 |
||
Site search
evaluation
... This evaluation is financed from the
EQUAL Community Initiative Programme, from “CIP EQUAL Evaluation”
Project No. 9/2005, Reg. No. CZ.04.4.09/6.1.00.2/00. ...
... This evaluation is financed from the
EQUAL Community Initiative Programme, from “CIP EQUAL Evaluation”
Project No. 9/2005, Reg. No. CZ.04.4.09/6.1.00.2/00. ...
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... The evaluation project
“Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational Cooperation Principle” commissioned
by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs of the Czech Republic (MoLSA)
took place in the period from April to October 2008 in the territory
of the Czech Republic and ten European Union (EU) countries, to be specific,
in Austria, in Germany, in Poland, in Slovakia, in the Netherlands,
in the United Kingdom, in Portugal, in Spain, in Italy and in France.
The individual evaluation steps, i.e. analysis of documents, questionnaire
survey, evaluation visits and interviews, case studies, focus groups,
SWOT and process analysis took place in accordance with the stipulated
time schedule. The evaluation output was in total six reports (including
this Final Report), which, in accordance with the stipulated time schedule
and the contract, answered the individual evaluation tasks and questions. ...
... This Final Report summarises
the observations done by means of the mentioned evaluation tools (Chapter ...
... ) and
the findings based on their analysis with regard to the evaluation questions
(Chapter ...
... ) and brings recommendations directed at the
individual recipients of the outputs of this evaluation and the target
groups (Chapter 7). In this report, the evaluation methodology is introduced
in details, including description of the particular tools (Chapter 3.4),
namely on the basis of an analysis of global and partial evaluation
objectives, thus the objectives covering wider evaluation context and
its particular steps (Chapters 3.1- 3.3). As we have structured the Final
Report differently from the original tender documentation in the sense
that we have used the above-mentioned combination of three views (observations
according to the methods, findings according to the topics, recommendations
according to the target groups), we mention an outline of the results
of the evaluation according to the original points of the assignment
by the contracting authority in Chapter 6. A highly valuable annex to
this report is a summary of all the contacts and documents the twelve-member
international team has gathered and used for the evaluation of the transnational
cooperation (TC) principle of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL
(CIP EQUAL). We mention this annex above all because we presume further
utilisation of these contacts and documents by the contracting authority’s
representatives and also by the other evaluators. ...
... ) and brings recommendations directed at the
individual recipients of the outputs of this evaluation and the target
groups (Chapter 7). In this report, the evaluation methodology is introduced
in details, including description of the particular tools (Chapter 3.4),
namely on the basis of an analysis of global and partial evaluation
objectives, thus the objectives covering wider evaluation context and
its particular steps (Chapters 3.1- 3.3). As we have structured the Final
Report differently from the original tender documentation in the sense
that we have used the above-mentioned combination of three views (observations
according to the methods, findings according to the topics, recommendations
according to the target groups), we mention an outline of the results
of the evaluation according to the original points of the assignment
by the contracting authority in Chapter 6. A highly valuable annex to
this report is a summary of all the contacts and documents the twelve-member
international team has gathered and used for the evaluation of the transnational
cooperation (TC) principle of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL
(CIP EQUAL). We mention this annex above all because we presume further
utilisation of these contacts and documents by the contracting authority’s
representatives and also by the other evaluators. ...
... ) and brings recommendations directed at the
individual recipients of the outputs of this evaluation and the target
groups (Chapter 7). In this report, the evaluation methodology is introduced
in details, including description of the particular tools (Chapter 3.4),
namely on the basis of an analysis of global and partial evaluation
objectives, thus the objectives covering wider evaluation context and
its particular steps (Chapters 3.1- 3.3). As we have structured the Final
Report differently from the original tender documentation in the sense
that we have used the above-mentioned combination of three views (observations
according to the methods, findings according to the topics, recommendations
according to the target groups), we mention an outline of the results
of the evaluation according to the original points of the assignment
by the contracting authority in Chapter 6. A highly valuable annex to
this report is a summary of all the contacts and documents the twelve-member
international team has gathered and used for the evaluation of the transnational
cooperation (TC) principle of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL
(CIP EQUAL). We mention this annex above all because we presume further
utilisation of these contacts and documents by the contracting authority’s
representatives and also by the other evaluators. ...
... ) and brings recommendations directed at the
individual recipients of the outputs of this evaluation and the target
groups (Chapter 7). In this report, the evaluation methodology is introduced
in details, including description of the particular tools (Chapter 3.4),
namely on the basis of an analysis of global and partial evaluation
objectives, thus the objectives covering wider evaluation context and
its particular steps (Chapters 3.1- 3.3). As we have structured the Final
Report differently from the original tender documentation in the sense
that we have used the above-mentioned combination of three views (observations
according to the methods, findings according to the topics, recommendations
according to the target groups), we mention an outline of the results
of the evaluation according to the original points of the assignment
by the contracting authority in Chapter 6. A highly valuable annex to
this report is a summary of all the contacts and documents the twelve-member
international team has gathered and used for the evaluation of the transnational
cooperation (TC) principle of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL
(CIP EQUAL). We mention this annex above all because we presume further
utilisation of these contacts and documents by the contracting authority’s
representatives and also by the other evaluators. ...
... ) and brings recommendations directed at the
individual recipients of the outputs of this evaluation and the target
groups (Chapter 7). In this report, the evaluation methodology is introduced
in details, including description of the particular tools (Chapter 3.4),
namely on the basis of an analysis of global and partial evaluation
objectives, thus the objectives covering wider evaluation context and
its particular steps (Chapters 3.1- 3.3). As we have structured the Final
Report differently from the original tender documentation in the sense
that we have used the above-mentioned combination of three views (observations
according to the methods, findings according to the topics, recommendations
according to the target groups), we mention an outline of the results
of the evaluation according to the original points of the assignment
by the contracting authority in Chapter 6. A highly valuable annex to
this report is a summary of all the contacts and documents the twelve-member
international team has gathered and used for the evaluation of the transnational
cooperation (TC) principle of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL
(CIP EQUAL). We mention this annex above all because we presume further
utilisation of these contacts and documents by the contracting authority’s
representatives and also by the other evaluators. ...
... ) and brings recommendations directed at the
individual recipients of the outputs of this evaluation and the target
groups (Chapter 7). In this report, the evaluation methodology is introduced
in details, including description of the particular tools (Chapter 3.4),
namely on the basis of an analysis of global and partial evaluation
objectives, thus the objectives covering wider evaluation context and
its particular steps (Chapters 3.1- 3.3). As we have structured the Final
Report differently from the original tender documentation in the sense
that we have used the above-mentioned combination of three views (observations
according to the methods, findings according to the topics, recommendations
according to the target groups), we mention an outline of the results
of the evaluation according to the original points of the assignment
by the contracting authority in Chapter 6. A highly valuable annex to
this report is a summary of all the contacts and documents the twelve-member
international team has gathered and used for the evaluation of the transnational
cooperation (TC) principle of the Community Initiative Programme EQUAL
(CIP EQUAL). We mention this annex above all because we presume further
utilisation of these contacts and documents by the contracting authority’s
representatives and also by the other evaluators. ...
... The Community Initiative
EQUAL differed from the main forms of the aid from the European Social
Fund (ESF) in the past periods, among others, by the transnational cooperation
principle. During the 2007–2013 programming period, within the framework
of the ESF programmes, also the chosen principles of the Community Initiative
EQUAL are supported in cross-sectional way for the very first time.
To be specific, besides the partnership and innovativeness principles,
the transnational cooperation principle is concerned; the experience
from CIP EQUAL is transposed into the Human Resources and Employment
Operational Programme (OP LZZ), in which the transnational cooperation
is included in the form of priority axes, to be specific, these are
Priority axis 5a Transnational Cooperation (Convergence) and Priority
axis 5b Transnational Cooperation (Regional Competitiveness and Employment).
It is assumed that fulfilment of the transnational cooperation principle
will enable to achieve still better results of the individual projects
than those that would be able to be achieved without its application.
Thus the sense of the evaluation of the transnational cooperation principle
CIP EQUAL was, among others, to contribute to the improved quality of
the results of the 2007-2013 programming period. ...
... Petra Štogrová Jedličková (head
of the evaluation team), Czech Republic ...
... In the text, a breakdown
of the abbreviation is always mentioned at the first occurrence, an
abbreviation follows in parentheses. This is used further in the text;
in exceptional cases also the full expression is used for the purposes
to increase understandability and fluency of the text. In the Czech
version of the report, the abbreviations created from the Czech expressions
are preferred; in case the Czech abbreviation has not been established,
an abbreviation created from the original English expression is used.
An outline of other abbreviations that were used within this evaluation
project framework is mentioned in Chapter ...
... This citation and the following two citations come from Austrian evaluation reports concerning the CIP EQUAL implementation. ...
... The
transnational cooperation was an obligatory part of the Community Initiative
Programme EQUAL and a number of the participating organisations would
not have included it in their projects on their own. However, the evaluation
has proved that the participating bodies in absolute majority have gradually
begun to perceive it as a component part of the programme and often,
in spite of the initial disbelief and low expectations, they evaluate
it as a very valuable and unexpectedly rewarding
part. In a wide scale of particular results and outputs it is possible
to find a common denominator: it is widening of the views, or in general
“the experience“, widening of the context of thinking, perception,
attitudes, behaviour, solutions etc. ...
... The most significant
factors influencing efficiency and success of the transnational cooperation
seem to be, according to the evaluation, compliance, as the case
may be sharing the project objectives among partners, selection
of a partner and partially the innovation rate of a
particular project. Above all, thanks to this fact the preparatory
and the initial stages of the project, which consequently have the
principal impact on the whole implementation, seem to be as essential
for the success of the transnational partnership. In this respect, also
the cooperation with the managing authority and the quality of its support
is mentioned as the key factors, too. ...
... In the course of the
whole evaluation it also showed up that the Community Initiative Programme
EQUAL had impacted in a specific context in the Czech Republic and it
had interfered with it quite significantly. Without the framework understanding
of this context it is neither possible to interpret the results nor
to understand the findings. The following aspects of more general
framework of the programme effects have shown up as the most substantial: ...
... The comparison among
the Czech Republic and the other EU countries included in the evaluation
is interesting, above all because it has not been possible to trace
any considerable difference in the respondents’ reactions to the same
questions and themes; however, it is possible to trace the differences
in comparable extent of cases, namely the substantial ones. The individual
partial differences may be followed best in the results of the questionnaire
investigation; however, it may be stated in general that the differences
resulting from “maturity” and “immaturity” are concerned –
namely both in good and bad meaning. Maturity and self-confidence of
the senior EU Member States bring, on the one hand, well-established
procedures, beaten tracks, proved methods, rich experience with partnership,
well-established work culture that is not based on personal relations,
open communication with partners, namely including authorities and institutions,
etc. However, it may bring at the same time certain routinism, lack
of interest in the gist of the matter and endeavour to maintain the
status quo, excessively established character and commonplace conterminous
to becoming stale. Compared to that, the “immaturity” of the newer
Member States carries round immaturity and instability of the environment,
which almost is not ready to absorb the aid of similar extent, clientelism
or servility towards authorities and at the same time unprofessionality
of officials, unproven procedures, incomparable conditions, lack of
data, unreflected own tradition, etc. on the one hand, but on the other
hand it may be a source of unexpected innovation, unusual interest in
the matter and resolve to do something for it, great drive, willingness
to learn and absorb new things, endeavour to show oneself in front of
the others, innovative approaches and the like. ...
