Working Packages

Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance Plan

Lead Organization: Institute of Technology and Business in  Czech Republic  

Prepared by

VSTE Team: Marta Harničárová, Jan Valíček

Copyright

© Copyright 2020 BENEFIT Consortium

Consisting of Al-Quds Open University (QOU, Palestine), Palestine Technical University – Kadoorie (PTUK, Palestine), Slovenská Poľnohospodárska Univerzita v Nitre (SUA, Slovakia), Panepistimio Patron (UPAT, Greece), Vysoká Škola Technická a Ekonomická v Českých Budějovicích (VSTE, Czech Republic), An-Najah National University (ANNU, Palestine), University of Ruse Angel Kanchev (URAK, Bulgaria), Al-Istiqlal University (PASS, Palestine), University College of Applied Sciences (UCAS, Palestine), Hebron University (HU, Palestine)

This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission from the BENEFIT Consortium. In addition, an acknowledgment of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.

All rights reserved.

This document may change without notice.

Document History

Version Date Partner Comment
01 2nd May 2020 VSTE First Issue
02 20 June 2020 UPAT Comments/suggestions
03 15 July 2020 VSTE Comments/suggestions
04 16 January 2021 VSTE EACEA feedback implementation

 

1        Introduction

1.1      Purpose of the Project’s Quality Assurance Plan

The objectives of this Project Assurance (QA) Plan are the following:

  • Create confidence in the quality of the work that the Project Team will perform by showing how the project will be carried out, measured, monitored, accounted for and safeguarded during and after development,
  • Define roles and responsibilities, with emphasis on the required skill sets to address the complexities and risks of the project,
  • Show how changes and problems can be identified and reported,
  • Clearly define the content, format, sign-off and review process, and responsibilities for each deliverable,
  • Make visible all the means that are and will be applied to meet the user’s technical and quality requirements.

The QA plan provides the baseline against which to monitor project costs and project’s progress stage by stage. It identifies key deliverables, resource requirements, total costs and control points.

1.2      Field of application

Field of the application defines what the project will deliver and what it will not deliver. A clear definition has been provided in the project’s application, where the work plans, budget, schedules, and deliverables or outputs are clearly defined. It is within this framework that the Project Quality Assurance Plan will find its application.

2        Presentation of the project

2.1      BENEFIT work plan

Due to the COVID-19 situation at the beginning of 2020, the workplan has been adapted (activities highlighted in red). As the situation is still not clear and the second wave is expected at the Autumn 2020, eventual changes should appear on the later stage of the project realisation.  However, any changes of the work plan must be approved by the Management Board.

Workplan for project year 1

Activities (1st year) Total duration

(number of weeks)

M1

Jan.

M2

Feb.

M3

March

M4

April

M5

May

M6

June

M7

July

M8

Aug.

M9

Sep.

M10

Oct.

M11

Nov.

M12

Dec.

Capacity Building & Training 52w                        
Kick-off meeting organisation 4w 3=  
Training material for training workshops preparation 26w 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1=
Training workshop #1, #2, #3 preparation 4w 2= 2=
To realize Institution readiness survey 12w 1=1x 2x 2x  
Training workshop #1, #2, #3 organisation 8w 3=  
To design of ToR 4w                       2x
Evaluation & Quality Assurance 52w                        
Quality Management Plan 16w 1=              
Institution readiness report – questionnaire 12w 1=              
Evaluation forms, meetings minutes, 52w 1=         1=     1=   1x  
1st year Progress report 12w                       1×1=
Dissemination and Piloting 52w                        
Dissemination plan 16w 1×1=                    
Website and repository 52w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=                  
Visual identity, basic promo materials, Social Media 12w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
Dissemination events, activities, articles… 52w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
Project Management 52w
Contracting process 8w 1x 1=                    
Virtual Collaborative environment 52w 1=                    
Operative and financial management for 1st year 8w                     1×1= 1×1=
2nd, management meetings 8w                   3=

Workplanfor project year 2

Activities (2nd year) Total duration

(number of weeks)

