 |
||
Site search
monitoring
... Within the framework of the
normal duties of the grant recipients, regular monitoring took place,
which was used, however, above all as a formal tool for the individual
financing stages and the content value and utilisation of which are
minimal. Sometimes even considerable modifications discussed with the
managing authority did not occur in the monitoring reports. ...
... Within the framework of the
normal duties of the grant recipients, regular monitoring took place,
which was used, however, above all as a formal tool for the individual
financing stages and the content value and utilisation of which are
minimal. Sometimes even considerable modifications discussed with the
managing authority did not occur in the monitoring reports. ...
... 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. ...
... Using of monitoring and evaluation
of the transnational cooperation seems as very general - it is bound
to quantified outputs (number of meetings, participation, realization
of the planned events, etc.), namely in the international aspect –
not specifically in the Czech environment. Thus they serve mainly for
the identification whether the programme proceeds according to the planned
structure. But it does not provide almost any other data that would
be evaluated systematically. ...
... With regard to the clearly
defined role of monitoring it is suitable to create, within the framework
of the partnership, an own system of feedbacks and assessments corresponding
to the partnership type and the project’s orientation, as the case
may be combined with an external evaluation. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
must comply with the global objectives and help to improve the quality
of management and implementation of the projects and of the programme
as a whole. For this reason also the sense of these activities must
be obvious to all participants. It is necessary to help the project
implementing entities to be able to use these tools in suitable way
for their own quality management and the project cycle management. It
is necessary for both parties to be able to use monitoring and evaluation
strategically. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
must comply with the global objectives and help to improve the quality
of management and implementation of the projects and of the programme
as a whole. For this reason also the sense of these activities must
be obvious to all participants. It is necessary to help the project
implementing entities to be able to use these tools in suitable way
for their own quality management and the project cycle management. It
is necessary for both parties to be able to use monitoring and evaluation
strategically. ...
... Support to the development
partnerships for the whole period of their work programme implementation
belongs to the basic activities of the technical assistance. Another
task of the technical assistance is monitoring of the individual DPs,
namely including administration of the monitoring systems. Further the
technical assistance ensured effective communication with the managing
authority by means of timely providing of the information on the implementation
of the individual projects and of the whole programme to the managing
authority. ...
... Support to the development
partnerships for the whole period of their work programme implementation
belongs to the basic activities of the technical assistance. Another
task of the technical assistance is monitoring of the individual DPs,
namely including administration of the monitoring systems. Further the
technical assistance ensured effective communication with the managing
authority by means of timely providing of the information on the implementation
of the individual projects and of the whole programme to the managing
authority. ...
... The technical assistance
is further used to support monitoring, audits and evaluation of the
activities carried out both in the Czech Republic as well as at the
Europe-wide level and for preparation of studies, seminars, information
events, collection, processing and dissemination of the obtained experience
and results. ...
... CIP EQUAL Monitoring
Committee ...
... This method was used
when interviewing persons accessible with difficulty and where a personal
visit would not increase the effect significantly and where it
was necessary to act quickly (example of task No. 1) and further in
additional interviewing of persons already contacted in the past (evaluation
visits); therefore we have chosen for the interviews the experts from
all the mentioned countries, the representatives of the European Commission,
the Monitoring Committee, the National Support Structures, the National
Thematic Networks and the representatives of the development partnerships
that were not addressed in another way (except for the representatives
of the development partnerships visited within the framework of evaluation
visits). The evaluator identified the particular representatives on
the basis of an analysis of particular persons’ suitability for interviewing
from the point of view of representativeness, elimination of duplicities
and the highest possible effectiveness of the used method. The list
of all persons that were visited or inquired by means of structured
interviews is mentioned in Annex 8.4. ...
... It can be stated in
general that it results from the fact that the information on the projects
are available at three or more places (in the structural funds monitoring
system (MSSF) Monit, in the ECDB database, on the EQUAL CZ web, i.e. ...