... The evaluation within the
framework of the projects was limited to self-evaluation and questionnaires
distributed at work meetings. Only a small part of DPs let an evaluation
of the transnational cooperation drawn up (independently or within the
framework of a larger whole, e.g. of the project or TCA). Reflection
of these tools and the ability to use them for management and implementation
of the transnational cooperation in the project were negligible. ...
... The evaluation within the
framework of the projects was limited to self-evaluation and questionnaires
distributed at work meetings. Only a small part of DPs let an evaluation
of the transnational cooperation drawn up (independently or within the
framework of a larger whole, e.g. of the project or TCA). Reflection
of these tools and the ability to use them for management and implementation
of the transnational cooperation in the project were negligible. ...
... The evaluation within the
framework of the projects was limited to self-evaluation and questionnaires
distributed at work meetings. Only a small part of DPs let an evaluation
of the transnational cooperation drawn up (independently or within the
framework of a larger whole, e.g. of the project or TCA). Reflection
of these tools and the ability to use them for management and implementation
of the transnational cooperation in the project were negligible. ...
... In the countries that were
included in the evaluation, various measures were recommended and somewhere
also implemented on how to facilitate the process of creating transnational
partnerships. For example, creation of a special measure or a project
at the programme management level (not at the project level) was concerned.
Or it was a recommendation of minimum extent of the partnership, which
countries to focus on when searching for partners (further to the national
strategies), which activities shall be strengthened (it is generally
recommended to limit generic activities that miss the particular content);
somewhere this principle was transposed into formation of a particular
physical institution, the mission of which is to support transnational
partnership in the projects in the given programme. ...
... Within the framework of the
evaluation it has proved that the role of DPA was often underestimated,
sometimes even the precise TCA was prepared right away (DPA used completely
same formulations in the passages on partnership). ...
... Using of monitoring and evaluation
of the transnational cooperation seems as very general - it is bound
to quantified outputs (number of meetings, participation, realization
of the planned events, etc.), namely in the international aspect –
not specifically in the Czech environment. Thus they serve mainly for
the identification whether the programme proceeds according to the planned
structure. But it does not provide almost any other data that would
be evaluated systematically. ...
... With regard to the clearly
defined role of monitoring it is suitable to create, within the framework
of the partnership, an own system of feedbacks and assessments corresponding
to the partnership type and the project’s orientation, as the case
may be combined with an external evaluation. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
must comply with the global objectives and help to improve the quality
of management and implementation of the projects and of the programme
as a whole. For this reason also the sense of these activities must
be obvious to all participants. It is necessary to help the project
implementing entities to be able to use these tools in suitable way
for their own quality management and the project cycle management. It
is necessary for both parties to be able to use monitoring and evaluation
strategically. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
must comply with the global objectives and help to improve the quality
of management and implementation of the projects and of the programme
as a whole. For this reason also the sense of these activities must
be obvious to all participants. It is necessary to help the project
implementing entities to be able to use these tools in suitable way
for their own quality management and the project cycle management. It
is necessary for both parties to be able to use monitoring and evaluation
strategically. ...
... Evaluation of the CIP
EQUAL transnational cooperation principle was conducted within the framework
of the whole programme, its objectives and context of national and European
policies. The mentioned wider framework is outlined in this chapter;
the following chapter explains then how the evaluation was interconnected
with this wider context in particular. The Community Initiative EQUAL
is one of the four Community initiatives, which were co-financed from
the structural funds in the 2000–2006 programming period. The Community
Initiative EQUAL co-financed from the ESF is one of the tools to achieve
the objectives of the European Employment Strategy (EES). ...
... Evaluation of the CIP
EQUAL transnational cooperation principle was conducted within the framework
of the whole programme, its objectives and context of national and European
policies. The mentioned wider framework is outlined in this chapter;
the following chapter explains then how the evaluation was interconnected
with this wider context in particular. The Community Initiative EQUAL
is one of the four Community initiatives, which were co-financed from
the structural funds in the 2000–2006 programming period. The Community
Initiative EQUAL co-financed from the ESF is one of the tools to achieve
the objectives of the European Employment Strategy (EES). ...
... The technical assistance
is further used to support monitoring, audits and evaluation of the
activities carried out both in the Czech Republic as well as at the
Europe-wide level and for preparation of studies, seminars, information
events, collection, processing and dissemination of the obtained experience
and results. ...
... EVALUATION OBJECTIVES AND METHODS ...
... CIP EQUAL is an independent
form of aid from the structural funds that supports development and
promotion of new approaches to solving of inequalities and discrimination
at work and access to employment. Its sense is to supplement other programmes
contributing to achieving the objectives of EES and to serve as an innovative
laboratory for development and promotion of new tools, while those that
will prove useful will be supported further within the framework of
the main forms of aid from the ESF during the following programming
period. CIP EQUAL differed from the main forms of aid from the ESF in
the past periods among others by the principle of transnational cooperation.
Thus in the course of the 2007–2013 programming period also selected
CIP EQUAL principles will be supported within the framework of the
ESF programmes on cross-sectoral basis for the very first time.
To be specific, the principles of innovativeness and transnational
cooperation are concerned besides the partnership principle. It
was decided on cross-sectoral
support of these principles together with the EU Member States and the
European Commission representatives on the basis of the experience with
the CIP EQUAL implementation in individual EU Member States, therefore
among others the documents, on which this decision was based, were used
for preparation of the evaluation strategy. ...
... All these starting points
and all these assumptions were included in the strategy of evaluation
of the CIP EQUAL transnational cooperation principle. The evaluation
ranges within the framework defined in this way and follows up with
the outputs of the previous evaluations and Final Reports
(respective framework documents, reports and studies are mentioned in
the list of the sources used). With regard to the requirement of
follow-up and comparability of the CIP EQUAL evaluations, the standard
methodology of evaluation was used Navreme Boheme, s.r.o., uses
for other evaluations commissioned by the European Commission and that
is recommended to the CIP EQUAL evaluators. ...
... All these starting points
and all these assumptions were included in the strategy of evaluation
of the CIP EQUAL transnational cooperation principle. The evaluation
ranges within the framework defined in this way and follows up with
the outputs of the previous evaluations and Final Reports
(respective framework documents, reports and studies are mentioned in
the list of the sources used). With regard to the requirement of
follow-up and comparability of the CIP EQUAL evaluations, the standard
methodology of evaluation was used Navreme Boheme, s.r.o., uses
for other evaluations commissioned by the European Commission and that
is recommended to the CIP EQUAL evaluators. ...
... With regard to the requirement of
follow-up and comparability of the CIP EQUAL evaluations, the standard
methodology of evaluation was used ...
... Evaluation objectives and strategy of their fulfilment ...
... The partial evaluation
of the transnational cooperation principle is related to the general
objectives of the CIP EQUAL
evaluation stipulated by the
European Commission. We have numbered the
general objectives of the CIP EQUAL evaluation for we use the numbers
of the objectives afterwards for reference in the following text: ...
... evaluation ...
... The partial evaluation
of the transnational cooperation principle is related to the general
objectives of the CIP EQUAL
evaluation stipulated by the
European Commission. We have numbered the
general objectives of the CIP EQUAL evaluation for we use the numbers
of the objectives afterwards for reference in the following text: ...
... To facilitate comparability
of the CIP EQUAL evaluation results at the level of the whole EU; ...
... To ensure information sources
for ex-post evaluation at the EU level that will be carried out by the
European Commission. ...
... We have identified the
following specific objectives for the evaluation of the CIP EQUAL
transnational cooperation principle, which we understand as a partial
one in this respect: ...
... To describe principles of
evaluation of the quality of the transnational cooperation, namely including
verification of tools for self-evaluation of the partnership and management
of the partnership networks; ...
... To describe principles of
evaluation of the quality of the transnational cooperation, namely including
verification of tools for self-evaluation of the partnership and management
of the partnership networks; ...
... Except for the last
objective that is directed directly at the implementation structures
in the Czech Republic, all the other objectives relate both to the
Czech and foreign reality. Thus the evaluation focused primarily
on the assessment of the impact of the transnational cooperation financed
from the Czech sources, but these findings were compared with the findings
from ten selected EU countries, for the majority of the phenomena
being explored has (minimum) European dimension. ...
... European and transnational aspect of the evaluation ...
... We have subjected the
findings based on exploration of the national sample to comparison with
the other EU countries and above all, we have carried out the whole
evaluation in European discourse. We have in mind by this discourse
the knowledge of the starting points of the relevant policies the phenomena
being explored come out from, the knowledge of the European environment,
actors and decision-making and communication principles, the knowledge
of the requirements for quality and evaluation methods in the European
environment (comprehension of the evaluation within the EU policies
context) and the knowledge of the principle of partnership and transnational
cooperation from the European programmes and their practical implementation
in the European projects (in which we have also participated or we have
evaluated them). Therefore Czech experts with international experience,
who cooperated with six foreign experts, were the core of the evaluation
team. ...
... We have subjected the
findings based on exploration of the national sample to comparison with
the other EU countries and above all, we have carried out the whole
evaluation in European discourse. We have in mind by this discourse
the knowledge of the starting points of the relevant policies the phenomena
being explored come out from, the knowledge of the European environment,
actors and decision-making and communication principles, the knowledge
of the requirements for quality and evaluation methods in the European
environment (comprehension of the evaluation within the EU policies
context) and the knowledge of the principle of partnership and transnational
cooperation from the European programmes and their practical implementation
in the European projects (in which we have also participated or we have
evaluated them). Therefore Czech experts with international experience,
who cooperated with six foreign experts, were the core of the evaluation
team. ...
... We have subjected the
findings based on exploration of the national sample to comparison with
the other EU countries and above all, we have carried out the whole
evaluation in European discourse. We have in mind by this discourse
the knowledge of the starting points of the relevant policies the phenomena
being explored come out from, the knowledge of the European environment,
actors and decision-making and communication principles, the knowledge
of the requirements for quality and evaluation methods in the European
environment (comprehension of the evaluation within the EU policies
context) and the knowledge of the principle of partnership and transnational
cooperation from the European programmes and their practical implementation
in the European projects (in which we have also participated or we have
evaluated them). Therefore Czech experts with international experience,
who cooperated with six foreign experts, were the core of the evaluation
team. ...
... We have subjected the
findings based on exploration of the national sample to comparison with
the other EU countries and above all, we have carried out the whole
evaluation in European discourse. We have in mind by this discourse
the knowledge of the starting points of the relevant policies the phenomena
being explored come out from, the knowledge of the European environment,
actors and decision-making and communication principles, the knowledge
of the requirements for quality and evaluation methods in the European
environment (comprehension of the evaluation within the EU policies
context) and the knowledge of the principle of partnership and transnational
cooperation from the European programmes and their practical implementation
in the European projects (in which we have also participated or we have
evaluated them). Therefore Czech experts with international experience,
who cooperated with six foreign experts, were the core of the evaluation
team. ...
... For accomplishment of
the evaluation of the CIP EQUAL transnational cooperation principle
the following countries were selected: ...
... Czech Republic (core of
the evaluation) ...
... Target groups of the evaluation ...
... From the above mentioned objectives
and the analysis of the evaluation themes and questions, the following
target groups result, which we mention in alphabetical order; we
have assigned an acronym to each of them for further references: ...
... European Commission
(CIP EQUAL, Evaluation Department) ...
... Evaluation methodology ...
... For the findings necessary
to formulate conclusions and recommendations, such research and evaluation
methods were used so that the selected method would be able to find
sources for the answers to the given evaluation questions most effectively.
The methods, the detailed description of which we mention below, were
aimed at the following target groups: ...
