 |
||
Site search
mainstreaming
... “The project’s
administration was incredibly demanding, it cannot be compared to other
European projects at all: innovation, gender mainstreaming, horizontal
topics … I am persuaded that none of the implementing entities has
understood the content of these terms so far and that even the people
from the MoLSA would not be able to define them precisely. And we were
forced to pretend all the time we understand them and we work with them
actively and to make up whole paragraphs about it into interim reports.” ...
... The dissemination and mainstreaming
stages shall be ensured within the framework of the final project activities,
but due to all circumstances these activities sometimes fail to be completed
till the project’s conclusion. After the project’s termination the
organisations often do not have funds to maintain the employees, who
were the specialists for implementation of the activities started within
the framework of the EQUAL project; these often leave the organisation
as of the date of the project’s closure. ...
... As of the date of the project
termination the facts often cumulate creating discontinuities and complications.
This is related to the overall concept of the project financing where
it is obvious that it is also a substantial source covering also the
costs for the activity of the organisation as such. After the project
termination (if a new one does not start fluently) the organisation
solves then staffing and other subsistence problems. Admittedly, the
organisation undertakes to sustainability of the outputs, but it is
often at the limit of credibility; this fact depends, to considerable
extent, on whether the organisation gains further projects. At the close
of the project thus the organisation solves above all the way of survival
till obtaining another source. This weakens its ability to deal actively
with the processes related to mainstreaming. ...
... One of the aspects of sustainability
is also the issue of maintaining and development of the know-how developed
by the organisations, the bearers of which are particular employees.
If the project termination means loss of these people, it is partially
also a loss of the created know-how. The activities aiming at further
development of the created know-how should thus take account also particular
people, who are its bearers: the organisations should be able to “secure”
against the loss of the know-how and the managing authority should be
able to include them in consequential programmes (lobbying at national
and European level, seminars, dissemination, mainstreaming). ...
... To assess, to which extent
CIP EQUAL succeeded in inclusion of its results into national policies
and actions and into the ESF mainstreaming programmes; ...
... From the point of view
of contributions of the partnership, one of the repeatedly appreciated
contributions was the fact that through the formalised structure of
the project’s partners, the given organisation established a number
of partial partnerships with those, who participated in the individual
meetings of the partnership or used other work tools – their transnational
partners’ national partners. This motif appears as highly substantial,
it is often mentioned as a significant contribution of the transnational
partnership. Transnational formalised network relations sometimes even
have come into existence between the organisations, which participated
in the work on the project, without including any of the formal partners
of the transnational project. The mainstreaming process, dissemination
and further utilisation of the project outputs thus need not relate
to the original partnership according to TCA. Thus the organisation
already chooses the partner so that this would “cover” other potential
(transnational) partners, with whom it will then develop a particular
cooperation, as good as possible. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
...
Short-term attachments
and exchanges, study visits: One of the
most frequent activities, which is evaluated very positively at the
same time, and high contribution to quality and success of the project
is attributed to it. The activity was most often aimed directly at the
employees of the bodies involved in the transnational cooperation, as
the case may be at the national partners’ representatives or at the
target groups’ representatives (e.g. clients of the services, employers
and the like.). The factors of success are suitable choice of the participants
and of the venue (programme of the activity), suitable timing, ability
to facilitate the relations and contacts established during the activity,
ability to assist further development of the acquired skills and experience,
ability to interconnect this activity with mainstreaming at the national
level and ability to utilise the participants’ skills in other activities
of the project. The factors of failure are orientation at the form instead
at the content, wrong estimation of motivation and of the participants’
needs and a too strict plan. ...
... Sustainability, mainstreaming and wider partnership networks ...
... The issues of sustainability,
mainstreaming and wider partnership networks relate above all to: ...
... With regard to the aspect
of the transnational partnership and cooperation in the projects being
evaluated, it is necessary to construe these topics as complementary,
but not as marginal. In the basic plan, it is necessary for them to
be considered and solved already within the framework of the projects.