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12
Capacity Building & Training 16w                        
Training material for training workshops preparation 8w 1= 1=                    
Training workshop #1, #2, #3 preparation 8w   2x                    
Training workshop #1, #2, #3 organisation 12w 3=   3x                  
To design of ToR 16w 2x 2x 2x 2×1=                
Development, Implementation and Deployment 52w        
Finalisation and editing of ToR 4w     1x        
Preparatory meeting to conduct development phase 4w 2x        
Field work at Palestinians HEIs 48w 4x 4x 4x        
Curriculum design 26w 2x 2x 2x        
Content of learning materials development 32w 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x
Deployment phase 26w 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
Evaluation & Quality Assurance 52w                        
Evaluation forms, meetings minutes 52w 1×1=       2×2= 1×1=           1×1=
Interim report and 2nd year Progress report 12w         2×2= 2×2=           1×1=
Methodology report 4w 2×1=
Cross reading and final tuning reports 4w 1×2=
Training and Learning Content reports 4w 1×2=
Dissemination and Piloting 52w
On-site awareness campaign with farmers 26w 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x
To establish and launch MOOC educational platform “BENEFIT” 26w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
BENEFIT Community of Practice 26w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
BENEFIT Incubator & Research Centres 26w 2×1= 2×1= 2×1= 2×1= 2×1= 2×1=
Project Management 52w          
o   Operative and financial management for Interim Report and 2nd year 16w         1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
o   3rd and 4th management meetings 4w           3= 3x

Workplan for project year 3

Activities (3rd year) Total duration

(number of weeks)

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12
Development, Implementation and Deployment 26w                        
Deployment phase 26w 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x      
Evaluation & Quality Assurance 52w                        
Evaluation forms, meetings minutes 52w 1×1=       2×2= 1×1=           1×1=
Final report 12w                   2×2= 2×2= 2×2=
Pilot methodology 4w   1×2=                    
After pilot test – questionnaire 4w                 2x      
Dissemination and Piloting 52w                        
Piloting 26w       10x 10x 10x 10x 10x
On-site awareness campaign with farmers 26w 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x            
BENEFIT Community of Practice 26w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
BENEFIT Incubator & Research Centres 52w 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1= 1×1=
Final Conference 4w                   3x 3x  
Project Management 52w                        
Operative and financial management for Final Report 8w                     3×3= 3×3=
5th and Final management meetings 2w         3=           3x

 

2.2      BENEFIT results

The table below summarizes the project’s results to be achieved as indicated in the application:

Outcome ID Outcome Title Deliverable Type Delivery
1.1 Supported materials for training workshops Training material M8, M10, M12
1.2 Instructional phase and curriculum development Training material M8
1.3 Technical phase and learning content development Training material M10
1.4 Technical phase – Advance technologies in agriculture Training material M12
1.5 ToR development Training material M12
2.1 Curriculum Development Teaching material M15
2.2 Learning Content Development Learning material/Training material M24
2.3 Infrastructure and deployment Service/Product M24
3.1 Quality Management Plan Service/Product M6
3.2 Institutions readiness Report Report M8
3.3 Quality of Course Curriculum and OERs Design Reports Report M14
4.1 Project design manual & Dissemination plan Report M6
4.2 Website, repository & Community of Practice Service/Product M6
4.3 Promotion materials – periodical newsletters, brochure and roll-up etc. Service/Product M8
4.4 To prepare Social Media campaign included audio-visual material, on-site awareness campaign with farmers in Palestine Event

Report

Service/Product

M10
4.5 Preparing a research network „BENEFIT Community of Practice » Service/Product M12
4.6 Producing promotional and educational videos Service/Product M24
4.7 BENEFIT Incubator Service/Product M24
5.1 Project management handbook Service/Product M3
5.2 Partner IPR agreement Service/Product M18
5.3 Virtual Collaborative environment Service/Product M3

3        Project Organization and Responsibilities

3.1      Involved parties and their roles

The following table summarizes the role of each partner as described in the project application taking into account the changes agreed during the Kick-off meeting:

Partner name Role
Al-Quds Open University (QOU) The role of QOU will mainly be to :

–        Participate in the scheduled activities within the project;

–        Contribute to achieve the goals of the project;

–        Contribute to curriculum and courses development;

–        Disseminate digital agriculture within the university institutions and other national universities;

–        Ensure the sustainability of the achieved actions and realisations of the project;

–        Holds workshops in cooperation with stakeholders;

–        Establish a pilot site for digital agriculture application.