... For the findings necessary
to formulate conclusions and recommendations, such research and evaluation
methods were used so that the selected method would be able to find
sources for the answers to the given evaluation questions most effectively.
The methods, the detailed description of which we mention below, were
aimed at the following target groups: ...
... Research / Evaluation
method ...
... Evaluation visit ...
... Evaluation of processes ...
... Continual (ongoing)
evaluation ...
... Evaluation team ...
... A supporting method
is concerned, the results of which served for the preparation of other
evaluation methods, as a direct input of the process evaluation. It
played a role of a key method in fulfilment of the tasks connected with
topics 1 and 6. “Research from a table” is concerned (contrary to
the field methods). The list of the documents analysed is mentioned
in Annex 8.9 and the findings from the analysis of documents are mentioned
then in special chapters. ...
... A supporting method
is concerned, the results of which served for the preparation of other
evaluation methods, as a direct input of the process evaluation. It
played a role of a key method in fulfilment of the tasks connected with
topics 1 and 6. “Research from a table” is concerned (contrary to
the field methods). The list of the documents analysed is mentioned
in Annex 8.9 and the findings from the analysis of documents are mentioned
then in special chapters. ...
... Two sets of questions
came into existence and the questions were identified, which complement
each other, verify each other mutually, and above all serve for comparison
between the individual groups. The comments to the questionnaire had
been made several times; the resulting form of the questions was then
translated from English into Czech, Polish, French, Portuguese, Italian,
Spanish and Dutch. The questionnaires were distributed in the electronic
form only, namely through a web application, which enables safe and
comfortable completion of the form and its anonymous sending on-line.
The data are stored directly into a database, which increases the efficiency
of their further processing significantly. The questionnaire was anonymous,
but in order to be able to distinguish the target groups addressed by
the questionnaire, two identification questions were mentioned in the
introductory part of the questionnaire (country of origin and the type
of the target group). The established target groups were addressed by
means of an e-mail and an information campaign with accompanying information,
which contained the www address, on which the questionnaire can be completed,
explained briefly the meaning of the questionnaire and of the whole
evaluation, further it contained the name of the contracting authority,
an authorizing letter from MoLSA and the contact data for case of inquiries.
Letters in the above-mentioned languages were sent to the contacts gathered.
Short before the expiration of the period for completion of the questionnaire
(15 June 2008), also reminders were sent on 8 June 2008, which increased
the rate of return of the questionnaire. A number of respondents
were sending inquiries both to the questionnaire investigation and to
the results of the evaluation. All the questions were answered, namely
in the language, in which the inquiry had been sent. A detailed description
of this method is mentioned in Chapter 4.2. ...
... Two sets of questions
came into existence and the questions were identified, which complement
each other, verify each other mutually, and above all serve for comparison
between the individual groups. The comments to the questionnaire had
been made several times; the resulting form of the questions was then
translated from English into Czech, Polish, French, Portuguese, Italian,
Spanish and Dutch. The questionnaires were distributed in the electronic
form only, namely through a web application, which enables safe and
comfortable completion of the form and its anonymous sending on-line.
The data are stored directly into a database, which increases the efficiency
of their further processing significantly. The questionnaire was anonymous,
but in order to be able to distinguish the target groups addressed by
the questionnaire, two identification questions were mentioned in the
introductory part of the questionnaire (country of origin and the type
of the target group). The established target groups were addressed by
means of an e-mail and an information campaign with accompanying information,
which contained the www address, on which the questionnaire can be completed,
explained briefly the meaning of the questionnaire and of the whole
evaluation, further it contained the name of the contracting authority,
an authorizing letter from MoLSA and the contact data for case of inquiries.
Letters in the above-mentioned languages were sent to the contacts gathered.
Short before the expiration of the period for completion of the questionnaire
(15 June 2008), also reminders were sent on 8 June 2008, which increased
the rate of return of the questionnaire. A number of respondents
were sending inquiries both to the questionnaire investigation and to
the results of the evaluation. All the questions were answered, namely
in the language, in which the inquiry had been sent. A detailed description
of this method is mentioned in Chapter 4.2. ...
... Evaluation visits ...
... The evaluators chose
70 representatives of final recipients representing at least 35 different
development partnerships supported within the specified period of CIP
EQUAL CZ, the foreign experts approached four representatives in each
country, representing at least two development partnerships supported
abroad (primarily those, in which Czech organisations participated,
too), and six representatives in each country (including CZ) representing
the projects supported from the ESF (especially those in the area of
human resources development). Further the representatives of each of
the implementation structure bodies (MA, NSS) were addressed in each
of the analysed countries. The final selection of persons that were
addressed and visited is mentioned in Annex 8.4. Notes were taken from
each evaluation visit. These notes were supplemented with the data provided
in additional interviews (by telephone). The notes have a uniform structure
and the promise of anonymity of those, who provided their expression,
is kept, therefore we do not mention the notes from the visits themselves
in an annex. ...
... Evaluation of processes ...
... Evaluation of processes
is a succession of activities aiming at identification, analysis and
assessment of processes within the framework of a certain defined body,
for example of a company, an organisational unit, a programme, managing
structure and the like. Inasmuch as this method is oriented only at
exploration of the internal environment, it was used in our case at
the evaluation of internal management bodies of CIP EQUAL (i.e. MA and
NSS) and further of the parts of the implementation structure directly
related (i.e. MONIT). ...
... Evaluation of processes
is a succession of activities aiming at identification, analysis and
assessment of processes within the framework of a certain defined body,
for example of a company, an organisational unit, a programme, managing
structure and the like. Inasmuch as this method is oriented only at
exploration of the internal environment, it was used in our case at
the evaluation of internal management bodies of CIP EQUAL (i.e. MA and
NSS) and further of the parts of the implementation structure directly
related (i.e. MONIT). ...
... We have adjusted the
method of focus groups in this evaluation specifically to the needs;
therefore two focus groups were carried out with the representatives
of MA and NSS. The sense was to record the substantial experience with
the programme management towards the recommendations concerning the
2007–2013 programming period and further to support the findings of
the process analysis. Sets of questions for the individual groups
and a scenario of the group were created. Then the evaluators asked
questions and noted reactions and communications. Then the team of evaluators
processed these expressions and made conclusions. With regard to sensitiveness
of some expressions, it is not possible to publish these records. The
results from the focus groups are transposed into the findings and recommendations
in the Third Interim Report of the project Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational
Cooperation Principle. ...
... We have adjusted the
method of focus groups in this evaluation specifically to the needs;
therefore two focus groups were carried out with the representatives
of MA and NSS. The sense was to record the substantial experience with
the programme management towards the recommendations concerning the
2007–2013 programming period and further to support the findings of
the process analysis. Sets of questions for the individual groups
and a scenario of the group were created. Then the evaluators asked
questions and noted reactions and communications. Then the team of evaluators
processed these expressions and made conclusions. With regard to sensitiveness
of some expressions, it is not possible to publish these records. The
results from the focus groups are transposed into the findings and recommendations
in the Third Interim Report of the project Evaluation of CIP EQUAL Transnational
Cooperation Principle. ...
... Continual (ongoing) evaluation ...
... This method fulfils
the evaluation objectives No. 9 and 10 and was an integral part of the
work on this project. Its essence is supervision of a human being, who
brings new stimuli into the work of the team and at the same time controls
the quality of the work, each partial output is communicated with everybody
and each piece of knowledge comes back into the team immediately. The
evaluation principle consists then in it that the supervisor measures
how the team comes closer (or does not come closer) to the original
objectives of its work it defined at the beginning. This is carried
out by means of evaluation tables, into which the internal evaluator
writes how the team understands the individual objectives / sense of
its work, then he breaks down these into individual tasks and he monitors
in six stages how the individual members identify with the tasks and
how they empower each other (empowerment). ...
... This method fulfils
the evaluation objectives No. 9 and 10 and was an integral part of the
work on this project. Its essence is supervision of a human being, who
brings new stimuli into the work of the team and at the same time controls
the quality of the work, each partial output is communicated with everybody
and each piece of knowledge comes back into the team immediately. The
evaluation principle consists then in it that the supervisor measures
how the team comes closer (or does not come closer) to the original
objectives of its work it defined at the beginning. This is carried
out by means of evaluation tables, into which the internal evaluator
writes how the team understands the individual objectives / sense of
its work, then he breaks down these into individual tasks and he monitors
in six stages how the individual members identify with the tasks and
how they empower each other (empowerment). ...
... This method fulfils
the evaluation objectives No. 9 and 10 and was an integral part of the
work on this project. Its essence is supervision of a human being, who
brings new stimuli into the work of the team and at the same time controls
the quality of the work, each partial output is communicated with everybody
and each piece of knowledge comes back into the team immediately. The
evaluation principle consists then in it that the supervisor measures
how the team comes closer (or does not come closer) to the original
objectives of its work it defined at the beginning. This is carried
out by means of evaluation tables, into which the internal evaluator
writes how the team understands the individual objectives / sense of
its work, then he breaks down these into individual tasks and he monitors
in six stages how the individual members identify with the tasks and
how they empower each other (empowerment). ...
... A case study is a common
research tool in social sciences and an evaluation tool. A case study
is, in fact, a type of a research strategy because it works with the
context of the reality, it is not a purely qualitative analysis and
it combines the data analysis and qualitative elements of the research.
It is often supplemented with other research methods, which was the
case of this evaluation, too. The evaluation team worked with 35 studies
of development partnerships in CZ and with more than 20 foreign studies.
The studies were based on the analysis of documents, interviews, visits
and additional determination. The list of the case studies is mentioned
in Annex 8.7. The studies were processed in standard
way (structured descriptions of situations and processes elaborated
in writing) then an analysis of them and interpretation of the differences
and specifics was carried out. The precise structure of the case studies
is mentioned in Annex 8.8, it contains in general: description of the
situation (number of employees, competences, formation, powers, tradition),
description of processes, environment, identification of effective methods
of work, identification of barriers, solving conflicts, coherence with
the surrounding CIP EQUAL management systems, links to the CIP EQUAL
objectives, etc. The aim was to capture above all the well-established
ways of partnership formation and development, the areas of its added
value, thus the areas of solutions the transnational cooperation contributes
to. ...
... A case study is a common
research tool in social sciences and an evaluation tool. A case study
is, in fact, a type of a research strategy because it works with the
context of the reality, it is not a purely qualitative analysis and
it combines the data analysis and qualitative elements of the research.
It is often supplemented with other research methods, which was the
case of this evaluation, too. The evaluation team worked with 35 studies
of development partnerships in CZ and with more than 20 foreign studies.
The studies were based on the analysis of documents, interviews, visits
and additional determination. The list of the case studies is mentioned
in Annex 8.7. The studies were processed in standard
way (structured descriptions of situations and processes elaborated
in writing) then an analysis of them and interpretation of the differences
and specifics was carried out. The precise structure of the case studies
is mentioned in Annex 8.8, it contains in general: description of the
situation (number of employees, competences, formation, powers, tradition),
description of processes, environment, identification of effective methods
of work, identification of barriers, solving conflicts, coherence with
the surrounding CIP EQUAL management systems, links to the CIP EQUAL
objectives, etc. The aim was to capture above all the well-established
ways of partnership formation and development, the areas of its added
value, thus the areas of solutions the transnational cooperation contributes
to. ...
... A case study is a common
research tool in social sciences and an evaluation tool. A case study
is, in fact, a type of a research strategy because it works with the
context of the reality, it is not a purely qualitative analysis and
it combines the data analysis and qualitative elements of the research.
