 |
||
Site search
management
... “Dialogue with the
Management Authority was very intense and burdensome on administrative
issues, while the Authority was very much less interested in the TC
content of the project..” ...
... “The provision for
specific project management skills, with capacities in the area of conflict
management and resolution, was a key element of our partnership, which
proved being essential in order to solve critical situations.” ...
... “The provision for
specific project management skills, with capacities in the area of conflict
management and resolution, was a key element of our partnership, which
proved being essential in order to solve critical situations.” ...
... “If there is one single
recommendation to be addressed to Management Authorities this is: ‘Be
committed to TC! Be involved yourselves in TC projects, touch with hands
the benefits of international cooperation in order to convince implementing
organizations of the real benefits of this instrument!”” ...
... “We were not supported
by our Management Authority in assessing our achievements under the
TC component; this would have considerably enhanced our capacity to
monitor our progresses and to redress our plans.” ...
... Non-profit organisations
in the Czech Republic are still unstable altogether as regards the sources
of financing insomuch that the overwhelming majority of them practice
the crisis management permanently instead of the strategic management.
Reserves, own free sources that would not be spent in the operation
and, above all prospect of any more stable financing with a more long-term
perspective are missing completely. The situation is different in the implementation
agencies that came into existence without their own mission for the
purpose of “implementation” of the European projects and do not
follow wider objectives or topics – these do not need to “feed”
from the projects the operation of the insufficiently financed non-profit
organisations and the administrative demands do not burden them excessively
– account of them has been taken since the beginning (it means the
funds for a coordinator’s and administrator’s salary are really
used in this way and it is not necessary to pay from them normal employees
of the organisation, who shall then “administer” the project
somehow aside – in addition to their normal duties). ...
... Non-profit organisations
in the Czech Republic are still unstable altogether as regards the sources
of financing insomuch that the overwhelming majority of them practice
the crisis management permanently instead of the strategic management.
Reserves, own free sources that would not be spent in the operation
and, above all prospect of any more stable financing with a more long-term
perspective are missing completely. The situation is different in the implementation
agencies that came into existence without their own mission for the
purpose of “implementation” of the European projects and do not
follow wider objectives or topics – these do not need to “feed”
from the projects the operation of the insufficiently financed non-profit
organisations and the administrative demands do not burden them excessively
– account of them has been taken since the beginning (it means the
funds for a coordinator’s and administrator’s salary are really
used in this way and it is not necessary to pay from them normal employees
of the organisation, who shall then “administer” the project
somehow aside – in addition to their normal duties). ...
... 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 information and communication
background of the programme management and implementation was, within
the framework of the Czech Republic, criticised by all the participating
parties: the monitoring system was perceived rather as repression than
as assistance, the databases of projects and partners were not updated
regularly and an outline of the created products was missing completely.
But at the same time both parties were learning during the programme
implementation and they were improving these tools together. ...
... 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. ...
... Role of the partners specialised
in management of the transnational cooperation has shown up as disputable.
In some cases this cooperation proceeded without any problems, sometimes
the problems have occurred – but almost always this type of cooperation
tended towards personal unions – a particular person ensuring the
transnational cooperation was often employed with both bodies – both
with the grant recipient and with the partner ensuring the transnational
cooperation. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... The Community Initiative
Programme EQUAL CZ, the MA of which became MoLSA and which was financed
of 73 % from the ESF and of 27 % from the state budget of the Czech Republic,
was approved by the European Commission in June 2004, namely for the
2004-2006 period; its implementation took place from June 2004 till
the end of August 2008; MoLSA is responsible for the CIP EQUAL CZ management. ...
... All-around development
of abilities occurs with all persons engaged in the CIP EQUAL projects,
thus the project management, partnership members and also their clients;
however also NTS, NSS and MA are developed. ...
... to increase efficiency and
quality of project management and implementation; ...
... To support due course of
the CIP EQUAL implementation and management; ...
... To describe management methods
of partnerships; ...
... 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; ...
