide convincing evidence that is relevant to at least one priority the proposal must be scored as ‘weak’ for the award criterion ‘Relevance of the Project’ as a whole, and rejected as a consequence.
Thinking about Priorities
Where are the priorities coming from?
Thinking about Priorities
Europe 202020 million fewer people at risk of poverty40% completion of tertiary educationEmployment rate 75% among 20‐64 year oldsEarly school leaving at < 10%
Lifelong learning & mobilityQuality of Education & TrainingEquity, social cohesion, active citizenshipCreativity, innovation, entrepreneurship
Rethinking Education 2012o Development of transversal skills – problem solving, creative thinking,
communication etc.o Foundation or basic skills are achieved by all….o Language learning o Potential of ICT in learning and teaching ( and OER)o Supporting Europe’s teachers to upskill
New Skills Agenda -2016
Paris Declaration - Promoting Citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non discrimination through education- 2015
Upskilling Pathways -2016
School Development and Excellent Teaching for a Great Start in Life (2017)
4 million mobilities 2 million HE students650,000 VET students800,000 Staff from AE, HE, School, VET 25,000 partnerships
2014-2020
Strategic Partnerships must address either at
least one horizontal priority or at least one specific priority relevant to the field
that is mostly impacted
Strategic PartnershipsHorizontal Priorities 2018
ACHIEVEMENT OF RELEVANT AND HIGHQUALITY SKILLS AND COMPETENCES
SOCIAL INCLUSION
OPEN EDUCATION AND INNOVATIVEPRACTICES IN A DIGITAL ERA
EDUCATORS (INITIAL TRAINING, RECRUITMENT, INDUCTION, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ETC.)
TRANSPARENCY AND RECOGNITION OFSKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS
SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT, PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY IN
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
SOCIAL & EDUCATIONAL VALUE OFEUROPEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE
Strategic PartnershipsSchool Priorities 2018
STRENGTHENING THE PROFILE OF THETEACHING PROFESSIONS
PROMOTING THE ACQUISITION OF SKILLSAND COMPETENCES
SUPPORTING SCHOOLS TO TACKLE EARLYSCHOOL LEAVING
SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO INCREASEACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
AND CARE
Strategic PartnershipsVET Priorities 2018
Strategic PartnershipsAdult Ed Priorities 2018
IMPROVING AND EXTENDING THE OFFEROF HIGH QUALITY LEARNING TO ENHANCE
LITERACY, NUMERACY AND DIGITALCOMPETENCES
FACILITATING ACCESS THROUGH SKILLSIDENTIFICATION, TAILORED LEARNING &
VALIDATION OF NON/ INFORMALLEARNING
GUIDANCE TO ENCOURAGE ADULTS TOUPGRADE THEIR LITERACY, NUMERACY
AND DIGITAL SKILLS
EXTENDING AND DEVELOPING ADULTEDUCATORS COMPETENCES INCLUDING
ICT
PROMOTING WORK‐BASED LEARNING
INCREASING THE QUALITY OF VETPROVISION IN LINE WITH EQAVET
RECOMMENDATIONS
FURTHER STRENGTHENING VETCOMPETENCES IN VET CURRICULA
ENHANCING ACCESS TO TRAINING ANDQUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL THROUGH
CONTINUING‐VET
Strategic PartnershipsVET Priorities 2018
CONTINUING PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT OF VET TEACHERS,
TRAINERS AND MENTORS
DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONALPARTNERSHIPS SUPPORTING
INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY OF VET LEARNERS
Group exercise
10 mins
Read the project description on your table
Assign a horizontal and/OR field specific priority to it
Evaluating Needs
Section E in the application form:
Description of the Project• Please explain the context and the objectives of your project as well as the needs and target groups to be addressed?
Evaluating Needs
Relevance Criteria
The evaluator must evaluate the extent to which…
• The proposal proves that a solid analysis, drawing on existing knowledge, know‐how, and practice, has been carried out to identify needs of the target group(s), and organisations.
• The needs identified are relevant for the field under which the proposal was submitted and are clearly linked to the priorities that the project intends to meet.
Evaluating Needs
Macro ‐ Secondary research, Policy documents
Micro – primary research, examples from partners, testimonials
Transnational v National approach
Evidencing Needs
Evaluating Needs
Proportionality Principle: in order to ensure a fair assessment of all applications, experts shall take due account of the size of the project and the experience of the participating organisations; the quality of each application shall thus be assessed for all award criteria considering this proportionality principle.