It is often supplemented with other research methods, which was the
case of this evaluation, too. The evaluation team worked with 35 studies
of development partnerships in CZ and with more than 20 foreign studies.
The studies were based on the analysis of documents, interviews, visits
and additional determination. The list of the case studies is mentioned
in Annex 8.7. The studies were processed in standard
way (structured descriptions of situations and processes elaborated
in writing) then an analysis of them and interpretation of the differences
and specifics was carried out. The precise structure of the case studies
is mentioned in Annex 8.8, it contains in general: description of the
situation (number of employees, competences, formation, powers, tradition),
description of processes, environment, identification of effective methods
of work, identification of barriers, solving conflicts, coherence with
the surrounding CIP EQUAL management systems, links to the CIP EQUAL
objectives, etc. The aim was to capture above all the well-established
ways of partnership formation and development, the areas of its added
value, thus the areas of solutions the transnational cooperation contributes
to. ...
... This method was used
when interviewing persons accessible with difficulty and where a personal
visit would not increase the effect significantly and where it
was necessary to act quickly (example of task No. 1) and further in
additional interviewing of persons already contacted in the past (evaluation
visits); therefore we have chosen for the interviews the experts from
all the mentioned countries, the representatives of the European Commission,
the Monitoring Committee, the National Support Structures, the National
Thematic Networks and the representatives of the development partnerships
that were not addressed in another way (except for the representatives
of the development partnerships visited within the framework of evaluation
visits). The evaluator identified the particular representatives on
the basis of an analysis of particular persons’ suitability for interviewing
from the point of view of representativeness, elimination of duplicities
and the highest possible effectiveness of the used method. The list
of all persons that were visited or inquired by means of structured
interviews is mentioned in Annex 8.4. ...
... This method was used
when interviewing persons accessible with difficulty and where a personal
visit would not increase the effect significantly and where it
was necessary to act quickly (example of task No. 1) and further in
additional interviewing of persons already contacted in the past (evaluation
visits); therefore we have chosen for the interviews the experts from
all the mentioned countries, the representatives of the European Commission,
the Monitoring Committee, the National Support Structures, the National
Thematic Networks and the representatives of the development partnerships
that were not addressed in another way (except for the representatives
of the development partnerships visited within the framework of evaluation
visits). The evaluator identified the particular representatives on
the basis of an analysis of particular persons’ suitability for interviewing
from the point of view of representativeness, elimination of duplicities
and the highest possible effectiveness of the used method. The list
of all persons that were visited or inquired by means of structured
interviews is mentioned in Annex 8.4. ...
... SWOT analysis was applied
in the evaluation at two levels: 1) as a supporting analytical method
in evaluation of results of the particular activities and 2) as a general
matrix of evaluation of potential, results and threats of the actually
implemented transnational cooperation within the framework of individual
DP from CZ and the selected EU countries. The SWOT analysis was also
used successfully for assessment of functioning of the transnational
partnership in different cultural environments, which are given by different
tradition, experience, social economical and political background. More
detailed information on this utilisation of the SWOT analysis is mentioned
in the chapter on concrete realization of the evaluation. ...
... SWOT analysis was applied
in the evaluation at two levels: 1) as a supporting analytical method
in evaluation of results of the particular activities and 2) as a general
matrix of evaluation of potential, results and threats of the actually
implemented transnational cooperation within the framework of individual
DP from CZ and the selected EU countries. The SWOT analysis was also
used successfully for assessment of functioning of the transnational
partnership in different cultural environments, which are given by different
tradition, experience, social economical and political background. More
detailed information on this utilisation of the SWOT analysis is mentioned
in the chapter on concrete realization of the evaluation. ...
... SWOT analysis was applied
in the evaluation at two levels: 1) as a supporting analytical method
in evaluation of results of the particular activities and 2) as a general
matrix of evaluation of potential, results and threats of the actually
implemented transnational cooperation within the framework of individual
DP from CZ and the selected EU countries. The SWOT analysis was also
used successfully for assessment of functioning of the transnational
partnership in different cultural environments, which are given by different
tradition, experience, social economical and political background. More
detailed information on this utilisation of the SWOT analysis is mentioned
in the chapter on concrete realization of the evaluation. ...
... SWOT analysis was applied
in the evaluation at two levels: 1) as a supporting analytical method
in evaluation of results of the particular activities and 2) as a general
matrix of evaluation of potential, results and threats of the actually
implemented transnational cooperation within the framework of individual
DP from CZ and the selected EU countries. The SWOT analysis was also
used successfully for assessment of functioning of the transnational
partnership in different cultural environments, which are given by different
tradition, experience, social economical and political background. More
detailed information on this utilisation of the SWOT analysis is mentioned
in the chapter on concrete realization of the evaluation. ...
... The evaluation team
worked with a number of information sources, the outline of which is
mentioned in Annex 8.9 and also with partially obtained and partially
newly created list of contacts, which are mentioned in Annex 8.10 in
full. ...
... The team used also the
documents that were created during the evaluation or obtained from organisations.
Further, in particular the ESF Forum belonged to important sources of
up-to-date information; in order to obtain more detailed information
on the ongoing evaluation of CIP EQUAL in CZ in process, among others,
the advantage of participation in the seminar held by the company IREAS,
o.p.s., on 23 March 2008 was taken. ...
... The team used also the
documents that were created during the evaluation or obtained from organisations.
Further, in particular the ESF Forum belonged to important sources of
up-to-date information; in order to obtain more detailed information
on the ongoing evaluation of CIP EQUAL in CZ in process, among others,
the advantage of participation in the seminar held by the company IREAS,
o.p.s., on 23 March 2008 was taken. ...
... When studying the documents
relevant for the evaluation purposes it was also necessary to cope with
the fact that all documents are not available in Czech or English language;
moreover, complicated and extensive and difficult documents are often
concerned, in which only an expert from the given place is orientated.
Among others, also for these reasons the evaluation team consisted of
the experts from various countries. ...
... When studying the documents
relevant for the evaluation purposes it was also necessary to cope with
the fact that all documents are not available in Czech or English language;
moreover, complicated and extensive and difficult documents are often
concerned, in which only an expert from the given place is orientated.
Among others, also for these reasons the evaluation team consisted of
the experts from various countries. ...
... , as the case may be on the own web of the organisation
implementing the project) that it is difficult to keep the information
at all places in up-to-date form. In addition to that, the organisations
themselves do not always have a possibility to modify the data regarding
the project, thus the updating becomes more problematic further. While
the sites of the organisations themselves where the given project was
mentioned were up-to-date, the structure of these sites and the depth
and quality of the information were obviously left completely upon the
activity of the given organisations; for this reason the reliability
and, in particular, the communicative value of the sites (with regard
to the assignment of the evaluation) differed considerably. In case
of the other mentioned places where the information on the projects
is mentioned, the organisation did not have a direct possibility to
update the information, but this was done vicariously (in case of the
EQUAL CZ web through MA, in the structural funds monitoring system Monit
through NSS and in the ECDB database through the database administrator).
The organisations complained that in some cases they had had to ask
for updating of the data repeatedly, however, in most of the cases they
were not interested in administration of these systems at all. Thus
it need not be clear at all to an ordinary user, who would be searching
in these systems for the information on the projects, whether the content
is up-to-date and who is responsible for it. ...
... When using the MSSF
Monit system, the evaluation team has found out that it does not use
the information utilisable for this evaluation (it is focused purely
on the monitoring area). ...
... When using the MSSF
Monit system, the evaluation team has found out that it does not use
the information utilisable for this evaluation (it is focused purely
on the monitoring area). ...
... In general, it is possible
to state that when carrying out the evaluation, it was difficult to
obtain reliable and up-to-date information on the individual projects
and in case, when this information was obtained, it was not sure whether
a source always accessible was concerned. ...
... Evaluation visits, interviews and case studies ...
... The exact form of the
tools the team has used is obvious from the annexes, in which, among
others, a structure of notes of an interview and a visit, a case study
structure, a scenario of evaluation visits, a list of case studies and
a list of the persons, who gave an interview and who were visited, are
mentioned. The visits and interviews in the organisations took place
in the time, when the projects were close after the closure, as the
case may be their formal closure took place and the transnational cooperation
has been already closed in the overwhelming majority of cases. However,
in the majority of cases the project’s representatives were not yet
able to assess the transnational cooperation “from a distance”.
It was rather an exception if they were themselves able to take up a
more complex evaluating position. It was often difficult for them to
detach the aspect of the transnational cooperation from the content
(topic) itself of the project. On the other hand, if an interview proceeded
with a person, who was in charge of the transnational cooperation exclusively,
the ability to refer about the transnational cooperation independently
on the project topics was incomparably higher, however the ability of
the total evaluation of the transnational cooperation within the framework
of the project decreased in due proportion with it. ...
... The exact form of the
tools the team has used is obvious from the annexes, in which, among
others, a structure of notes of an interview and a visit, a case study
structure, a scenario of evaluation visits, a list of case studies and
a list of the persons, who gave an interview and who were visited, are
mentioned. The visits and interviews in the organisations took place
in the time, when the projects were close after the closure, as the
case may be their formal closure took place and the transnational cooperation
has been already closed in the overwhelming majority of cases. However,
in the majority of cases the project’s representatives were not yet
able to assess the transnational cooperation “from a distance”.
It was rather an exception if they were themselves able to take up a
more complex evaluating position. It was often difficult for them to
detach the aspect of the transnational cooperation from the content
(topic) itself of the project. On the other hand, if an interview proceeded
with a person, who was in charge of the transnational cooperation exclusively,
the ability to refer about the transnational cooperation independently
on the project topics was incomparably higher, however the ability of
the total evaluation of the transnational cooperation within the framework
of the project decreased in due proportion with it. ...
... Focus groups and evaluation of processes ...
... The focus groups were
always designed so that they might balance the findings from the questionnaire
investigation and from the evaluation visits and interviews. Above all
the visits and interviews were conducted, with some exceptions (interviews
with the representatives of the European Commission and CIP EQUAL agencies
in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom) with the representatives of the development partnerships
and the transnational cooperation coordinators. Thus the observations
mentioned in the previous chapter are based on this sample very clearly
and the very focus groups should bring another view of the matter. For
this reason two groups were suggested, one with the NSS representatives
and one with the MA representatives. A scenario was established for
each group, i.e. the questions that were asked during the discussion
and the sense of which was to observe how the transnational cooperation
management and implementation proceeded, how the monitoring and the evaluation
were used, what kind of support was provided to the implementing bodies.
A supplement to the focus groups was then the evaluation of processes,
in this case above all of the information and communication flows among
the mentioned bodies, i.e. the managing authority, PricewaterhouseCoopers
and representatives of the development partnerships. Moreover, this
picture of the flows becomes somewhat complicated by the fact that,
within the framework of the transnational cooperation, it is necessary
to negotiate also with the bodies outside the national field, thus with
the representatives of the foreign development partnerships and even
with the representatives of the foreign managing authorities (e.g. in
case of TCA modification) and ministries (e.g. in case of proposals
of international coordination of search for partners and gathering information
to the transnational cooperation). ...
... The focus groups were
always designed so that they might balance the findings from the questionnaire
investigation and from the evaluation visits and interviews. Above all
the visits and interviews were conducted, with some exceptions (interviews
with the representatives of the European Commission and CIP EQUAL agencies
in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom) with the representatives of the development partnerships
and the transnational cooperation coordinators. Thus the observations
mentioned in the previous chapter are based on this sample very clearly
and the very focus groups should bring another view of the matter. For
this reason two groups were suggested, one with the NSS representatives
and one with the MA representatives. A scenario was established for
each group, i.e. the questions that were asked during the discussion
and the sense of which was to observe how the transnational cooperation
management and implementation proceeded, how the monitoring and the evaluation
were used, what kind of support was provided to the implementing bodies.