... We have chosen both
the representatives of the founding members (FR, IT, NL, DE) and the
representatives of all enlargement waves: Western (1973, UK), Southern
(1986, ES and PT), Northern (1995, AT) and Eastern (2004, PL and SK).
This selection aspect proved useful at other evaluations in cases where
we needed to compare the so-called milieu, thus mild, undescribed,
uncodified differences in the environment that influence, to certain
extent, the partnership and its management and are a condition of its
functioning. In our case in particular, also finding out of the well-established
practices and comparison of CZ with countries culturally close to us
and, on the contrary, exposure to the contrast in advancement of the
country from the point of view of ability to conclude and develop partnerships
is concerned. ...
... Experts (in particular
for the area of human resources development, the ESF and the ERDF, for
the areas of partnership principle and transnational partnership, the
ESF programming and implementation, management and financing) ...
... This group is a secondary one, it is not mentioned at the majority of activities in the tables to the individual topics
and tasks as a target group, it was addressed by means of a questionnaire and above all, some recommendations for future management of the aid from the ESF are aimed at it. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... The link to the electronic
questionnaire was sent to 1,786 e-mail addresses(5) while 69
of them returned as undelivered (i.e. 1,717 addresses were addressed
successfully); 254 received questionnaires represent the
response rate 14.8 %. Of this number, 219 questionnaires contained
a set of questions focused on the representatives of the development
partnerships, clients of the services created within the framework of
the EQUAL projects (the target groups of the projects), members of the
National Thematic Networks, independent experts and potential applicants;
the set contained 21 questions. The remaining 35 questionnaires were
filled in by the representatives of MA, NSS, the Payment Authority,
the European Commission, the Monitoring Committee and the politicians
and strategy makers in the area of HRD and the ESF; the set contained
thirteen questions in total. None of the questions – with the exception
of the inquiry about the country of the origin and the respondent type
with respect to CIP EQUAL – was obligatory. Duplicities were removed
from the obtained set of questionnaires, the questionnaires were deleted,
in which less than 20 % of answers were filled in, and further corrections
were carried out, on the basis of which the number of the answers being
analysed reduced further by eight to the resulting 212 questionnaires
focused on particular projects or recipients and 34 questionnaires,
which were filled in by the management structure members, i.e. to 246
in total. A detailed outline of the work with the questionnaires and
the results of the questionnaire investigation are mentioned in Annex
8.3. ...
... With regard to sufficient
lapse of time within the framework of visits and interviews, the selection
of partners itself and the stage of preparation of the partnership agreements
were best reflected by the projects’ representatives, namely all the
more that with the approaching announcement of next calls this stage
is becoming topical again. At the same time it is often reflected that
the approach of the management structure has changed and has become
better and above all the support structure functions in a different
way. The representatives of the projects, as a rule, consider as important
to pay more attention and energy to selection of the partners. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... As regards engagement
of the local partners in the transnational cooperation, both models
were used within the framework of the partnership preparation. Close
interconnection of the project topic with the transnational cooperation
may be evaluated positively, too, as the case may be both forms of the
transnational cooperation may have their positives, whether on the one
a project implemented with national partners, in which the transnational
cooperation plays one specific role, or on the other hand a project,
which is with its own core and in its focus transnational, is concerned.
However, within the framework of the interviews it did not always confirm
that the type of management corresponded to the type of the project. ...
... Transnational cooperation administration and management ...
... Overall coordination
of the transnational cooperation ensues from the selected managerial
model: the transnational cooperation was either managed by one body
or (less often) rotary management was concerned. The most frequent managerial
model was bound to the partial results. At the beginning of the cooperation
it was defined who was responsible for which output or type of the output
and the designated partner managed/coordinated creation of the specified
output. As a rule, this model was applied to one of the above-mentioned
variants in a supplementary way. However, it often seems as if it had
prevailed and suppressed the general formalised management model. ...
... Overall coordination
of the transnational cooperation ensues from the selected managerial
model: the transnational cooperation was either managed by one body
or (less often) rotary management was concerned. The most frequent managerial
model was bound to the partial results. At the beginning of the cooperation
it was defined who was responsible for which output or type of the output
and the designated partner managed/coordinated creation of the specified
output. As a rule, this model was applied to one of the above-mentioned
variants in a supplementary way. However, it often seems as if it had
prevailed and suppressed the general formalised management model. ...