Evaluating Needs
Impact CriteriaThe evaluator must evaluate the potential impact of the project;
• On participants and participating organisations, during and after the project lifetime
• Outside the organisations and individuals directly participating in the project, at local regional, national and/or European levels
Evaluating Needs
DESIRED RESULTSCURRENT SITUATION
Group Exercise
• Read the short project description• What do you think about how they have evidenced the gap/need for this project?
• Does it convince you that the project idea will address the gap? Yes or no – Explain why
• What evidence or explanation is missing? How could they improve this?
20 Mins
Creating Comments
Assessment Overview: Writing Comments
Assessment Overview: Writing Comments
Individual Assessment: OEET Assessment Form
Add comments for each assessment
criterion
Add overall comments (highlighting strengths and weaknesses)
Add comments specifically for use
by the NA
Add scores for each assessment criterion (refer to scoring
bands and remember thresholds!)
Total automatically calculated by OEET.
Remember different maximum scores exist
for different assessment criteria
Confirm whether reductions are proposed to the original grant
Additional boxes are provided.
Assessment Overview: Comments Each award criterion comprises several elements (see briefing sheets) which must be considered and commented on;
Experts should make a judgement on the extent to which the application meets defined criteria with judgements based solely on the information provided in the application and ensuring that applicants are not penalised more than once for the same issue;
Experts should keep in mind the project type, the scale of planned activity and the amount of funding requested and should integrate the proportionality principle into their assessment;
Comments should be provided in text format (not bullet points) and should respect the 5 CsThe NA staff are responsible for ensuring that all assessments meet the minimum standards
Coherent:easy to understand even for a reader that has not read the application
Comprehensive: covering each of the award criteria and incorporating all, of the composite elements
Consistent: easily aligned with the scores that have been awarded for each criterion and within the predefined scoring bands
Courteous: polite and respectful (note that comments are used to provide feedback to applicants)
Concise:whilst there will always be exceptions, comments should be of a standard size i.eno more than one page of the assessment form
Individual Assessment: Scoring Bands
Scoring Ceiling
SCORING BANDS
VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and
successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or
areas of weakness.
…application addresses the criterion well,
although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed.
…application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some
weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant
information, but there are several areas where detail
is lacking or the information is unclear.
…application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the
question asked, or gives very little relevant
information.
40 POINTS 34 ‐ 40 28 ‐ 33 20 – 27 0 – 19[fails threshold]
30 POINTS 26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14[fails threshold]
20 POINTS 17 – 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 – 9[fails threshold]
Briefing Sheet: KA2 Assessment Comments
Some Tips!
Don’t copy or even refer to entire sections of the application form
Don’t take statements at face value – look for
evidence!
Try to come to a conclusion
Summarise in the General Comments
Section!
Back up negative comments with
recommendations
Some Tips! ‐ Examples
Don’t copy entire sections of the application form
As the project outlines, EU data shows 30% of all non‐EU nationals work in the agriculture sector. In Ireland 36% of staff employed in the agriculture sector come from outside of Ireland, and 77% of staff from outside Italy are employed in thesector. With rising immigration the number of people from minority ethnic backgrounds working in the sector will rise and the need for training will be even more relevant.
The project has demonstrated the need for the training by referencing relevant European and National studies.
Some Tips! ‐ Examples
Don’t take statements at face value – look for evidence!
The application states that there are no similar programmes in this area.
The application demonstrates that while there are other programmes in this area they do not provide training interventions that promote intercultural understanding.
Some Tips! ‐ Examples
Project objectives are clearly stated but it is difficult to judge the extent to which these can be successfully achieved from the application.
Project objectives are clearly stated but there is insufficient detail in the activities outlined in the application to demonstrate that these can be successfully achieved.
Try to come to a conclusion
Some Tips! ‐ Examples
The initial Multiplier Event is not appropriate.
The initial Multiplier Event takes place too early in the project for any intellectual outputs to be disseminated.
Back up negative comments with
recommendations
Some Tips! ‐ Examples
The project “Online Mentoring and Guidance” is aimed at developing a model social network environment, profiling past pupils of selected schools and engaging them as mentors to provide links with the worlds of 3rd level education and work, identifying career guidance and career information needs of students and establishing viable and sustainable on‐line learning partnership and mentoring arrangements. The project involves a diverse mix of partners from 7 countries with extensive experience in European projects and a relevant list of associated partners is included. The project duration is 24 months. There are 5 TPMs focused on assessment of project development and implementation. Multiplier events in the form of dissemination workshops will be organized in all 7 countries combined with a final project conference in Ireland. No TTLs have been foreseen in this project. The expected outcomes of the project include: a new career guidance model, establishment of school‐centric social networks to link pupils with past pupils in on‐going mentorship, a new in‐service training course for teacher and guidance experts and a new induction training program to support past pupils as students.