A supplement to the focus groups was then the evaluation of processes,
in this case above all of the information and communication flows among
the mentioned bodies, i.e. the managing authority, PricewaterhouseCoopers
and representatives of the development partnerships. Moreover, this
picture of the flows becomes somewhat complicated by the fact that,
within the framework of the transnational cooperation, it is necessary
to negotiate also with the bodies outside the national field, thus with
the representatives of the foreign development partnerships and even
with the representatives of the foreign managing authorities (e.g. in
case of TCA modification) and ministries (e.g. in case of proposals
of international coordination of search for partners and gathering information
to the transnational cooperation). ...
... The focus groups were
always designed so that they might balance the findings from the questionnaire
investigation and from the evaluation visits and interviews. Above all
the visits and interviews were conducted, with some exceptions (interviews
with the representatives of the European Commission and CIP EQUAL agencies
in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom) with the representatives of the development partnerships
and the transnational cooperation coordinators. Thus the observations
mentioned in the previous chapter are based on this sample very clearly
and the very focus groups should bring another view of the matter. For
this reason two groups were suggested, one with the NSS representatives
and one with the MA representatives. A scenario was established for
each group, i.e. the questions that were asked during the discussion
and the sense of which was to observe how the transnational cooperation
management and implementation proceeded, how the monitoring and the evaluation
were used, what kind of support was provided to the implementing bodies.
A supplement to the focus groups was then the evaluation of processes,
in this case above all of the information and communication flows among
the mentioned bodies, i.e. the managing authority, PricewaterhouseCoopers
and representatives of the development partnerships. Moreover, this
picture of the flows becomes somewhat complicated by the fact that,
within the framework of the transnational cooperation, it is necessary
to negotiate also with the bodies outside the national field, thus with
the representatives of the foreign development partnerships and even
with the representatives of the foreign managing authorities (e.g. in
case of TCA modification) and ministries (e.g. in case of proposals
of international coordination of search for partners and gathering information
to the transnational cooperation). ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The other line being
followed by means of the focus groups and evaluation of processes was
the issue of projects’ sustainability, mainstreaming and further development
of the created products. The managing authority considers active participation
in dissemination and mainstreaming of the outputs and results of the
projects and expects benefits from the point of view of increased impact
of projects, ensuring of sustainability of their outputs, and generally
improved quality of the projects. For the time being, a strategy for
further disposal of the products, clarification of the roles, responsibilities
and mandate come into existence. The managing authority could make decisions
on the extent of utilisation of the individual outputs already on the
basis of the project applications, from which it must be obvious, which
outputs will arise, for whom these will be intended and how they will
be disposed of after the project closure. Thus the support of the outputs,
mainstreaming and dissemination will have a systemic basis, however,
within its orientation, it must work with the outputs individually.
When making use of the outputs and results of the projects, the managing
authority should be engaged mainly at two levels: the international
one, when the outputs that are common to several countries, will be
concerned, and the national one, within the sense that MA would be a
partner for mainstreaming. The extent, to which the role of the managing
authority will be active in the utilisation of the outputs of the projects,
relates not only to its strategy, but also to the fact what mandate,
mission and possibilities the managing authority has; thus the human,
organisational and financial capacities for proper functioning of such
system must exist. The capacities of MA may be strengthened either through
an external agency or by strengthening the managing authority's internal
capacities. ...
... In this chapter, we
mention the findings according to the topics that we have identified
as the central ones. De facto, these topics copy the management cycle
of the projects, thus they are not formulated according to the tender
documentation, but they come out from this assignment at the same time.
The outline of the evaluation themes according to the original assignment
is mentioned only in the following chapter. ...
... In the countries that
were included in the evaluation, various measures concerning facilitation
of the process of formation of the transnational partnerships were recommended
and somewhere also implemented. For example creation of a special measure
or a project at the programme management level (not at the project level)
was concerned. Or it was a recommendation of minimum extent of the partnership,
a recommendation which countries to focus on when searching for partners
(further to the national strategies) or which activities shall be strengthened
(it is generally recommended to limit generic activities that miss particular
content); somewhere this principle was transposed into formation of
a particular physical institution, the mission of which is to support
the transnational partnership in the projects in the given programme.
This fact was not reflected in the transnational cooperation preparation
stage from the Czech part and the Czech partners were not prepared for
it, somewhere they could have got in disadvantageous or unequal position
in some other way during formation of the partnership. ...
... The transnational cooperation
preparation should have proceeded in several phases but this did not
always succeed due to the time pressure. Within the framework of the
evaluation it has proved that the role of DPA was often underestimated,
sometimes even the precise TCA was prepared right away (DPA used completely
same formulations in the passages on partnership). Even in cases where
the approach to the transnational partnership was more or less formal
and remained limited to several partial tools (for example to working
groups), this approach has changed within the framework of the implementation
thanks to the dynamics it was bringing. At the same time it has shown
up that a whole number of “types” of partnerships exists associated
with the partners’ expectations. Where these expectations had not
been clarified mutually well, the cooperation remained more or less
formal, for the substantial modifications were not then attainable realistically
within the framework of the project already in progress (mutual agreement
and then the approval process by more national managing authorities).
Various types of expected cooperation may be identified according to
the basic theses and expectations formulated at the preparation of DPA,
further according to the selected tools of the transnational cooperation
and also according to the way how the local partners are engaged in
the transnational cooperation. ...
... In the self-evaluation
statements about the experience with management and implementation of
the transnational cooperation in the CIP EQUAL projects, the stress
on the administration of projects prevails. This represented such burden
and was so demanding that the majority of the interviewees agree that
at least one or two full-time jobs are necessary to be earmarked purely
for the administration. The participants of the evaluation recommend
earmarking one special person for the transnational cooperation itself.
If the transnational cooperation is really active, then its coordination
and work related to it will require one full-time job, too. We do not
mention this argumentation as a recommendation for increasing the funds
or warning against waste. But two realistic areas of problems result
from it: 1) at the persons, who are able to do this work, there is high
fluctuation rate, at the same time they are difficult to be substituted
– and this is then an actual threat for the project and can affect
it significantly negatively; 2) it is not manageable for the implementing
organisations to pay from the salary of a “coordinator”/“administrator”
of the development partnership their ordinary employees, who will manage
the transnational cooperation beyond the framework of their normal work
duties (also this finding was a reason for high fluctuation). ...
... In the self-evaluation
statements about the experience with management and implementation of
the transnational cooperation in the CIP EQUAL projects, the stress
on the administration of projects prevails. This represented such burden
and was so demanding that the majority of the interviewees agree that
at least one or two full-time jobs are necessary to be earmarked purely
for the administration. The participants of the evaluation recommend
earmarking one special person for the transnational cooperation itself.
If the transnational cooperation is really active, then its coordination
and work related to it will require one full-time job, too. We do not
mention this argumentation as a recommendation for increasing the funds
or warning against waste. But two realistic areas of problems result
from it: 1) at the persons, who are able to do this work, there is high
fluctuation rate, at the same time they are difficult to be substituted
– and this is then an actual threat for the project and can affect
it significantly negatively; 2) it is not manageable for the implementing
organisations to pay from the salary of a “coordinator”/“administrator”
of the development partnership their ordinary employees, who will manage
the transnational cooperation beyond the framework of their normal work
duties (also this finding was a reason for high fluctuation). ...
... The evaluation has shown
provably that high administrative burden may cause threat to the project,
namely not for the reason of high financial intensity, but for the reason
of strong dependence of the projects on particular implementing entities,
particular persons in the management of the project; this concerns also
the transnational cooperation. ...
... The issues of eligibility
of expenses do not play, according to the findings of the evaluation,
a significant role. Its importance is more psychological. In the questionnaire
investigation the respondents answered most often to the question, if
the project implementing entities and their foreign partners understood
the eligible expenditures differently, whether this fact influenced
the project implementation, that they had encountered such problems
admittedly, but these had not influenced the project implementation,
or they had not encountered such problems at all. The situation of the
foreign project implementing entities is contrary, these most often
mentioned they had not encountered the problems at all, as the case
may be that these had not influenced the project implementation. Thus
we mean by the psychological level of the problem the fact the Czech
implementing entities often “complain” that the conditions for the
implementation were set more “kindly” for their foreign partners.
However, partially the fact might probably play a significant role here
that for the majority of their partners it was not that principal problem
if some expenditure connected e.g. with business meetings, workshops
or conferences “was not acknowledged” because these organisations
have their own reserves, from which they may cover such minor disproportions.
More generally, this hypothesis may be formulated that in the implementation
of the projects across various countries the stability of companies
and organisations, culture in the non-profit sector and long-term experience
with the partnership itself play the major role. The differences in
development, equipment and all-society support are perceived then for
example in such marginalities, to which the host customs, financial
possibilities or principles of the management of the partners belong. ...
... The representatives
of the solving entities construe their contingent failure above all
as failure of the administration. However, such perception is understandable
only at the evaluation of the initial project stages, while in the implementation
and mainstreaming stage it is necessary for the partners to be able to
agree not only upon the form and practical form of the project management,
but also upon the content of the implementation of the project itself,
the methods of work being used, the quality of the outputs, involvement
of various groups of people and bodies, etc. ...
... The evaluation has showed,
that for the understanding to the factors of success it is suitable
to differentiate more the component of management and the component
of the project implementation itself, namely in all stages of the course
of the project (preparation, implementation as a rule in yearly cycles,
etc). The second significant structural result of this analysis is that
it is suitable to construe the individual types of activities in context
of the types of the target groups interested. Then it is easier to choose
constellations of elements, which may be determined as the factors playing
a significant role towards success of the project. ...
... From the point of view
of the implementation, the most general contribution of the transnational
cooperation assessed by the implementing entities is “experience”“.
In spite of high evaluation of the sophisticated outputs and products,
the practical experience seems to be assessed, on a long-term basis,
as the principal contribution. A change in perception of connexions,
of what can be concerned as “normal”, and the like is concerned.
Further, it is the inspiration by particular procedures, approaches,
finding of models, stimuli. These “basal” added values may not be
underestimated. At the same time it does not mean in any case that the
participants would not be able to appreciate also other, sophisticated
outputs of the transnational partnership. ...
... The transnational cooperation
is understood as an integral part of the projects – either as an obligatory
component part or as something, which belongs to this programme necessarily,
but also inherently (i.e. a whole scale of positions is present from
“it must be” to “it would not be the same without it”). Therefore
it is difficult for many respondents to differentiate during the evaluation
the aspect of cooperation with the foreign partners from the content
of the project itself. In general, we may state that the transnational
cooperation influenced the project activities, implementation and outputs
most significantly there, where the successful and mastered projects
were concerned – it does not prove it would depend somehow on thematic
orientation of the project, on the types of the activities chosen for
the transnational cooperation, on type of the project or the type of
the bodies, which implemented the project. ...
... Each of the mentioned
types of cooperation brings different effects. It resulted from the
results of the questionnaire investigation that the recipients had classified
in particular the transfer of practices and know-how, the development
of the partnership, joint development of methods and new tools and the
planning and management of the project itself as the key activities
for the project’s success. However, the complex results of the evaluation
have proved that the activities relating to the transnational cooperation
used most often in CZ do not have to belong necessarily to the most
suitable ones. ...