QOU team has strong experience in Agriculture and IT science domain and has wide experience with Erasmus projects. In addition, QOU will support in project management as they have a strong management team, and extensive experience in managing international projects

Palestinian Technical University-Kadoorie (PTUK) Agriculture college in PTUK is currently implementing irrigation training centre. The training centre includes two part: one is an open field by area of 2000m2 will be installed by the modern automated fertigation system, meteorological station. The open field site will serve as a demonstration site for implementing research and training about precision agriculture for researchers, students, and farmers. The second part of the irrigation centre is a laboratory installed by different devices of soil and irrigation apparatus to train the beneficiaries about soil, water analysis. Further, the laboratory will be installed by LCD and computer for further seminars and training. In these perspectives we can offer the following ideas as project partners:

1.     Conducting training and technical needs courses for all partners.

2.     Organizing seminars, training workshops for teaching staff and students in the field of precise agriculture.

3.     Providing the available technical tools for implementing new ideas and research about of precise agriculture.

Enhance exchange programs and field visits where students, researchers, and even farmers can enhance their skills, strengthen their technical skills, and provide the opportunity among researchers and students to improve their proficiency in new agricultural technologies.

Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (SUA) The Technical Faculty of SUA prepares qualified, technically focused operating engineers, experts in the field of agricultural technology, machinery, information and controlling systems, robotics and automatization of agricultural production. Its graduates make a significant contribution to the technological development of primary agricultural production, the creation of new technologies as well as improvements in the operation of enterprises engaged in the processing of agricultural products, sales and service facilities. Via different innovation and inventions, we have significant contribution to the development of precise agriculture processes as well.

Experienced team of professionals will contribute to all WPs, specifically, SUA will actively participate in the training activities by leading the training in the field of mobile robotics and GPS guidance and will be responsible for the WP2 – Development, Implementation and Deployment. In addition, experts from SUA will contribute to the process of the identification of training needs, OER content development as well as evaluation of a learning process implementation.

University of Patras (UPAT) The University of Patras, especially the Department of Computer Engineering & Informatics, have been involved in designing and implementing many projects related to life-long learning. The role and activities of the University of Patras in this project will mainly concern applying state of the art e-Learning methodologies and technologies to support the development of the curriculum and training activities. UPAT team will offer great experience in the design and implementation of e-Learning platforms, either for project’s management (e.g. Microsoft Teams) or through LMS platforms (e.g. Moodle) and useful applications. Additionally, UPAT team will offer not only its technological experience and training practice but also the pedagogy behind the instructional design of the platforms, enhancing project’s effectiveness and efficiency.

Experts from the UPAT will play important role during the preparation phase and training activities in the field of pedagogy and digital technologies.

Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice (VSTE) The role of the Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice in the BENEFIT project will concern to support the development of the curriculum and training activities related to the academic writing, implementation of ICT and information systems to the business practice in agro sector. VSTE will actively participate in the training activities organized during the first year of the project and support the Palestinians’ partners in the process of the ToR development and during the curricula implementation.

VSTE’s main role in the project will focus on the transfer of knowledge and support in the process of establishment of cooperation between BENEFIT Incubator and regional entrepreneurs as well regional/national policy bodies, development agencies etc. In addition, VSTE will be responsible for the evaluations and feedback during the entire project, monitoring progress, handling risk management, and communicating frequently to ensure the proper flow of information and decisions.

An-Najah National University (ANNU) ANNU has a varied experience in running projects (including Erasmus+). Capitalizing on previous experience in coordinating several international funded projects, in cooperation and partnership with the consortium members, ANNU will manage and participate different WPs. ANNU team consists of professionals equipped with needed expertise to coordinate and manage the project, while guaranteeing the cooperation between partners. ANNU will also play a key role in the dissemination of the project activities and outcomes in order to maximize its exploitation and impact in order to influence other HEIs and stakeholders. Beside its role in project management, dissemination, and quality, the university will be involved in other WPs and will participate in other activities with project partners.
Al-Istiqlal University (PASS)

 

The role of PASS  will mainly be to :

–        Participate in the scheduled activities within the project;

–        Contribute to achieve the goals of the project;

–        Contribute to curriculum and courses development;

–        Contribute to find and use new irrigation methods (using technology);

–        Disseminate digital agriculture within other national universities;

–        Ensure the sustainability of the achieved actions and realisations of the project;

–        Holds workshops in cooperation with stakeholders;

–        Establish a pilot site for digital agriculture application.