Example of a Project Summary for the National Agency
Individual Assessment: Scoring Bands
Scoring Ceiling
SCORING BANDS
VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and
successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or
areas of weakness.
…application addresses the criterion well,
although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed.
…application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some
weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant
information, but there are several areas where detail
is lacking or the information is unclear.
…application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the
question asked, or gives very little relevant
information.
40 POINTS 34 ‐ 40 28 ‐ 33 20 – 27 0 – 19[fails threshold]
30 POINTS 26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14[fails threshold]
20 POINTS 17 – 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 – 9[fails threshold]
Budget Assessment
Overview of KA2‐SP Budget Assessment
Budgets are reviewed under the Quality Criteria Quality of Project Design.
Experts are expected to confirm that the proposal “provides value for money comparing results planned to the grant requested” and that the “grant request is realistic to support high quality implementation of the project and its activities”.
KA2‐SP budgets are largely based on unit costs with amounts calculated per day / per category / per meeting / per month although there are some exceptions (e.g. special needs; third‐party provision of goods and services where clearly justified);
National agencies rely on experts to judge and comment on the type and number of units being proposed ensuring that they are relevant, appropriate and realistic (i.e. not overestimated or underestimated);
Even in projects that are scored highly, experts might judge that units are excessive or unjustified and might propose reductions in the proposed numbers of units : these recommendations can be used, by the NA, to determine a reduction on the proposed (or awarded) grant where a project is selected for funding;
For projects not passing one or more thresholds (consolidation stage), it is not necessary to point out all areas of the budget where there are inaccuracies or excesses, focusing instead on constructive feedback and areas for change.
Budget Assessment – Tips Sheet
Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules
Reduce? Recommend?or
The project wishes to hold a Transnational Project Meeting in Spain even though there is no Spanish partner in the project.
Reduce? Recommend?or
Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules
The project has requested the following staff time for IO2. The Italian partner is the lead partner and according to the IO description all other partners will carry out the same tasks:
Reduce? Recommend?or
Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules
Organisation OutputIdentification
Category Country No. of Working Days
Grant per day
Grant Requested
TCD 02 Researcher Ireland 25 241 6,025
KUNGLIGA 02 Researcher Sweden 20 241 4,820
JOSIPA JURJA 02 Researcher Slovenia 40 137 5,480
SOSPIRE 02 Researcher Italy 35 214 7,490
ASPIRE LTD. 02 Researcher UK 20 214 4,280
The project has requested the following staff time for IO1. The Irish partner is the Coordinator and lead partner.
Reduce? Recommend?or
Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules
Organisation OutputIdentification
Category Country No. of Working Days
Grant per day
Grant Requested
TCD 01 Researcher Ireland 210 241 50,610
AKADEMIA 01 Researcher Norway 50 241 12,050
TRABAJO 01 Researcher Spain 55 137 7,535
INSPIRE 01 Researcher Iceland 60 214 12,840
SOLUTIONS 01 Researcher UK 60 214 12,840
Reduce? Recommend?or
Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules
Event Identification E1
Event Title Workshop for the Start‐up manager competence profile
Country of Venue Ireland
Event Description This workshop will be an event in which a group of experts are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product or service, in this present case, the start‐up managers associated competences. Questions are asked in an interactive way and participants are free to talk with other group members. This workshop will be the central activity of a dedicated event on the project, focusing on the specific training needs of managers for start‐ups.
Reduce? Recommend?or
Activity: Interpreting the Financial RulesEvent Identification C1
Event Title SP‐VET‐SHORT ‐ Short‐term joint staff training events
Country of Venue Ireland
Event Description This short term staff training event will essentially take the format of a capacity building session for educators on the main project outputs, the best practice guide (O2), online platform (O4) and toolkit (O3).The local “train the trainers” event will be hosted by CIT through CIT’s live e‐learning platform, Adobe Connect. This online aspect allows partners to provide training opportunities for a larger audience, those who cannot attend in person, while also facilitating a small number (10) of local participants with a face‐to‐face training session. The online training sessions allow partners to heavily disseminated the event and the project itself via social media, networks like CEEN, etc.