... From the simplified
questionnaire investigation and the evaluation visits and interviews
a simplified classification of the activities and the tools of cooperation
used according to the reached target groups has resulted: ...
...
Dissemination of the best
practices: The factor of success is evaluation of transferability
and utilisation of the given practice, procedure, new tool. The dissemination
may be more formal, presupposing passive takeover of current modules,
work procedures, etc. or active, consisting in processes of acquisition
of the given practices (in such case it belongs rather to creative,
freer, open processes). ...
... Self-evaluation: ...
...
Benchmarking, development
and support of networks or associations; building of capacities; twinning;
students’ or clients’ placement and mobility of employees and supervisors:
According to the results of the questionnaire investigation, utilisation
of these tools was minimal. The evaluation team does not have sufficient
amount of documents to be able to deduce qualified conclusions. ...
... As we have mentioned,
it is possible to prevent such situations by correct formulation of
the projects, in particular in the matter of the copyright, reproductive
rights and other rights with regard to the products, their further innovation
and utilisation. It is necessary to ensure that the projects could
not be formulated in such way that further dissemination of the created
product requires the means and procedures the given applicant is not
able to ensure and he neither undertakes to do so. It is necessary to
consider such product as incomplete and incapable of independent utilisation
– it is necessary to solve similar situations already in the phase
of evaluation and selection of the projects. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
are two different mechanisms that have different partial goals, orientation
and procedures, in spite of that they accord on the global objective
to help to increase the quality of the management and implementation
of the projects and the programme as a whole. For this reason, they also
need to make sense, and the use of these activities must be clear to
all the participants. Monitoring is gathering of the knowledge
in the structure prepared in advance so that it would have substantial
information (communicative) value and it would be possible to aggregate
them. Monitoring brings the information on the course of certain activities
retroactively, namely in the structure that does not change in the course
of the monitoring. Evaluation is a more-layer process containing
gathering of knowledge (observation), its systemisation in findings
and above all their interpretation with regard to the defined objectives
and the expected states, but also with regard to dynamics, unforeseen
changes and the resulting state. The evaluation brings the interpretation
on how it is possible to understand some modified or unforeseen facts
and how it is possible to understand connexions. Thus the evaluation
is necessary there where we ask about effectiveness, search for successful
and unsuccessful forms, procedures, etc. ...
... Evaluation ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
are two different mechanisms that have different partial goals, orientation
and procedures, in spite of that they accord on the global objective
to help to increase the quality of the management and implementation
of the projects and the programme as a whole. For this reason, they also
need to make sense, and the use of these activities must be clear to
all the participants. Monitoring is gathering of the knowledge
in the structure prepared in advance so that it would have substantial
information (communicative) value and it would be possible to aggregate
them. Monitoring brings the information on the course of certain activities
retroactively, namely in the structure that does not change in the course
of the monitoring. Evaluation is a more-layer process containing
gathering of knowledge (observation), its systemisation in findings
and above all their interpretation with regard to the defined objectives
and the expected states, but also with regard to dynamics, unforeseen
changes and the resulting state. The evaluation brings the interpretation
on how it is possible to understand some modified or unforeseen facts
and how it is possible to understand connexions. Thus the evaluation
is necessary there where we ask about effectiveness, search for successful
and unsuccessful forms, procedures, etc. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
are two different mechanisms that have different partial goals, orientation
and procedures, in spite of that they accord on the global objective
to help to increase the quality of the management and implementation
of the projects and the programme as a whole. For this reason, they also
need to make sense, and the use of these activities must be clear to
all the participants. Monitoring is gathering of the knowledge
in the structure prepared in advance so that it would have substantial
information (communicative) value and it would be possible to aggregate
them. Monitoring brings the information on the course of certain activities
retroactively, namely in the structure that does not change in the course
of the monitoring. Evaluation is a more-layer process containing
gathering of knowledge (observation), its systemisation in findings
and above all their interpretation with regard to the defined objectives
and the expected states, but also with regard to dynamics, unforeseen
changes and the resulting state. The evaluation brings the interpretation
on how it is possible to understand some modified or unforeseen facts
and how it is possible to understand connexions. Thus the evaluation
is necessary there where we ask about effectiveness, search for successful
and unsuccessful forms, procedures, etc. ...
... It is necessary to assist
the projects to be able to use these tools suitably for the own quality
management and for the project management cycle. A methodical document
exists to these tools, which is Guidebook for
the Transnational Cooperation of the Community Initiative EQUAL,
which may be commented and extended for it is not formulated with regard
to the needs of projects (but from the point of view of the programme
needs) and it misses a basic outline of evaluation types and purpose
of the individual evaluation tools. In addition to that, it is necessary
to inform the applicants on the necessity to use monitoring and evaluations
already at preparation of the applications since for their suitable
inclusion in the plans and implementation of projects it is necessary
to calculate also with the appropriate capacities. For this reason,
it would be suitable to implement specifically focussed educational
and training activities of MA for the purpose of elucidation of the
actual significance of monitoring and evaluation, how to assign and
implement them (including allocation of appropriate capacities already
when drawing up the project’s plan and budget), how to asses their
quality (especially in case of tendering external evaluations and management
of internal evaluations) and how to use them strategically for the management
itself. ...
... It is necessary to assist
the projects to be able to use these tools suitably for the own quality
management and for the project management cycle. A methodical document
exists to these tools, which is Guidebook for
the Transnational Cooperation of the Community Initiative EQUAL,
which may be commented and extended for it is not formulated with regard
to the needs of projects (but from the point of view of the programme
needs) and it misses a basic outline of evaluation types and purpose
of the individual evaluation tools. In addition to that, it is necessary
to inform the applicants on the necessity to use monitoring and evaluations
already at preparation of the applications since for their suitable
inclusion in the plans and implementation of projects it is necessary
to calculate also with the appropriate capacities. For this reason,
it would be suitable to implement specifically focussed educational
and training activities of MA for the purpose of elucidation of the
actual significance of monitoring and evaluation, how to assign and
implement them (including allocation of appropriate capacities already
when drawing up the project’s plan and budget), how to asses their
quality (especially in case of tendering external evaluations and management
of internal evaluations) and how to use them strategically for the management
itself. ...
... It is necessary to assist
the projects to be able to use these tools suitably for the own quality
management and for the project management cycle. A methodical document
exists to these tools, which is Guidebook for
the Transnational Cooperation of the Community Initiative EQUAL,
which may be commented and extended for it is not formulated with regard
to the needs of projects (but from the point of view of the programme
needs) and it misses a basic outline of evaluation types and purpose
of the individual evaluation tools. In addition to that, it is necessary
to inform the applicants on the necessity to use monitoring and evaluations
already at preparation of the applications since for their suitable
inclusion in the plans and implementation of projects it is necessary
to calculate also with the appropriate capacities. For this reason,
it would be suitable to implement specifically focussed educational
and training activities of MA for the purpose of elucidation of the
actual significance of monitoring and evaluation, how to assign and
implement them (including allocation of appropriate capacities already
when drawing up the project’s plan and budget), how to asses their
quality (especially in case of tendering external evaluations and management
of internal evaluations) and how to use them strategically for the management
itself. ...
... As regards the evaluations,
a scale of various evaluation tools, types of evaluations and also thematic
orientation of the evaluations is offered. It is necessary to know these
possibilities and to select them suitably with respect to the purpose
and expectations the valuation shall fulfil. In the transnational cooperation,
it is possible to assess partial project outputs and products arisen
and verified in the transnational partnership, when the assessment will
provide feedback either still in the course of the transnational cooperation
itself or for the consequential projects in the following calls through
the managing authorities and consultancy sources. After all, this is
the sense of monitoring and evaluation – dissemination of outputs from
the programme implementation. ...
... As regards the evaluations,
a scale of various evaluation tools, types of evaluations and also thematic
orientation of the evaluations is offered. It is necessary to know these
possibilities and to select them suitably with respect to the purpose
and expectations the valuation shall fulfil. In the transnational cooperation,
it is possible to assess partial project outputs and products arisen
and verified in the transnational partnership, when the assessment will
provide feedback either still in the course of the transnational cooperation
itself or for the consequential projects in the following calls through
the managing authorities and consultancy sources. After all, this is
the sense of monitoring and evaluation – dissemination of outputs from
the programme implementation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
... Management and implementation
of the transnational cooperation priority axis does not arise in vacuum,
it follows up with the previous experience in management of similar
programmes and it does not definitely assume that it will leave the
begun tradition completely. On the contrary, this is obviously the solution
to the basic question, the general problem connected with management
of any programmes: namely to what extent to set the rules and restrictions
in such a way that the exerted endeavour would really reflect in the
improved quality of the implemented projects. It appears that obviously
the surest answer is the link-up with the traditions, the implementing
entities’ expectations and the previous experience, from which this
results as a rule. The priority axis management must work necessarily
with the context of the Czech environment, thus with the relatively
low experience of the project implementing entities in transnational
partnerships and (sometimes) with the partnership at all, smaller stability
of institutions and weak links between the transnational and national
level of the partnership. In the countries that were included in the
evaluation, various measures were recommended and somewhere also implemented.
For example, creation of a special measure or a project at the programme
management level (not at the project level) was concerned, which will
facilitate the process of search for the partners and formation of the
transnational partnership; in some countries this type of measures is
implemented in the form recommendation of minimum extent of the partnership,
which countries to focus on when searching for partners (further to
the national strategies), which activities shall be strengthened (it
is generally recommended to limit generic activities that miss the concrete
content); somewhere this principle was transposed into formation of
a concrete physical institution, the mission of which is to support
transnational partnership in the projects in the given programme. A
recommendation to announce gradually successive calls, some of which
(or each) will focus specifically of the concrete priority area, geographical
territory or the types of activities, seems and an alternative to this
model. ...
6 DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE OF EVALUATION ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION OUTPUTS [go to this article ]
... DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE OF EVALUATION ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION OUTPUTS ...
... DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSE OF EVALUATION ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION OUTPUTS ...
... In order to understand
the procedure of the evaluation implementation, it is suitable to give
the ongoing outputs, their assignment and in short also the content
of the outputs into context, even if it is, in most of the cases, expanded
on in other places of this Final Report in different connections. It
is in particular because the ongoing outputs from the evaluations were
not intended for publishing. The below-mentioned text is supplemented
by Annex 8.2 Evaluation topics. ...
... In order to understand
the procedure of the evaluation implementation, it is suitable to give
the ongoing outputs, their assignment and in short also the content
of the outputs into context, even if it is, in most of the cases, expanded
on in other places of this Final Report in different connections. It
is in particular because the ongoing outputs from the evaluations were
not intended for publishing. The below-mentioned text is supplemented
by Annex 8.2 Evaluation topics. ...
... The evaluation commenced
with considerable delay, the data of handover of the interim reports
were slightly postponed but the date of the Final Report handover was
not postponed. This has lead to great pressure upon the evaluation time
schedule, a whole number of the implementation stages had to overlap
each other, the evaluation reports (in particular the Input Report and
the First Evaluation Report) were formulated as preliminary in many
aspects. Thus the outputs had to be supplemented with as special study
called “Study Focused on Support in Preparation of the Calls of OP
LZZ Transnational Cooperation Priority Axis”, output No. 4 of the
project. ...
... The evaluation commenced
with considerable delay, the data of handover of the interim reports
were slightly postponed but the date of the Final Report handover was
not postponed. This has lead to great pressure upon the evaluation time
schedule, a whole number of the implementation stages had to overlap
each other, the evaluation reports (in particular the Input Report and
the First Evaluation Report) were formulated as preliminary in many
aspects. Thus the outputs had to be supplemented with as special study
called “Study Focused on Support in Preparation of the Calls of OP
LZZ Transnational Cooperation Priority Axis”, output No. 4 of the
project. ...