The PASS team has strong experience in IT science domain and has wide experience with Erasmus projects. In addition, PASS will support in project dissemination as they have a strong knowledge in that with others Erasmus+ Projects.

 

University College of Applied Sciences (UCAS) UCAS is committed to excellence and encourages creativity, experimentation, innovation, perfection as well as teamwork.

UCAS will contribute to the project in many ways given its experience in relevant fields such as incubation of applied research and community-based services. Based on that, it will provide qualified staff and resources for the project activities in order to achieve its final objectives. Therefore, UCAS will participate in all the project activities including coordinating and strongly cooperating in communication and dissemination; assessment of the products, capacity, and needs analysis addressing the sustainable interface between academic sector and private sector.

Moreover, UCAS will draw up the methodology of training and workshops according to its extensive experience in entrepreneurship and incubation projects with large number of partners. The University Center of Innovation and Business Development (UCIBD) which is academic-enterprise liaison as well as the Technology Incubator (UCASTI) will provide the technical know-how skills and guarantee that the network of stakeholders will include distinctive members such as private sector, industries, agriculture, IT sector…. etc.

Hebron University (HU) Hebron University (HU) will be one of the partner universities which will assist in implementing the project. HU Ready to Participate in all project WPs.

The role of HU will mainly be to:

–        Participate in the scheduled activities within the project;

–        Contribute to achieve the goals of the project;

–        Contribute to curriculum and courses development;

–        Disseminate digital agriculture within the university institutions and other national universities;

–        Ensure the sustainability of the achieved actions and realizations of the project;

–        Holds workshops in cooperation with stakeholders;

–        Establish a pilot site for digital agriculture application.

3.2      Organization of the project management

The project’s management decisions are made on three levels as indicated in the graphics above.

A strategic direction group is formed, the Management Board of Partners (MBP), composed of one representative per partner, that will meet five times during the whole duration of the project, and if needed more often. The responsibilities of the MBP are:

  • to ensure the workflow on the operational level with a role consisting of a representative from each project partner;
  • to discuss the periodic progress and financial reports and to give recommendations to the Project Manager and all project partners;
  • to take and enforce strategic decisions to all the consortium partners, such as changing the budget allocation, amendments to the agreements, and other corrective actions, in order to ensure the achievement of the project’s vision and specific objectives.

Strategic decisions are taken by consensus, utilizing a voting process based on the majority of voices. In case of the equal voting, the voice of the Project Manager will be considered. When a decision is reached, the decision is distributed to all partners and become effective within 5 working days of the meeting date.

The Project manager (PM), appointed by QOU, is responsible for the overall management of the project and related activities, controlling and allocation of the budget across partners, organization of communication across partners and stakeholders, and leading the day-to-day technical and administrative works, including reporting activities. The PM will dedicate tremendous time and efforts to ensure to follow up and monitor the execution of the specific activities/tasks in the different WPs.

The PM coordinates the overall running of the BENEFIT project and acts as a point between the project’s steering and the operational levels. The PM will be allowed to take decisions on day to day management but is regularly controlled by the Management Board of Partners.

The responsibilities of the PM are:

  • The overall project direction and administrative management and coordination.
  • To collect and compose (and validate) the periodic evaluation reports on all activities provided by the different partners and work package leaders.
  • To execute and oversee general project policies within the Consortium.
  • To analyse potential and real conflicts between partners and propose agreements.
  • To trace and correct deviations to the work programme, helped by WP leaders,
  • To organise and prepare the Management Board of Partners meetings.
  • To ensure that the necessary resources are provided by each project partner and that their work is consistent with the expenses foreseen in the budget.
  • To follow up the project expenses and track deviations, ensuring that all appropriate changes suggested and/or approved by the Scientific and Quality Committees are accurately recorded in the cost baseline.

Work Package Leaders (WPLs): Each work package will be led by only one partner (although partners may be in charge of more than one WP). Each partner will designate a person from its organisation that will act as a WP leader – contact point. WPLs will be responsible for the coordination and management of individual work packages. WPL tasks will cover:

  • To monitor the project’s technical progress and to update the partners whenever it is necessary.
  • To be in permanent contact with the PM and to provide guidelines to the partners involved regarding their specific technical related tasks and timing when performing the related tasks.
  • To follow the time schedule and send reminders for when deadlines are close.
  • To announce the actions to be performed within the next month and to analyse possible risks.
  • To prepare progress reports in due time for the Project Manager.
  • To ensure a smooth running and co-ordination with other work packages.
  • To report any deviation identified due to scheduling, unsuitability or risk affecting the quality of the results.