... , as the case may be on the own web of the organisation
implementing the project) that it is difficult to keep the information
at all places in up-to-date form. In addition to that, the organisations
themselves do not always have a possibility to modify the data regarding
the project, thus the updating becomes more problematic further. While
the sites of the organisations themselves where the given project was
mentioned were up-to-date, the structure of these sites and the depth
and quality of the information were obviously left completely upon the
activity of the given organisations; for this reason the reliability
and, in particular, the communicative value of the sites (with regard
to the assignment of the evaluation) differed considerably. In case
of the other mentioned places where the information on the projects
is mentioned, the organisation did not have a direct possibility to
update the information, but this was done vicariously (in case of the
EQUAL CZ web through MA, in the structural funds monitoring system Monit
through NSS and in the ECDB database through the database administrator).
The organisations complained that in some cases they had had to ask
for updating of the data repeatedly, however, in most of the cases they
were not interested in administration of these systems at all. Thus
it need not be clear at all to an ordinary user, who would be searching
in these systems for the information on the projects, whether the content
is up-to-date and who is responsible for it. ...
... When using the MSSF
Monit system, the evaluation team has found out that it does not use
the information utilisable for this evaluation (it is focused purely
on the monitoring area). ...
... 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. ...
... The focus groups were
always designed so that they might balance the findings from the questionnaire
investigation and from the evaluation visits and interviews. Above all
the visits and interviews were conducted, with some exceptions (interviews
with the representatives of the European Commission and CIP EQUAL agencies
in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Spain and the
United Kingdom) with the representatives of the development partnerships
and the transnational cooperation coordinators. Thus the observations
mentioned in the previous chapter are based on this sample very clearly
and the very focus groups should bring another view of the matter. For
this reason two groups were suggested, one with the NSS representatives
and one with the MA representatives. A scenario was established for
each group, i.e. the questions that were asked during the discussion
and the sense of which was to observe how the transnational cooperation
management and implementation proceeded, how the monitoring and the evaluation
were used, what kind of support was provided to the implementing bodies.
A supplement to the focus groups was then the evaluation of processes,
in this case above all of the information and communication flows among
the mentioned bodies, i.e. the managing authority, PricewaterhouseCoopers
and representatives of the development partnerships. Moreover, this
picture of the flows becomes somewhat complicated by the fact that,
within the framework of the transnational cooperation, it is necessary
to negotiate also with the bodies outside the national field, thus with
the representatives of the foreign development partnerships and even
with the representatives of the foreign managing authorities (e.g. in
case of TCA modification) and ministries (e.g. in case of proposals
of international coordination of search for partners and gathering information
to the transnational cooperation). ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... The focus groups monitored
mainly the issues of management and implementation of the transnational
cooperation priority axis that is based on the knowledge of the context,
in which the programme will be implemented, of the national and sectoral
strategies that define priorities for the orientation of projects and
activities and high-quality managing authority’s background. The managing
authority makes its decisions on the basis of the valid strategic documents
and follows the implementation itself by means of standard tools, to
which monitoring and evaluation belong. As regards the process of the
programme implementation itself, it may use systemic and national projects
or specialised agencies according to the possibilities given by the
setting of the given programme. Suitable and unsuitable management methods
do not exist obviously, what probably matters more are recommended aspects
of management, which are essential for successful implementation of
the programme; clearly defined objectives and rules, understandable
and willing communication with the given groups and system support (facilitation
of preparation and implementation of the partnership, central database
sources, methodical support) appear as most frequently mentioned. As
regards project preparation and implementation, the implementing entities’
requirements for the rules and calls say they should be above all understandable,
clear and unchanging till the process closure (except for the modifications
necessary for increasing the smoothness and quality of a programme).
The present monitoring system meets neither the needs of the programme
management nor those of the implementation of the projects. Monitoring
can serve, besides its own objectives, also for aggregation for certain
areas (the thematic or regional viewpoint suggests itself), programme
management (setting priorities) and it can also serve as a tool for
control, whether the same products do not come into existence in a parallel
manner or whether doubled financing of activities/outputs does not occur.