Participating Organisations CIT
Reduce? Recommend?or
Activity: Interpreting the Financial RulesEvent Identification C1
Event Title SP‐VET‐SHORT ‐ Short‐term joint staff training events
Country of Venue Ireland
Event Description This short term staff training event will essentially take the format of a capacity building session for educators on the main project outputs, the best practice guide (O2), online platform (O4) and toolkit (O3).The local “train the trainers” event will be hosted by CIT through CIT’s live e‐learning platform, Adobe Connect. This online aspect allows partners to provide training opportunities for a larger audience, those who cannot attend in person, while also facilitating a small number (10) of local participants with a face‐to‐face training session. The online training sessions allow partners to heavily disseminated the event and the project itself via social media, networks like CEEN, etc.
Participating Organisations CIT
Overview of KA2‐SP Budget Assessment
Organisation Description of Item Amount
945628266: H2 LEARNING LTD
External Evaluator €5,000
949221825: South Eastern Regional College
Printing of project brochures €2,500
945628266: H2 LEARNING LTD
Design and printing of Teacher’s manual
€3,500
941475502: Istituto Statale Design of project website €2,000
Review the following Exceptional Costs
Reduce? Recommend?or
Briefing Sheet: KA2 Budget Assessment
Assessment Processesand People
Overview of Core Assessment and Selection Steps
Advance Circulation of Briefing Materials
Expert Briefing(joint or field‐specific)
Conflict ofInterest Check
Quality Assessment of “Eligible” Applications
by Experts
Quality Assuranceby NA Staff
Consolidation of Quality Assessments (where needed) by
Lead Experts
Scores and Comments uploaded to OEET
Ranking List Agreed by Evaluation Committee
Contracts Issued to Successful Applicants
Recruit, Select and Contract Experts
Provide Expert Briefings and Briefing Materials
Confirm “Eligible Applications” that require assessment
Ensure no “Conflict of Interest” among selected Experts
Manage and Support Experts during Assessment
Quality AssureExpert Assessments
(5Cs, 6Cs)
Create RankingList
Host Evaluation Committee
Contract Successful Applicants
Overview of NA Activities in Assessment and Selection
Expert Assessment 1 (internal or external)
Assessment Scores and Comments
Ranked List of Assessments
Expert Assessment 1 (internal or external)
Expert Assessment 2 (internal or external: action dependant)
Difference of 30 or more points and
thresholds passed by both experts?
Y
Expert Assessment 3 (internal or external)
Consolidation (where 3 experts this involves only 2 experts with closest scores)
Consolidated Assessment Scores and
Comments
Ranked List of Assessments
QUALITY ASSESSMENTINVOLVING A SINGLE EXPERT
QUALITY ASSESSMENTINVOLVING MORE THAN ONE EXPERT
There may be occasions where you have to work
with others.QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING A SINGLE EXPERT
KA1 Mobility Projects where the grant request is ≤ €60,000 KA2 School Exchange Partnerships (SEPs) where the grant request is ≤ €60,000
QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING MORE THAN ONE EXPERT KA1 Mobility Projects where the grant request is > €60,000 (does not apply to holders of a VMC or ECHE) KA2 School Exchange Partnerships (SEPs) where the grant request is > €60,000 KA2 Strategic Partnership applications (other than SEPs) HE Mobility Consortia and VMC Applications for Accreditation
Overview of Expert Assessment Activities
Consolidation Overview
Consolidation is normally undertaken for ALL Strategic Partnership applications (grant requests normally > €60,000 under this funding action);
Consolidation will only ever involve 2 experts (if a third expert is involved, the 2 experts with the closest scores will be asked to consolidate);
Comments and scores are combined in a single consolidated assessment (half‐scores can be used during Consolidation only; averages are not automatically used – scores should be in line with the consolidated comments);
When the draft consolidation is complete the lead expert should forward a copy of the Word Consolidation Form to the second expert for approval.
After the lead evaluator has received the approval from the second evaluator they should forward the completed Word Consolidation Form to the National Agency for sign‐off.
Only during Consolidation can you discuss a project with another assessor (initial assessments remain independent and do not change);
Comments are provided in text format and should respect the 6 Cs:
Coherent, Comprehensive, Consistent, Courteous, Conciseand…
Consolidated: comments should read as single texts (sentences or paragraphs) and should be harmonised, not contradictory.
Briefing Sheet: Expert Assessment and Consolidation
Top Related