... Experience of the managing
partner, clear objective well distinguished and communicated with the
other partners, clear roles and expectations belonged to the factors
of success in case of transnational cooperation management by one body.
As regards rotary management clearly identified individual stages and
their outputs, a well-functioning collective body consisting of the
national partners’ representatives, which can solve contingent disputes,
have become the most important factors. ...
... Experience of the managing
partner, clear objective well distinguished and communicated with the
other partners, clear roles and expectations belonged to the factors
of success in case of transnational cooperation management by one body.
As regards rotary management clearly identified individual stages and
their outputs, a well-functioning collective body consisting of the
national partners’ representatives, which can solve contingent disputes,
have become the most important factors. ...
... The national partners,
who were not recipients themselves and who are not involved in the coordination
and management of the cooperation more closely, perceive it often very
vaguely, as if they were concerned in the development partnership purely
from the content aspect and rather as an obligatory part of what was
substantial = the processes proceeding at the level of the national
partnership (and this is then de facto publicly presented in an international
context in the form of transnational cooperation). In this respect,
cooperation with the institutions, the employees of which cannot be
motivated from the project financially (typically Employment Bureaus)
appears as the most problematic. It is often not easy to find a person
in such institution, who would surmise at least that he/she partakes
in implementation of some project at the moment. As a rule, this is
a reflection of the fact that the organisations would like to involve
the institutional players in the game, but with the exception of some
unique cases, this is not realistic without a possibility to remunerate
them for their active involvement and their resolve and interest vanish
fast. ...
... From the viewpoint of
the staffing of the transnational cooperation on the part of the development
partnership, the personnel stability of the implementing organisation
is decisive; above all fluctuation on the positions related to the management
of the transnational cooperation may cause complications. This really
occurred in a number of projects. Further the stability and the extent
of involvement and cooperation of the partners in each of the countries
are essential. The point is whether the recipient or another designated
partner ensures the transnational element as one “particular” overlap
of the project in the given country or whether all partners or at least
more partners from the given country partake in the transnational cooperation.
Both may lead to good results, but the factors of success and failure
differ for both types of involvement of the local partners. If the one,
who ensures connection between the national and transnational level
is one particular body, then the factors of success are his good communication
and organisational ability and strong management, further it is then
the ability to mediate the inputs from the project’s partners in the
given country. In this case it seems that in general the most successful
are the partnerships where one particular person stands in the head
of the partnership (cases appear even sporadically when this person
is not from the organisation, which is the recipient), who performs not
only the role of a manager, but also the role of a leader, a drudge.
However, this is valid only in case, if he/she persists for the whole
project’s period because his/her contingent departure may be fatal
for the given partnership. If not only the recipient but more partners
from the given country participate in the transnational cooperation
actively, the factor of success is the ability of cooperation and division
of labour; the recipient’s role is then shifted into a coordination
role. ...
... From the viewpoint of
the staffing of the transnational cooperation on the part of the development
partnership, the personnel stability of the implementing organisation
is decisive; above all fluctuation on the positions related to the management
of the transnational cooperation may cause complications. This really
occurred in a number of projects. Further the stability and the extent
of involvement and cooperation of the partners in each of the countries
are essential. The point is whether the recipient or another designated
partner ensures the transnational element as one “particular” overlap
of the project in the given country or whether all partners or at least
more partners from the given country partake in the transnational cooperation.
Both may lead to good results, but the factors of success and failure
differ for both types of involvement of the local partners. If the one,
who ensures connection between the national and transnational level
is one particular body, then the factors of success are his good communication
and organisational ability and strong management, further it is then
the ability to mediate the inputs from the project’s partners in the
given country. In this case it seems that in general the most successful
are the partnerships where one particular person stands in the head
of the partnership (cases appear even sporadically when this person
is not from the organisation, which is the recipient), who performs not
only the role of a manager, but also the role of a leader, a drudge.