In the first stage, the setting of monitoring indicators is to be reviewed,
in the second phase it is then necessary to provide systemic support
to the above-mentioned services. Evaluation must be planned in such
a way that it could react to actual processes and events within the project,
thus it must be able to add the evaluation criteria and to relate to
the project currently. It is necessary to maintain the flexibility element
in the evaluation and at the same time it is necessary for the evaluation
to be detached from the monitoring system, if possible, it must not
be dependent on it in any case. At the transnational level, transnational
monitoring and evaluation activities may be considered, however, it
is necessary to clarify their meaning and objectives, mandate, responsibilities
and the system of their administration. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
are two different mechanisms that have different partial goals, orientation
and procedures, in spite of that they accord on the global objective
to help to increase the quality of the management and implementation
of the projects and the programme as a whole. For this reason, they also
need to make sense, and the use of these activities must be clear to
all the participants. Monitoring is gathering of the knowledge
in the structure prepared in advance so that it would have substantial
information (communicative) value and it would be possible to aggregate
them. Monitoring brings the information on the course of certain activities
retroactively, namely in the structure that does not change in the course
of the monitoring. Evaluation is a more-layer process containing
gathering of knowledge (observation), its systemisation in findings
and above all their interpretation with regard to the defined objectives
and the expected states, but also with regard to dynamics, unforeseen
changes and the resulting state. The evaluation brings the interpretation
on how it is possible to understand some modified or unforeseen facts
and how it is possible to understand connexions. Thus the evaluation
is necessary there where we ask about effectiveness, search for successful
and unsuccessful forms, procedures, etc. ...
... Monitoring ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
are two different mechanisms that have different partial goals, orientation
and procedures, in spite of that they accord on the global objective
to help to increase the quality of the management and implementation
of the projects and the programme as a whole. For this reason, they also
need to make sense, and the use of these activities must be clear to
all the participants. Monitoring is gathering of the knowledge
in the structure prepared in advance so that it would have substantial
information (communicative) value and it would be possible to aggregate
them. Monitoring brings the information on the course of certain activities
retroactively, namely in the structure that does not change in the course
of the monitoring. Evaluation is a more-layer process containing
gathering of knowledge (observation), its systemisation in findings
and above all their interpretation with regard to the defined objectives
and the expected states, but also with regard to dynamics, unforeseen
changes and the resulting state. The evaluation brings the interpretation
on how it is possible to understand some modified or unforeseen facts
and how it is possible to understand connexions. Thus the evaluation
is necessary there where we ask about effectiveness, search for successful
and unsuccessful forms, procedures, etc. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation
are two different mechanisms that have different partial goals, orientation
and procedures, in spite of that they accord on the global objective
to help to increase the quality of the management and implementation
of the projects and the programme as a whole. For this reason, they also
need to make sense, and the use of these activities must be clear to
all the participants. Monitoring is gathering of the knowledge
in the structure prepared in advance so that it would have substantial
information (communicative) value and it would be possible to aggregate
them. Monitoring brings the information on the course of certain activities
retroactively, namely in the structure that does not change in the course
of the monitoring. Evaluation is a more-layer process containing
gathering of knowledge (observation), its systemisation in findings
and above all their interpretation with regard to the defined objectives
and the expected states, but also with regard to dynamics, unforeseen
changes and the resulting state. The evaluation brings the interpretation
on how it is possible to understand some modified or unforeseen facts
and how it is possible to understand connexions. Thus the evaluation
is necessary there where we ask about effectiveness, search for successful
and unsuccessful forms, procedures, etc. ...
... It is necessary to assist
the projects to be able to use these tools suitably for the own quality
management and for the project management cycle. A methodical document
exists to these tools, which is Guidebook for
the Transnational Cooperation of the Community Initiative EQUAL,
which may be commented and extended for it is not formulated with regard
to the needs of projects (but from the point of view of the programme
needs) and it misses a basic outline of evaluation types and purpose
of the individual evaluation tools. In addition to that, it is necessary
to inform the applicants on the necessity to use monitoring and evaluations
already at preparation of the applications since for their suitable
inclusion in the plans and implementation of projects it is necessary
to calculate also with the appropriate capacities. For this reason,
it would be suitable to implement specifically focussed educational
and training activities of MA for the purpose of elucidation of the
actual significance of monitoring and evaluation, how to assign and
implement them (including allocation of appropriate capacities already
when drawing up the project’s plan and budget), how to asses their
quality (especially in case of tendering external evaluations and management
of internal evaluations) and how to use them strategically for the management
itself. ...