... The evaluation commenced
with considerable delay, the data of handover of the interim reports
were slightly postponed but the date of the Final Report handover was
not postponed. This has lead to great pressure upon the evaluation time
schedule, a whole number of the implementation stages had to overlap
each other, the evaluation reports (in particular the Input Report and
the First Evaluation Report) were formulated as preliminary in many
aspects. Thus the outputs had to be supplemented with as special study
called “Study Focused on Support in Preparation of the Calls of OP
LZZ Transnational Cooperation Priority Axis”, output No. 4 of the
project. ...
... The evaluation commenced
with considerable delay, the data of handover of the interim reports
were slightly postponed but the date of the Final Report handover was
not postponed. This has lead to great pressure upon the evaluation time
schedule, a whole number of the implementation stages had to overlap
each other, the evaluation reports (in particular the Input Report and
the First Evaluation Report) were formulated as preliminary in many
aspects. Thus the outputs had to be supplemented with as special study
called “Study Focused on Support in Preparation of the Calls of OP
LZZ Transnational Cooperation Priority Axis”, output No. 4 of the
project. ...
6.1 Topic 1: Part of the study focused on the support in the preparation the first call of Priority axis Transnational Cooperation OP LZZ [go to this article ]
... Partial evaluation
outputs: ...
... The original time schedule
of the project assumed that this part would be drawn up as the first
one and would be a part of the Input Report. Due to the overall shift
in commencement of the evaluation and procedure of successive works,
the framework introduction in the First Input Report was supplemented
by the document of July 2008. Above all, the first outputs from the
questionnaires and realized visits and interviews were used in it. Study
of documents and advices of people involved in CIP EQUAL management
abroad were used to great extent; background research of the available
sources was carried out, namely both of the documents concerning OP
LZZ and the given priority axis and also the related documents (in the
time of processing the task only a document from France was available),
methodologies to transnational cooperation in general and above all
the evaluations and good experience (what proved useful, how the transnational
cooperation actually proceeds). For the purpose of consideration of
the suitable areas of intervention and suitability of selection of the
partners, the evaluation team drew up a SWOT analysis based on the experience
from the partnership across countries, and summarises thus the specifics
of the environment, topics, conditions, cultural and historical tradition,
experience and potential for partnership with bodies from CZ. These
findings were transposed into relevant recommendations. The Third Interim
Report followed up with this process. ...
... The original time schedule
of the project assumed that this part would be drawn up as the first
one and would be a part of the Input Report. Due to the overall shift
in commencement of the evaluation and procedure of successive works,
the framework introduction in the First Input Report was supplemented
by the document of July 2008. Above all, the first outputs from the
questionnaires and realized visits and interviews were used in it. Study
of documents and advices of people involved in CIP EQUAL management
abroad were used to great extent; background research of the available
sources was carried out, namely both of the documents concerning OP
LZZ and the given priority axis and also the related documents (in the
time of processing the task only a document from France was available),
methodologies to transnational cooperation in general and above all
the evaluations and good experience (what proved useful, how the transnational
cooperation actually proceeds). For the purpose of consideration of
the suitable areas of intervention and suitability of selection of the
partners, the evaluation team drew up a SWOT analysis based on the experience
from the partnership across countries, and summarises thus the specifics
of the environment, topics, conditions, cultural and historical tradition,
experience and potential for partnership with bodies from CZ. These
findings were transposed into relevant recommendations. The Third Interim
Report followed up with this process. ...
6.5 Topic 5: Analysis of interesting approaches and specific areas of HRD in other EU countries [go to this article ]
... Partial evaluation
outputs to topics 2 - 5: ...
... The notes from the evaluation
visits and interviews of the Czech (topic 2) and foreign (topic 3) evaluators,
further then the knowledge from the transnational and regional comparison
and from the study of documents were used. The questionnaire investigation
that took place in all eleven countries involved in the evaluation was
then a very substantial source; the team drew the conclusions for processing
of topics 2 to 4 from this investigation. ...
... The notes from the evaluation
visits and interviews of the Czech (topic 2) and foreign (topic 3) evaluators,
further then the knowledge from the transnational and regional comparison
and from the study of documents were used. The questionnaire investigation
that took place in all eleven countries involved in the evaluation was
then a very substantial source; the team drew the conclusions for processing
of topics 2 to 4 from this investigation. ...
... The most significant
factors influencing efficiency and success of the transnational cooperation
seem to be, according to the results of the evaluation, compliance /
sharing the project objectives among partners, selection of the partner
and the innovation rate of the concrete project. Above all, thanks to
this fact the preparatory and the initial stages of the project, which
consequently have the principal impact on the whole implementation,
seem essential for the success of the development partnership. In this
respect, also the cooperation with the managing authority and the quality
of its support is mentioned as the key factors, too. ...
... A specific part of the
study answered also the question of relevant HRD areas, on which it
would be desirable to focus the projects implemented in the form of
transnational cooperation in the following programming period. In the
time of processing this part of the evaluation only a call from France
for projects in transnational cooperation, strategic documents of HRD
and related areas from ten EU countries included in this evaluation
(see the list of sources in the annex hereto) and evaluation reports
concerning this topic from Poland and Austria were available. The evaluation
team was coming out from the findings from the evaluation visits, study
of documents and expert recommendations. While some countries have the
orientation of the transnational cooperation in HDR defined according
to the appropriate strategic documents thematically (if ever), other
countries prefer regional orientation (less frequent case). For this
reason the expert team combined both approaches and to do so it used
the SWOT method, thus it divided the analysis according to individual
countries and specified further the topics, which are recommended for
cooperation with the given country. However, the SWOT analysis defined
also a wider context, in which these topics come into question for Czech
organisations and identified risks connected with it. In any case it
is necessary to point out that these topics are secondary ones; really
primary is what was broken down in the First Interim Report in more
details, thus success in negotiating and planning of the partnership,
equilibrium of the partners, understanding and sharing joint objectives
and values. The topics we have singled out for the orientation of the
HRD projects implemented in the form of transnational cooperation are
the following ones: social economy and entrepreneurship (IT, PT), employment
services and advanced vocational training (UK, AT, FR), community development,
local partnership and wider partnership networks (UK, NL), social area,
inclusion and inclusion strategies (NL, DE, FR, UK, ES), research (HU,
PL, DE), Public Private Partnership and intersectoral cooperation (DE),
industry restructuring (ES), tourist industry (ES), cultural heritage
(ES, FR and the like). ...
... A specific part of the
study answered also the question of relevant HRD areas, on which it
would be desirable to focus the projects implemented in the form of
transnational cooperation in the following programming period. In the
time of processing this part of the evaluation only a call from France
for projects in transnational cooperation, strategic documents of HRD
and related areas from ten EU countries included in this evaluation
(see the list of sources in the annex hereto) and evaluation reports
concerning this topic from Poland and Austria were available. The evaluation
team was coming out from the findings from the evaluation visits, study
of documents and expert recommendations. While some countries have the
orientation of the transnational cooperation in HDR defined according
to the appropriate strategic documents thematically (if ever), other
countries prefer regional orientation (less frequent case). For this
reason the expert team combined both approaches and to do so it used
the SWOT method, thus it divided the analysis according to individual
countries and specified further the topics, which are recommended for
cooperation with the given country. However, the SWOT analysis defined
also a wider context, in which these topics come into question for Czech
organisations and identified risks connected with it. In any case it
is necessary to point out that these topics are secondary ones; really
primary is what was broken down in the First Interim Report in more
details, thus success in negotiating and planning of the partnership,
equilibrium of the partners, understanding and sharing joint objectives
and values. The topics we have singled out for the orientation of the
HRD projects implemented in the form of transnational cooperation are
the following ones: social economy and entrepreneurship (IT, PT), employment
services and advanced vocational training (UK, AT, FR), community development,
local partnership and wider partnership networks (UK, NL), social area,
inclusion and inclusion strategies (NL, DE, FR, UK, ES), research (HU,
PL, DE), Public Private Partnership and intersectoral cooperation (DE),
industry restructuring (ES), tourist industry (ES), cultural heritage
(ES, FR and the like). ...
... A specific part of the
study answered also the question of relevant HRD areas, on which it
would be desirable to focus the projects implemented in the form of
transnational cooperation in the following programming period. In the
time of processing this part of the evaluation only a call from France
for projects in transnational cooperation, strategic documents of HRD
and related areas from ten EU countries included in this evaluation
(see the list of sources in the annex hereto) and evaluation reports
concerning this topic from Poland and Austria were available. The evaluation
team was coming out from the findings from the evaluation visits, study
of documents and expert recommendations. While some countries have the
orientation of the transnational cooperation in HDR defined according
to the appropriate strategic documents thematically (if ever), other
countries prefer regional orientation (less frequent case). For this
reason the expert team combined both approaches and to do so it used
the SWOT method, thus it divided the analysis according to individual
countries and specified further the topics, which are recommended for
cooperation with the given country. However, the SWOT analysis defined
also a wider context, in which these topics come into question for Czech
organisations and identified risks connected with it. In any case it
is necessary to point out that these topics are secondary ones; really
primary is what was broken down in the First Interim Report in more
details, thus success in negotiating and planning of the partnership,
equilibrium of the partners, understanding and sharing joint objectives
and values. The topics we have singled out for the orientation of the
HRD projects implemented in the form of transnational cooperation are
the following ones: social economy and entrepreneurship (IT, PT), employment
services and advanced vocational training (UK, AT, FR), community development,
local partnership and wider partnership networks (UK, NL), social area,
inclusion and inclusion strategies (NL, DE, FR, UK, ES), research (HU,
PL, DE), Public Private Partnership and intersectoral cooperation (DE),
industry restructuring (ES), tourist industry (ES), cultural heritage
(ES, FR and the like). ...
... A specific part of the
study answered also the question of relevant HRD areas, on which it
would be desirable to focus the projects implemented in the form of
transnational cooperation in the following programming period. In the
time of processing this part of the evaluation only a call from France
for projects in transnational cooperation, strategic documents of HRD
and related areas from ten EU countries included in this evaluation
(see the list of sources in the annex hereto) and evaluation reports
concerning this topic from Poland and Austria were available. The evaluation
team was coming out from the findings from the evaluation visits, study
of documents and expert recommendations. While some countries have the
orientation of the transnational cooperation in HDR defined according
to the appropriate strategic documents thematically (if ever), other
countries prefer regional orientation (less frequent case). For this
reason the expert team combined both approaches and to do so it used
the SWOT method, thus it divided the analysis according to individual
countries and specified further the topics, which are recommended for
cooperation with the given country. However, the SWOT analysis defined
also a wider context, in which these topics come into question for Czech
organisations and identified risks connected with it. In any case it
is necessary to point out that these topics are secondary ones; really
primary is what was broken down in the First Interim Report in more
details, thus success in negotiating and planning of the partnership,
equilibrium of the partners, understanding and sharing joint objectives
and values. The topics we have singled out for the orientation of the
HRD projects implemented in the form of transnational cooperation are
the following ones: social economy and entrepreneurship (IT, PT), employment
services and advanced vocational training (UK, AT, FR), community development,
local partnership and wider partnership networks (UK, NL), social area,
inclusion and inclusion strategies (NL, DE, FR, UK, ES), research (HU,
PL, DE), Public Private Partnership and intersectoral cooperation (DE),
industry restructuring (ES), tourist industry (ES), cultural heritage
(ES, FR and the like). ...