3.3      Responsibilities distribution among consortium and WPs leaders

Role Partner name
WP1 – Capacity Building & Training University of Ruse Angel Kanchev, Nicolay Mihailov
WP2 – Development, Implementation and Deployment Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Zuzana Palkova
WP3 – Evaluation & Quality Assurance Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice, Jan Valicek
WP4 – Dissemination and Piloting Al-Istiqlal University, Sameh Rashid Al-qubaj
WP5 – Project Management Al-Quds Open University, Aziz Abdelkareem Salameh

Should the WP leader change (person or his/her contact details) the partner in question must inform the project coordinator and quality manager as soon as possible.

3.4      Management of meetings

The role of the Project Manager is crucial in creating the harmonious and productive working environment which will result in effective meetings. The PM must, therefore:

  • encourage open and clear communication,
  • encourage everyone to contribute to the discussion,
  • support the less experienced and make everyone feel valued,
  • discourage strong or opinionated individuals from dominating the discussion,
  • ensure that the objectives of the meeting are achieved.

Continuity in the chairing of meetings helps to establish an effective model and keep control with the coordinator. However, the hosting arrangements may be undertaken by one of the partners in their own country, while the coordinator retains responsibility as the chairman.

Other key responsibilities should be allocated at the beginning of the meeting and rotate for future meetings to share the workload and involve all members of the group. It is important to agree who will take notes of the meeting and, if appropriate, who will record essential points.  The Project Coordinator will need to steer the discussion and manage the agenda, and therefore it is not advisable that he is responsible for these matters.

Invariably, the partners will have different levels of fluency in the lingua franca.  It is the responsibility of the coordinator to ensure this does not give rise to inequalities or disenfranchise any members of the group. Some simple measures can be taken:

  • frequently check that there is a common understanding of points agreed,
  • avoid the use of complex language,
  • clarify points which are poorly or ambiguously expressed,
  • prepare a check list at the end of each day,
  • make use of visual aids (e.g. flip chart to list key points),
  • Circulate a clear, concise summary of each meeting in written.

A checklist of the required resources to service a meeting efficiently is in the following table:

In advance ­        agenda

­        contact details for all the partners

­        maps of the location

­        instructions on practical arrangements

During the meeting ­        presentational material (poster)

­        visual aids: flip chart, projector

­        access to computer & printer

­        list of participants

­        summary of each day’s discussion

­        checklists/action plans

­        mineral water

After the meeting ­        minutes of the meeting

­        agreed action plan sent per email

The efficiency of meetings will be evaluated using a specific template (Annex 1) and the results will be incorporated into reports of overall quality management.

4        Project Planning and Control

Quality Assurance Plan will respond to the internal needs in terms of traceability at project level of development and will guarantee the correct management of the activities and the execution of the fixed objectives in due time. It will be used by the project coordinator as a time/action/results schedule. It will contain a series of indicators to proceed to an internal evaluation according to the percentage/ratio’s method.

As such the plan will address the project planning and control from a project management and project progress point of view, and therefore the current Quality Assurance Plan will only provide brief indications on communication channels and progress tracking.

However it will describe in more detail, as part of the quality procedures, the processes to be followed with respect to any changes in the work plan, the timing of activities and the responsibilities assigned.

4.1      Progress measurement and monitoring

Contractual progress reports (due at M12, M24 and a final report at M36) will use the templates as provided by the EACEA for CBHE sub programme, the Project Manager will provide the partners with the template and indications on which headings to fill in in due time. At least 1 month before the deadline of submission of the aforementioned report.

4.2      Acceptance Procedure and payment

The acceptance of deliverables and the reimbursement of eligible costs are implemented according to the Contract as signed by the lead partner with the EACEA, and within this framework based on the decision taken by the MBP.

5        Change management & conflict resolution

5.1      Change management

If any changes to the project, work packages and/or procedures are necessary to enable the implementation of the project according to the timetable and quality measures established, the Management Committee will decide what adjustments have to be made. In case adjustments are needed on the work packages, the respective WP leader will inform and advise the Management Committee, in case of financial, economic and administrative matters, as how the Project Coordinator should act. Any member of the Management Committee has the right to raise at any moment the issue of necessary changes for the project as a whole. The project coordinator will then inform the EACEA about the adjustments the consortium wishes to make, to be able to obtain approval of the changes proposed.