The solving entities bear indisputably the principal responsibility
for sustainability of the project’s outputs and also for maintaining
of the created relations and links, in spite of the fact that the role
of the national support and managing structure (and as the case may
be of other bodies) is considerable in this respect, in the mainstreaming
area in some cases (a least in the sense of coordination) even not substitutable
and leading – especially the areas of interdepartmental dissemination
and implementation at the level of regional or nation-wide public policy
or legislation are concerned. However, this role passes to the order
of the day only in the stage of completion of the projects and still
more significant after the termination of the given programme or the
programming period, when it becomes the main bearer of potential continuity
with overlap to all the potential players. ...
... A whole number of mainstreaming
aspects, which overlap the frameworks of the individual projects evidently,
whether the creation of the overall climate suitable for putting the
outputs of the projects into practice, pressure upon the competent bodies
to engage in the mainstreaming process and the like; orientation of
the projects towards the outputs relating to the implementation of principal
objectives of the concrete policies or formation of the public policies,
etc.; or consideration of the outputs of the projects in the European
institutions structures or the institutions of the states are concerned.
In all the cases mentioned here, it is suitable and often inevitable
for the projects to have the support at the relevant level – e.g.
at the level of the respective resort ministry, interdepartmental commission,
the government. In this case the managing authority is a part of one
of the ministries, so it is possible to consider that it could, within
the framework of the given ministry create conditions for the implementation
and dissemination of the outputs of the projects to have sufficient support
at appropriate places and to enjoy adequate attention of the representatives
of the institutions and also of the elected bodies. ...
... A whole number of mainstreaming
aspects, which overlap the frameworks of the individual projects evidently,
whether the creation of the overall climate suitable for putting the
outputs of the projects into practice, pressure upon the competent bodies
to engage in the mainstreaming process and the like; orientation of
the projects towards the outputs relating to the implementation of principal
objectives of the concrete policies or formation of the public policies,
etc.; or consideration of the outputs of the projects in the European
institutions structures or the institutions of the states are concerned.
In all the cases mentioned here, it is suitable and often inevitable
for the projects to have the support at the relevant level – e.g.
at the level of the respective resort ministry, interdepartmental commission,
the government. In this case the managing authority is a part of one
of the ministries, so it is possible to consider that it could, within
the framework of the given ministry create conditions for the implementation
and dissemination of the outputs of the projects to have sufficient support
at appropriate places and to enjoy adequate attention of the representatives
of the institutions and also of the elected bodies. ...
... Thus it may be assumed
that it will remain above all the matter of the projects themselves
(and the entities implementing them), to which extent they expect political
and structural (institutional) support in their final stage (it means
as a rule when holding conferences at the European level in Brussels
with participation of influential persons close to the European Commission
or the European Parliament or at the national level) and to which extent
they can generate this support by engaging the key players. If this
type of mainstreaming is assumed, it is necessary for its strategy to
be an integral part of the project, while it is necessary to begin to
map the necessary constellation of players and forces well in advance
already within the framework of the project activities themselves –
of course, in coordination with the managing authority. ...
... The resort ministry
is under pressure to support the dissemination process and dissemination
of some products also after closure of the projects. This is understandable
with regard to caesuras in the project financing; on the other hand,
no body may take over the responsibility instead of the project solving
bodies, namely even in case when it does not fulfil obviously its obligation
resulting from the project and it is imminent that it is not possible
to ensure mainstreaming after the project termination. It is necessary
in this mater that no additional costs would arise within the framework
of dissemination of the project results and implementation of the outputs. ...
... If further activities
from the part of the state bodies and institutions in the area of dissemination
and mainstreaming were not assumed in the project in advance, the ministry
may take over some mainstreaming activities on the basis of the managing
authority’s recommendation, but it should always be obvious that doing
so it concerns such project as unsuccessful – unable to ensure the
terms and conditions, under which the funds had been awarded to it. ...