... It is necessary to assist
the projects to be able to use these tools suitably for the own quality
management and for the project management cycle. A methodical document
exists to these tools, which is Guidebook for
the Transnational Cooperation of the Community Initiative EQUAL,
which may be commented and extended for it is not formulated with regard
to the needs of projects (but from the point of view of the programme
needs) and it misses a basic outline of evaluation types and purpose
of the individual evaluation tools. In addition to that, it is necessary
to inform the applicants on the necessity to use monitoring and evaluations
already at preparation of the applications since for their suitable
inclusion in the plans and implementation of projects it is necessary
to calculate also with the appropriate capacities. For this reason,
it would be suitable to implement specifically focussed educational
and training activities of MA for the purpose of elucidation of the
actual significance of monitoring and evaluation, how to assign and
implement them (including allocation of appropriate capacities already
when drawing up the project’s plan and budget), how to asses their
quality (especially in case of tendering external evaluations and management
of internal evaluations) and how to use them strategically for the management
itself. ...
... 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. ...
... As regards the evaluations,
a scale of various evaluation tools, types of evaluations and also thematic
orientation of the evaluations is offered. It is necessary to know these
possibilities and to select them suitably with respect to the purpose
and expectations the valuation shall fulfil. In the transnational cooperation,
it is possible to assess partial project outputs and products arisen
and verified in the transnational partnership, when the assessment will
provide feedback either still in the course of the transnational cooperation
itself or for the consequential projects in the following calls through
the managing authorities and consultancy sources. After all, this is
the sense of monitoring and evaluation – dissemination of outputs from
the programme implementation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Joint monitoring and
joint evaluation at the level of several states would be a contribution
for success of mainstreaming since the transnational partnerships bear
a joint product, a service or a change that is necessary to be promoted
at the level where it came into existence, thus at the transnational
level, as the case may be to “raise” the outputs verified at the
local level to the European level. The transnational cooperation should
contribute to better utilisation of the monitoring outputs to more precise
and more multilateral evaluation. For this reason MA considers ensuring
the part of the monitoring process or drawing up at least some evaluation
studies on the basis of a joint activity of several member states. This
activity must build on a transnational, inter-governmental agreement
and specification of an assignment for monitoring or evaluation from
the position of the given group of countries. At the same time, the reasoning
is possible rather at the level of comparisons (of similarities or on
the contrary, of differences), in it how the individual accents in the priorities
of the thematic (intervention) areas in the given countries, in the
wider context of the European Employment Strategy, are stipulated. With
regard to the fact that such setting will most probably exceed the competencies
of the ministries, inter-governmental agreements would have to be concerned.
At the same time these agreements would have to stipulate the responsibilities
for system administration and sharing the costs connected with its development
and operation. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
... Individual countries
create also monitoring and evaluation plans, e.g. “Northern Ireland
European Social Fund Programme 2007 – 2013” mentions in Chapter
4 Evaluation in paragraph 4.24 the evaluation strategy in the first
half of the programme: having carried out the substantial part of the
project activities to evaluate the contribution (added value) of the
programme to the strategic intentions of the EU, the Member State and
the region and, in particular the innovative, supranational and interregional
activities and horizontal themes. The evaluation strategy of the North
Irish ESF programme will be updated for the second half of the programme’s
duration in order to take account of the regional socio-economical and
political development. In the United Kingdom, the West Wales and the
Valleys Convergence Programme - Operational Programme for the ESF mentions
in Chapter 3 – Strategy, paragraph 3.131 that the managing authority
shall establish an independent Transnational Cooperation Unit to support
the programme activities. Then in Chapter 6 in paragraphs 6.40 – 6.42
the planning tool of the managing authority “Strategic Frameworks”
is described as an implementation strategy to achieve the strategic
objective by means of strategically interconnected project interventions.
These frameworks will serve in selection of the projects, they will
enable their comparison. Thus the managing authority will be able to
identify projects proposing transnational or interregional cooperation
already in the stage of submission and selection and to direct them
towards achieving of the programme objectives. It will be able to provide
them specific assistance also during the implementation and monitor
and evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with the Monitoring Committee.
The East Wales Regional Competitiveness & Employment Programme for
the ESF 2007–2013 is drawn up accordingly. Both these programmes will
thus be implemented, monitored and evaluated with the managing authority’s
active participation, without prejudice to the Monitoring Committee’s
power and responsibility. ...