However, this is valid only in case, if he/she persists for the whole
project’s period because his/her contingent departure may be fatal
for the given partnership. If not only the recipient but more partners
from the given country participate in the transnational cooperation
actively, the factor of success is the ability of cooperation and division
of labour; the recipient’s role is then shifted into a coordination
role. ...
... 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. ...
... It is possible to follow
several basic cooperation tools, which are characteristic for different
project types. The projects, which are based above all on conferences
and presentations of work of the national partners in transnational
context, are organised and managed in a different way than the projects
based on workshops, short-term attachments or intensive work on preparation
of a particular product (joint research, development of know-how, of
new tools, joint innovation – the management is tighter, the transnational
cooperation is not disintegrated to such extent to partial tasks within
the question of the individual partners). ...
... 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. ...
...
Coordination meetings:
The coordination teams work in the composition corresponding to the
type of the project management and the type of the activities being
implementing and the circle of the participating target groups related
to it. It is not possible to determine uniform concrete factors of success
for their work. ...
... In order to determine
the key factors of success, it is suitable to classify the projects
according to the type of activities and the involved target group. Also
the structure (firmer or looser) of the project and its management should
correspond to it, too. It is possible to find different factors of success
for the work of the expert teams and professional seminars focused on
development of particular new tools or educational materials than for
joint experiments, innovative forms of work, some types of dissemination
and implementation. Different background is necessary to be created
for various participating groups, to presume different forms of work;
each of these types requires different logistics and outputs. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... Monitoring is essential
to follow the course and fulfilment the projects’ outputs, but it
should serve also for comparison, aggregation for certain areas (thematic
or regional point of view is offered), programme management (setting
priorities), as the case may be as a tool for control, whether the same
products do not arise in parallel or whether doubled financing of activities
or outputs does not occur. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
6.1 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 ]
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
6.6 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. ...
... 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. ...
... Transnational cooperation administration and management ...
... To choose the management
model based on the partners’ temper and ability; it is possible to
have a freer plan and also a very strict and detailed plan; ...
... Not to be afraid to acknowledge
a mistake, to have instruments for correction, modification, to incorporate
the results of the evaluations in the project cycle management; ...
... To make use of evaluation
and monitoring for improvement of the management of the project quality
and its results; ...
7.2.1 Role within the framework of the programme and relations to other actors [go to this article ]
... The rules of management,
implementation and the formulation of the calls itself and of all the
other supporting documents should be understandable, consistent and
they should not change in course of the proceeding, as the case may
be modifications are recommended only in cases where they do not complicate
the programme implementation and implementation of the projects themselves. ...
... With regard to the fact that
from the essence of the transnational cooperation contact with partners
from other countries results, the programme management should, to the
maximum possible extent, harmonise the rules so that these might not
collide directly with the rules in other countries, this relates above
all to eligibility of expenses and conditions of partnership (partnership
agreements). ...
... The programme management
should create multi-channel communication for the recipients’ groups,
the used communication tools should be understandable, the forms should
be acceptable, and communication should correspond to needs and possibilities
of the given groups. ...
... Transnational cooperation administration and management ...
... We recommend
to simplify management and administration to the maximum extent, to
consolidate the rules, to eliminate redundant things, not to change
rules during the implementation stage, to consolidate the structure
of applications, to unify the monitoring process and to use it more. ...
... 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 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. ...
... 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. ...
... Monitoring should serve also
for comparisons, aggregation for certain areas (the thematic or regional
viewpoint suggests itself), programme management (setting priorities),
as the case may be as a tool for control, whether the same products
do not come into existence in a parallel manner or if doubled financing
of activities or outputs does not occur. In the first stage, it is necessary
to review the setting of monitoring indicators so that their fulfilment
would really reflect the reality and could thus serve for further decision-making
at the level of the project and of the programme. The project and above
all the programme level should have the possibility to interfere with
the monitoring system setting in such a way that it would serve really
for the above-mentioned purposes. In the second stage it is necessary
to consider systemic solution of the monitoring in such a way that it
would offer the necessary aggregations, comparisons and following of
duplicities/similarities in projects. ...