... If further activities
from the part of the state bodies and institutions in the area of dissemination
and mainstreaming were not assumed in the project in advance, the ministry
may take over some mainstreaming activities on the basis of the managing
authority’s recommendation, but it should always be obvious that doing
so it concerns such project as unsuccessful – unable to ensure the
terms and conditions, under which the funds had been awarded to it. ...
... Different situation
is valid in case further interventions from the part of the state bodies
in the matter of mainstreaming were expected, agreed and the respective
body adopted this responsibility by the approval of the given project. ...
... In some cases, after
the termination of the project, processes proceed, which require external
support and the course of which is essential within the framework of
mainstreaming: they follow up with the links and processes established
in the projects, in particular at the transnational level, they follow
up with the current political events and reflect them, make use of their
dynamics and the like. ...
... In these documented
and chosen cases it is suitable for the managing authority to keep or
to create the possibility to use the suitably selected support tools.
Above all the support to processes is concerned that could not have
been assumed within the framework of the projects and that result from
the current situation and the circumstances occurred. It is suitable
to search for the form of suitable covering of some mainstreaming activities,
which are in compliance with the national strategy and the selected
priorities. At the same time it is appropriate to search for a suitable
form and to select adequate transnational cooperation tools. In this
sense, two basic directions seem as possible, namely cooperation with
the respective commissions of the Council or with the groups of the
European Parliament members – according to the orientation on the
executive or the legislation, in the same way inside the individual
countries. ...
... As regards the factors
of success, if mainstreaming and cooperation with the institutions and
individuals beyond the framework of the partnership formalised in the project
and essential for the dissemination of the outputs, their implementation
in practice, influencing policies and practice and the overall “background
of the project” are concerned, the ability to lobby, to acquire relevant
contacts, to address key players with the current agenda and to be able
to activate them and to involve them in the matter appear as essential.
The requirement to cooperate with the target groups, as the case may
be also with the intermediate bodies, is related with it, where the
factor of success is the ability to obtain fast feedback and to react
to the current situation related to the project. The success of the project
is often bound with it, how it will succeed to change the approaches
of the target groups, how the target group will accept the newly created
product, how the intermediary organisations will make use of the new
know-how, etc. The ability to be in contact with these groups (and if
possible, to involve them in these solutions already in the time of
preparation) is therefore also a significant factor of success. ...
... Above all from the point
of view of the managing authority, complex work with the outputs of
the projects – including those arisen from the transnational cooperation
(grouping of the results across the topic, in ideal case also across
the resorts) – is then absolutely essential in the area of dissemination
and mainstreaming. In this sense the responsibility for sensitiveness
towards potential usability (and accessibility) of the project outputs
for fulfilment of the public policy priorities and for their formulation
is not transferable to another player. ...
... 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. ...
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 ]
... A significant requirement
to MA relates to this, namely to assist the projects in mainstreaming,
thus to find and hand over suitable contacts, to help with lobbying,
to assist in dissemination of outputs, namely both at the national and
international level. MA should become a partner to projects, not only
an administrator, it should introduce the outputs of the projects to
the political scene and lobby for them. A frequent rebuke was the administrative
burden; the majority of the respondents agree that at least one or two
full-time jobs are necessary to be earmarked purely for the administration.
Everyone recommends earmarking of one special person for the transnational
cooperation itself. In the self-evaluating statements on the experience
in the transnational cooperation management and implementation in the
CIP EQUAL projects, the accent on the administration of the projects
prevails, the representatives of the solving entities construe their
contingent failure above all as failure of the administration. However,
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, quality of the
outputs, involvement of various groups of people and bodies, etc. On
the other hand, it is necessary to have sufficient space for the work
on the project itself for it is not possible to plan innovations in
advance, practical solutions come into existence only in the course
of the project. If it is possible within the framework of the rules,
MA should assist in modifications in plans and financing of the projects
at the most, it should become a support, an advisor, take away the administrative
burdens of the projects to the maximum possible extent defined by the
programme rules. ...