5.2      Conflict resolution

The consortium foresees two levels for conflict resolution: the first level is within a WP team, the second level occurs in the MBP (last escalation level, strategic issues).

Conflicts concerning issues related to resource allocation and contractual terms will be treated directly at MBP level, however the Project Manager will mediate between the parties. Conflicts concerning technical, technological or activity related issues first will be attempted to be resolved on WP level, where the Work package Leader will mediate. In the case the conflict resolution affects the work plan and expected results, the WP Leader will inform the Project Manager. In case no agreement can be reached on WP level, the conflict is referred directly to the MBP.

The MBP will take a decision by simple majority vote in order to prevent the project from entering into a deadlock situation. Each member will hold one vote and the Project Manager, if necessary, will count for an additional, decisive vote. For sever and urgent matters, the project Coordinator can call an extraordinary management meeting (either through video conferencing or face-to-face).

All disputes or differences arising in connection with the project which cannot be settled within the consortium shall be first resolved by mediation and finally by arbitration in Brussels under the rules of arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators to be appointed under the terms of those rules. It shall comprise three representatives who are not involved in the project and who are neither interconnected nor economically related in any manner with any of the parties. They will be appointed by the MC, where their decisions need the simple majority.

6        Privacy issues

During the collection of information, analysis of results and the testing and evaluation of the training programme, the consortium will interact directly with persons outside the project, and in these activities, privacy and data protection issues may arise, as the activities might deal with personal data.

The Data Protection Directive will form the basis for the definition of the treatment of data, and for each partner, the national legislation and rules concerning the ethical issues, privacy aspects, and data protection will define further the specific policy if needed. Each partner will ensure that its activities comply with:

  • the Data Protection Directive in general;
  • the data protection principles;
  • the interpretations of the principles; and
  • any delegated legislation.

Thus, the project will abide by the principles of

  • Transparency: The data subject has the right to be informed when his personal data are being processed. The controller must provide his name and address, the purpose of processing, the recipients of the data and all other information required to ensure the processing is fair. Data will be processed only under the following circumstances as mentioned in the Directive. The data subject has the right to access all data processed about him. The data subject has the right to demand the rectification, deletion or blocking of data that is incomplete, inaccurate or isn’t being processed in compliance with the data protection rules.
  • Legitimate purpose: Personal data can only be processed for specified explicit and legitimate purposes and may not be processed further in a way incompatible with those purposes.
  • Proportionality: Personal data may be processed only insofar as it is adequate, relevant, and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed. The data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. The data shouldn’t be kept in a form which permits identification of subject‘s data for longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed.

In summary, partners will:

  • only collect information that is needed for the specific purpose of providing/testing the training;
  • keep it secure;
  • ensure it is relevant and up to date;
  • only hold as much as they need, and only for as long as they need it; and
  • allow the subject of the information to see it upon request.

Apart from the avoidance measures, the project will apply the following privacy principles:

  • Only staff of the partner organisations involved in the project and the testing will have access to user data.
  • Participants will be treated with respect at all times and their anonymity will be protected.
  • Pseudonyms or codes will be used to replace any identifiers within the data.
  • Quotations may be included in reports and publications arising from the user interaction. Every quotation will be anonymised using e.g. a pseudonym.

7        Quality control of the project whole: internal evaluation

Self-Evaluation by the consortium of the quality of the project takes place at different levels:

  1. Project management
  2. Collaboration within consortium
  3. Project‘s activities and results

For each of the different levels, a set of performance indicators have been established, which can be measured on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is very positive, and 1 is very negative.

The Quality Manager is responsible for the evaluation. Each partner will be asked to score the indicators, after which the Quality Manager will elaborate an aggregated report with the view of all partners. Monitoring of the indicators takes place on a 6 months basis. Whenever the Quality Manager identifies an aggregate result below expectations, the Project Coordinator will be informed and a strategy for improvement of problem-solving will be initiated.