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 ]
... Factors of success and
failure, roles, suitability and unsuitability of supporting tools, forms
of announcement of calls, cooperation in monitoring, stage of closure
of projects and possible roles in it. ...
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 ]
... Factors of success and
failure, roles, suitability and unsuitability of supporting tools, forms
of announcement of calls, cooperation in monitoring, stage of closure
of projects and possible roles in it. ...
... As regards the models
of financing, common budget sources, revenues, systemic projects, national
projects may be used. As regards the cost factors of the project outputs,
the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) may be included in the project applications;
as regards the systemic and budget means, then the strategic decisions
at the level of ministries are concerned, as the case may be of concrete
operational programmes. The rule is valid that the system of support
to outputs and results of the projects must be transparent at the most
for a selective (not a flat) matter will be obviously concerned. Further,
this system will be introduced newly therefore it will be necessary
at the beginnings of the implementation to verify, whether the support
really achieves the stipulated objectives and quality. Thus the evaluation
will proceed by means of common techniques of social and economical
analysis – namely already at the selection of the projects, in course
of creation of the outputs and also after the termination of the projects
and handover of the outputs – on the basis of data obtained through
monitoring and specific evaluating procedures - on the basis of the
criteria known in advance contained in the operational programmes, in
the calls and, as the case may be also in assignments of systemic/national
projects. But the evaluation methods could be applied also for the decision-making
process itself, which will be necessary before the beginning itself
of the mentioned activities and which will be at the same time highly
determining for setting the indicators of quality/success. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation ...
... To incorporate monitoring
and evaluation activities in the plan, time schedule and budget of the
project; ...
... To make use of evaluation
and monitoring for improvement of the management of the project quality
and its results; ...
7.2.1 Role within the framework of the programme and relations to other actors [go to this article ]
... It is necessary to keep always
in mind the main programme’s objectives, and thus to search for the
ways how to improve the quality of the projects and to decrease the
administrative burden of the entities implementing them, to eliminate
instrumental and purposeful projects and misuse of the aid; for this
purpose it is possible to consider e.g. simplification in reporting,
introducing lump expenses, making the monitoring system more transparent
and drawing up the so called black lists. ...
... 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. ...
... Monitoring and evaluation ...
... It is necessary to help the
projects to be able to use the monitoring and evaluation tools for their
own quality management and the project cycle management. ...
... It is necessary to modify
the methodological aids, to focus the educational and training activities
of MA on this area for purpose of elucidation of the actual significance
of monitoring and evaluation, how to order and implement them (including
allocation of appropriate capacities already when drawing up the project’s
plan and budget), how to assess their quality (especially in case of
ordering external evaluations and management of internal evaluations)
and how to use them well for the management itself. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... 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. ...
... Contingent transnational
solving of monitoring and evaluation must be built on transnational
cooperation at the level of the managing authorities and specification
of the assignment for monitoring/evaluation from the position of the
given group of countries, namely at the level of comparisons (of similarities
or, on the contrary, of differences) in it how the individual accents
are defined in the priorities of the thematic (intervention) areas in
the given countries, in a wider context of the European Employment Strategy.
Setting of such cooperation must come out from agreements that will
define competencies of the individual actors, responsibility for system
administration and sharing costs connected with its development and
operation. ...
... Contingent transnational
solving of monitoring and evaluation must be built on transnational
cooperation at the level of the managing authorities and specification
of the assignment for monitoring/evaluation from the position of the
given group of countries, namely at the level of comparisons (of similarities
or, on the contrary, of differences) in it how the individual accents
are defined in the priorities of the thematic (intervention) areas in
the given countries, in a wider context of the European Employment Strategy.
Setting of such cooperation must come out from agreements that will
define competencies of the individual actors, responsibility for system
administration and sharing costs connected with its development and
operation. ...
... The managing authority should
have the possibility to identify projects proposing transnational or
interregional cooperation already in the stage of submission and selection
and to direct them towards achieving of the programme objectives. It
will be able to provide them specific assistance also during implementation
and to monitor and to evaluate them purposefully in cooperation with
the Monitoring Committee. ...