... A significant requirement
to MA relates to this, namely to assist the projects in mainstreaming,
thus to find and hand over suitable contacts, to help with lobbying,
to assist in dissemination of outputs, namely both at the national and
international level. MA should become a partner to projects, not only
an administrator, it should introduce the outputs of the projects to
the political scene and lobby for them. A frequent rebuke was the administrative
burden; the majority of the respondents agree that at least one or two
full-time jobs are necessary to be earmarked purely for the administration.
Everyone recommends earmarking of one special person for the transnational
cooperation itself. In the self-evaluating statements on the experience
in the transnational cooperation management and implementation in the
CIP EQUAL projects, the accent on the administration of the projects
prevails, the representatives of the solving entities construe their
contingent failure above all as failure of the administration. However,
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, quality of the
outputs, involvement of various groups of people and bodies, etc. On
the other hand, it is necessary to have sufficient space for the work
on the project itself for it is not possible to plan innovations in
advance, practical solutions come into existence only in the course
of the project. If it is possible within the framework of the rules,
MA should assist in modifications in plans and financing of the projects
at the most, it should become a support, an advisor, take away the administrative
burdens of the projects to the maximum possible extent defined by the
programme rules. ...
6.5 Topic 5: Analysis of interesting approaches and specific areas of HRD in other EU countries [go to this article ]
... Analysis of the specific
aspects and of the added value of the ESF projects based on the support
of transnational cooperation was elaborated in more details in the First
Interim Report and the account of its outputs were taken in this Final
Report in particular in concrete recommendations relating to implementation
of the projects with transnational aspect. The analysis has arrived
at the conclusion that 1) the projects containing the transnational
cooperation require longer time at the preparation, which must be planned
carefully at the same time whereas this plan should eliminate later
modifications of the transnational agreement, however, at the same time
it shall be possible to modify the original plan according to the needs
that will occur only from the implementation of the project itself;
2) the added value of the transnational cooperation is in particular
the possibility to take over, as the case may be explore various approaches
to solution of the given problem, which however requires the knowledge
of the context in the given countries (whether the transferability of
these solutions is possible at all), as the case may be accentuation
of the needs of the Czech party, thus an active role of the Czech partners
when searching for a solution and its verification in practice (raising
agendas, not their takeover), further the added value consists above
all in increased knowledge capacities of the project implementing entities,
strengthening of the negotiating position in mainstreaming and dissemination
of the results and enlarging the partnership networks by European level;
and 3) the project implementing entities and the support to implementation
of the projects must take account of the differences among the individual
EU Member States occurring in the are of eligibility of expenses, language
knowledge, terminology and timing of the projects (if the transnational
partnership is to be based on concrete projects, then it is very
breakable at the moment when these projects do not terminate at the
same time). The recommendations mentioned in Chapter 7 come out from
these findings, while the issue of sustainability is a specific area:
if the transnational cooperation has a project basis, then already at
the beginning of planning the aid the account must be taken on how the
transnational outputs, as the case may be the transnational overlaps
of the projects will be maintained after their termination for most
of the organisations as a rule do not have capacities to develop further
the transnational cooperation and its results without the project support.
For this reason also one of the recommendations aims at considering
of a systemic support to transnational mainstreaming from the position
of the managing authority. ...