... A specific part of the
study answered also the question of relevant HRD areas, on which it
would be desirable to focus the projects implemented in the form of
transnational cooperation in the following programming period. In the
time of processing this part of the evaluation only a call from France
for projects in transnational cooperation, strategic documents of HRD
and related areas from ten EU countries included in this evaluation
(see the list of sources in the annex hereto) and evaluation reports
concerning this topic from Poland and Austria were available. The evaluation
team was coming out from the findings from the evaluation visits, study
of documents and expert recommendations. While some countries have the
orientation of the transnational cooperation in HDR defined according
to the appropriate strategic documents thematically (if ever), other
countries prefer regional orientation (less frequent case). For this
reason the expert team combined both approaches and to do so it used
the SWOT method, thus it divided the analysis according to individual
countries and specified further the topics, which are recommended for
cooperation with the given country. However, the SWOT analysis defined
also a wider context, in which these topics come into question for Czech
organisations and identified risks connected with it. In any case it
is necessary to point out that these topics are secondary ones; really
primary is what was broken down in the First Interim Report in more
details, thus success in negotiating and planning of the partnership,
equilibrium of the partners, understanding and sharing joint objectives
and values. The topics we have singled out for the orientation of the
HRD projects implemented in the form of transnational cooperation are
the following ones: social economy and entrepreneurship (IT, PT), employment
services and advanced vocational training (UK, AT, FR), community development,
local partnership and wider partnership networks (UK, NL), social area,
inclusion and inclusion strategies (NL, DE, FR, UK, ES), research (HU,
PL, DE), Public Private Partnership and intersectoral cooperation (DE),
industry restructuring (ES), tourist industry (ES), cultural heritage
(ES, FR and the like). ...
6.6 Topic 6: Part of the study focused on the synthesis of the findings from previous parts of the study (part 1) [go to this article ]
... Partial evaluation
outputs to the first part of topic 6: ...
... In order to be able
to identify the factors of success and failure and to formulate consequent
recommendations, the evaluation differentiates the component of management
and the component of the project implementation itself, namely in all
stages of the course of the project; further it construes the individual
types of activities in context of the target groups. In general, it
is possible to state that the preparatory stage is essential for success
of the project; the investigation has not shown this stage would be
short in setting of the conditions and that there would be provable
chain of causation of failure of a concrete project with a short preparatory
period. However, effective utilisation of this period and quality of
support are concerned. The support from the part of managing and support
structures plays indisputably an important role in implementation of
the projects with transnational participation. It results both from
the questionnaire investigation and the interviews that the support
is essential at preparation of the projects and further when solving
operative problems connected with administration of the projects. Most
of the project implementing entities found their partners through the
ECDB database and in the implementation they inspired themselves by
various EQUAL manuals. The requirement towards MA to become involved
in mainstreaming and to help the projects to present their outputs at
the national and transnational levels seems as very significant. ...
... As regards the financial
means intended for the transnational cooperation, the problem does not
consist in their amount or availability, but it appears rather then
when the project is more open to modifications and innovations and reacts
to the requirements arisen only in its course. It results from the evaluation
that the high administrative burden may cause threat to the project,
namely not for the reason of high financial intensity, but for the reason
of strong dependence of the projects on concrete implementing entities,
concrete persons in the project’s management; this concerns also the
transnational cooperation. ...
6.7 Topic 6: Part of the study focused on the synthesis of the findings from previous parts of the study (part 2) [go to this article ]
... Partial evaluation
outputs to the second part of topic 6: ...
... The report was drawn
up as a complex analysis of focus groups and evaluation of processes,
it contained conclusions and recommendations. ...
... This part of the study
focused on the recommendations directed into the area of systemic utilisation
of the selected outputs and results of the projects financed from the ESF,
when it was considered on the one hand when this support should start
(from preparation of the projects till the period of projects’ closure),
and on the other hand how to implement this support. Both the possibilities
of external solution (external agencies) and the means of systemic projects,
where both the support of preparation of strong transnational partnerships
and mainstreaming of outputs and results of their work may be concerned,
were considered. The sense of further utilisation of the projects’
outputs and results consists in it that their quality improves in this
way, the parallel development of similar or same products is eliminated
and mainstreaming is supported significantly. The role of the managing
authority can be seen for example as an administrator of a central platform,
which would present individual outputs of the projects classified –
besides other criteria – according to the target groups. Since the
target groups are given by the respective operational programmes and
further by the orientation of the individual projects actually implemented,
the question then does not consist in who the outputs should be mediated
to, but above all how. The evaluation team’s proposals mentioned for
example information campaigns (including TV spots, billboards and other
means of traditional advertising), Internet advertising and viral marketing
(in general, this is possible to be used for everything, a communication
method is concerned), support to thematic networks with bigger accent
on expert authority, national, as the case may be thematic competitions,
conferences and fairs and further the events specifically focused and
made to measure to concrete target groups. ...
... As regards the models
of financing, common budget sources, revenues, systemic projects, national
projects may be used. As regards the cost factors of the project outputs,
the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) may be included in the project applications;
as regards the systemic and budget means, then the strategic decisions
at the level of ministries are concerned, as the case may be of concrete
operational programmes. The rule is valid that the system of support
to outputs and results of the projects must be transparent at the most
for a selective (not a flat) matter will be obviously concerned. Further,
this system will be introduced newly therefore it will be necessary
at the beginnings of the implementation to verify, whether the support
really achieves the stipulated objectives and quality. Thus the evaluation
will proceed by means of common techniques of social and economical
analysis – namely already at the selection of the projects, in course
of creation of the outputs and also after the termination of the projects
and handover of the outputs – on the basis of data obtained through
monitoring and specific evaluating procedures - on the basis of the
criteria known in advance contained in the operational programmes, in
the calls and, as the case may be also in assignments of systemic/national
projects. But the evaluation methods could be applied also for the decision-making
process itself, which will be necessary before the beginning itself
of the mentioned activities and which will be at the same time highly
determining for setting the indicators of quality/success. ...
... As regards the models
of financing, common budget sources, revenues, systemic projects, national
projects may be used. As regards the cost factors of the project outputs,
the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) may be included in the project applications;
as regards the systemic and budget means, then the strategic decisions
at the level of ministries are concerned, as the case may be of concrete
operational programmes. The rule is valid that the system of support
to outputs and results of the projects must be transparent at the most
for a selective (not a flat) matter will be obviously concerned. Further,
this system will be introduced newly therefore it will be necessary
at the beginnings of the implementation to verify, whether the support
really achieves the stipulated objectives and quality. Thus the evaluation
will proceed by means of common techniques of social and economical
analysis – namely already at the selection of the projects, in course
of creation of the outputs and also after the termination of the projects
and handover of the outputs – on the basis of data obtained through
monitoring and specific evaluating procedures - on the basis of the
criteria known in advance contained in the operational programmes, in
the calls and, as the case may be also in assignments of systemic/national
projects. But the evaluation methods could be applied also for the decision-making
process itself, which will be necessary before the beginning itself
of the mentioned activities and which will be at the same time highly
determining for setting the indicators of quality/success. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation ...
... To incorporate monitoring
and evaluation activities in the plan, time schedule and budget of the
project; ...
... To make use of evaluation
and monitoring for improvement of the management of the project quality
and its results; ...
... On the basis of ongoing evaluation,
to carry out programme corrections that will increase its effectiveness. ...
7.2.2 Formulation of expected outputs and results of the transnational cooperation [go to this article ]
... The calls should be announced
in the manner that would provide sufficient time not only for the drawing
up of projects, but also for the evaluation of a call as such (from
this reason, the version of announcement of more calls gradually and
differently oriented/modified seems as more convenient). ...
... Monitoring and evaluation ...
... It is necessary to help the
projects to be able to use the monitoring and evaluation tools for their
own quality management and the project cycle management. ...
... It is necessary to modify
the methodological aids, to focus the educational and training activities
of MA on this area for purpose of elucidation of the actual significance
of monitoring and evaluation, how to order and implement them (including
allocation of appropriate capacities already when drawing up the project’s
plan and budget), how to assess their quality (especially in case of
ordering external evaluations and management of internal evaluations)
and how to use them well for the management itself. ...
... As regards the evaluations,
both a scale of various evaluation tools, types of evaluations and also
thematic orientation of the evaluations is offered. It is necessary
to know these possibilities and to select them suitably with the respect
to the purpose and expectations the evaluation shall fulfil. At the
project level, it is recommended to work with ongoing evaluation in
sophisticated way, at the programme level it proved useful to combine
more types of evaluations that may be, moreover, classified according
to thematic areas. ...
... As regards the evaluations,
both a scale of various evaluation tools, types of evaluations and also
thematic orientation of the evaluations is offered. It is necessary
to know these possibilities and to select them suitably with the respect
to the purpose and expectations the evaluation shall fulfil. At the
project level, it is recommended to work with ongoing evaluation in
sophisticated way, at the programme level it proved useful to combine
more types of evaluations that may be, moreover, classified according
to thematic areas. ...
... As regards the evaluations,
both a scale of various evaluation tools, types of evaluations and also
thematic orientation of the evaluations is offered. It is necessary
to know these possibilities and to select them suitably with the respect
to the purpose and expectations the evaluation shall fulfil. At the
project level, it is recommended to work with ongoing evaluation in
sophisticated way, at the programme level it proved useful to combine
more types of evaluations that may be, moreover, classified according
to thematic areas. ...
... Contingent transnational
solving of monitoring and evaluation must be built on transnational
cooperation at the level of the managing authorities and specification
of the assignment for monitoring/evaluation from the position of the
given group of countries, namely at the level of comparisons (of similarities
or, on the contrary, of differences) in it how the individual accents
are defined in the priorities of the thematic (intervention) areas in
the given countries, in a wider context of the European Employment Strategy.
Setting of such cooperation must come out from agreements that will
define competencies of the individual actors, responsibility for system
administration and sharing costs connected with its development and
operation. ...
... Contingent transnational
solving of monitoring and evaluation must be built on transnational
cooperation at the level of the managing authorities and specification
of the assignment for monitoring/evaluation from the position of the
given group of countries, namely at the level of comparisons (of similarities
or, on the contrary, of differences) in it how the individual accents
are defined in the priorities of the thematic (intervention) areas in
the given countries, in a wider context of the European Employment Strategy.
Setting of such cooperation must come out from agreements that will
define competencies of the individual actors, responsibility for system
administration and sharing costs connected with its development and
operation. ...
... Within the framework
of the evaluation carried out and, in particular with regard to the
character of the evaluation questions two topics have been opened, which
rule out with its character that the recommendations of the evaluation
might result from the evaluation but it may provide a description and
structuring of these topics for contingent political decisions. ...
... Within the framework
of the evaluation carried out and, in particular with regard to the
character of the evaluation questions two topics have been opened, which
rule out with its character that the recommendations of the evaluation
might result from the evaluation but it may provide a description and
structuring of these topics for contingent political decisions. ...
... Within the framework
of the evaluation carried out and, in particular with regard to the
character of the evaluation questions two topics have been opened, which
rule out with its character that the recommendations of the evaluation
might result from the evaluation but it may provide a description and
structuring of these topics for contingent political decisions. ...
... Within the framework
of the evaluation carried out and, in particular with regard to the
character of the evaluation questions two topics have been opened, which
rule out with its character that the recommendations of the evaluation
might result from the evaluation but it may provide a description and
structuring of these topics for contingent political decisions. ...
... Evaluation Topics 1-6 ...
... Evaluation Visits Scenario ...
... Template for Evaluation Visits and Interviews ...