... Analysis of the specific
aspects and of the added value of the ESF projects based on the support
of transnational cooperation was elaborated in more details in the First
Interim Report and the account of its outputs were taken in this Final
Report in particular in concrete recommendations relating to implementation
of the projects with transnational aspect. The analysis has arrived
at the conclusion that 1) the projects containing the transnational
cooperation require longer time at the preparation, which must be planned
carefully at the same time whereas this plan should eliminate later
modifications of the transnational agreement, however, at the same time
it shall be possible to modify the original plan according to the needs
that will occur only from the implementation of the project itself;
2) the added value of the transnational cooperation is in particular
the possibility to take over, as the case may be explore various approaches
to solution of the given problem, which however requires the knowledge
of the context in the given countries (whether the transferability of
these solutions is possible at all), as the case may be accentuation
of the needs of the Czech party, thus an active role of the Czech partners
when searching for a solution and its verification in practice (raising
agendas, not their takeover), further the added value consists above
all in increased knowledge capacities of the project implementing entities,
strengthening of the negotiating position in mainstreaming and dissemination
of the results and enlarging the partnership networks by European level;
and 3) the project implementing entities and the support to implementation
of the projects must take account of the differences among the individual
EU Member States occurring in the are of eligibility of expenses, language
knowledge, terminology and timing of the projects (if the transnational
partnership is to be based on concrete projects, then it is very
breakable at the moment when these projects do not terminate at the
same time). The recommendations mentioned in Chapter 7 come out from
these findings, while the issue of sustainability is a specific area:
if the transnational cooperation has a project basis, then already at
the beginning of planning the aid the account must be taken on how the
transnational outputs, as the case may be the transnational overlaps
of the projects will be maintained after their termination for most
of the organisations as a rule do not have capacities to develop further
the transnational cooperation and its results without the project support.
For this reason also one of the recommendations aims at considering
of a systemic support to transnational mainstreaming from the position
of the managing authority. ...
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 ]
... 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. ...
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 ]
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... Sustainability, mainstreaming and wider partnership networks ...
... To insert sustainability,
continuance of the activities started, development of the created products,
communication within the wide partnership network and mainstreaming
into the project plan already since the beginning, to commence these
activities in time, not only in the end of the project. ...
... Sustainability, mainstreaming and wider partnership networks ...
... We propose to clarify contingent
role the managing authority may play in mainstreaming already in the
stage of preparation and implementation of the projects and to solve
all the elements of dissemination and mainstreaming in time within the
framework of the projects. ...
... We propose to clarify contingent
role the managing authority may play in mainstreaming already in the
stage of preparation and implementation of the projects and to solve
all the elements of dissemination and mainstreaming in time within the
framework of the projects. ...
... First of all, an overall
problem related to “project financing” of significant part of the
bodies that are the recipients of the programmes (among others CIP EQUAL)
is concerned. Nobody casts doubts that after the termination of the
projects oriented at transnational cooperation it is suitable to make
further use of such outputs or results that are in compliance with strategy
of the given body, which considers their utilisation. Formally, the
responsibility of the body is indisputably concerned that has created
these tools and that started the implementation and mainstreaming processes
within the framework of the project, but the question, what the roles
of the other interested bodies are, is legitimate. ...
... The situation becomes
complicated by the actual state of considerable part of the organisations
being the project solving entities: if an announcement of another call
does not follow immediately after the projects’ termination, and thus
a possibility to ensure financing for the organisation, the capacity
of most of the recipient decreases significantly; this threatens dissemination,
dissemination of products, sustainability of the transnational partnership
in the very area of the mainstreaming processes, frequently directed
to the EU bodies. ...
... The managing authority
should seek and try to define its role at two levels: at the transnational
level where the outputs common to several countries will be concerned
(here these activities could correlate with contingent pre-negotiating
of cooperation with the selected EU countries), and at the national
level in the sense that MA would be a partner (but not the only one)
for mainstreaming at such outputs that indisputably have a country-wide
or at least a supra-regional character. It is necessary to search for
tools on how to use effects and mechanisms that are inaccessible for
the solving entities for the solving entities without this managing
authority’s support. ...
... However, it is necessary
to see to it that creation of any mainstreaming and dissemination tools
would not decrease the project implementing entities’ responsibility
for sustainability of the project outputs. ...
... Recommendations for the mainstreaming partners ...
... it is necessary to single
out the outputs from the projects suitable for significant mainstreaming
processes already in the course of preparation and implementation; ...
... it is necessary to make use
of the functioning platforms for mainstreaming that are inaccessible
for the organisations themselves; ...