7.1      Project management

Performance Indicator Themes/issues addressed in the evaluation
Quality of project management arrangements ­        commitment and equitable involvement of all partners

­        detailed arrangements for implementation of work plans and administration of budgets

­        clarity of project co-ordination

Effective management and leadership qualities demonstrated by project co-ordinator ­        professional competence and commitment displayed by project co-ordinator

­        leadership qualities

­        quality of relationship with partners and development of teamwork

Effectiveness of the process of monitoring and evaluation ­        quality of the proposals for on-going monitoring and evaluation of the project and of its impact at local/regional/national/European level
Quality of the dissemination process ­        quality of the arrangements for disseminating project information/results

­        multiplier effect

Implementation of the workplan ­        adherence to the work plan by all partners

­        deviation from the work plan based on well-considered reasons and mutual agreement

Integration of project activities into the department’s/ institution’s development plan ­        evidence of the project’s integration into the development plan and normal activities of the participating institutions
Provision of project resources ­        sufficiency, range and suitability of project resources, including, where appropriate, technology resources

­        sharing of resources/expertise amongst transnational partners

Effective use of resources ­        extent to which technology and other resources are used effectively and innovatively

­        clear link between project work plan and cost-effective use of resources

7.2      Collaboration within consortium

Performance Indicator Themes/issues addressed in the evaluation
Strong commitment to the project by each partner −       extent to which each partner is ready to commit time and resources as required for the work plan

−       willingness to resolve problems

Agreement among partners −       mutual understanding about project rationale, overall aims, and short-term/long-term objectives

−       clear evidence in the work plan of sharing of roles and responsibilities amongst partners

Effective internal and external communication −       effectiveness of communication taking into account any language difficulties

−       clarity of communication in the frames of sending and receiving, particularly by the project co-ordinator

−       range, purpose, fullness and effectiveness of contacts and communications amongst partners and with other agencies e.g. National Agency, European Commission

Trust amongst partners −       development of mutual trust throughout the life of the project

−       development amongst partners of a sense of ownership of the project

Development of positive attitudes −       development of positive attitudes towards Europe and transnational activities

−       good atmosphere when working/communicating with partners

Support within each partner organisation −       effective and ongoing support from line management within each partner organisation

−       access to specialised support as appropriate on an in-house basis

−       quality of support for individual participants

Peer support −       effective peer support within  each partner organisation

−       support, where appropriate, from project partners or those involved in similar transnational projects

Support from external agencies

 

−       awareness of the specialised support available from external agencies at a local/regional/national/ European level

7.3      Project activities and results

Performance Indicator Themes/issues addressed in the evaluation
Structure of the project −       clear rationale and clarity of objectives

−       realistic timescales

−       pertinence of topics and activities

−       clarity and consistency of the general design of the project

Quality of the project −       quality of the project in terms of its short, medium- and long-term impact at local/regional/national/ European level
Quality of project materials/products −       quality of materials/guides/reports/products throughout the life-cycle of the project
Integration of the project activities into and across the curriculum or work area −       integration and permeation

−       extent and quality of the intercultural/language- awareness dimensions

−       extent and quality of the multidisciplinary of the project

Quality of the promotion of the European Dimension −       appropriate emphasis placed on the European dimension in education

−       effective promotion of knowledge and understanding about Europe

Innovation and variety of approach −       evidence of a varied range of approaches by all partners within the project

−       use, where appropriate, of innovative methodology and effective use of new technologies

−       extent of the opportunity for partners to input their own expertise and learn from each other

Annex 1 includes the model to be used in the project.

8        Quality control of project results: internal evaluation

The internal evaluation of project results focusses on 2 aspects, on one hand, the quality control of the contractual results to be produced and on the other hand the underlying process of the three main evaluation points with respect to these results: evaluation of the training plan; of the training platform and of the dissemination activities.

8.1      Quality control procedures for project results

Project results refer to the contractual project results as identified under the heading 2.2. of this document.

These results will be evaluated taking into account their comprehensiveness, clarity and completeness. A set of key results are identified that are subject to peer review by experts from within the partner organisations. In each MBP meeting, the person(s) in charge of peer review is identified for the coming period.

The key results, which are considered crucial for the success of the project and considered part of the critical path, and thus subject to peer review, are:

Outcome ID Outcome Title Deliverable Type Delivery
1.1 Supported materials for training workshops Training material M8, M10, M12
1.2 Instructional phase and curriculum development Training material M8
1.3 Technical phase and learning content development Training material M10
1.4 Technical phase – Advance technologies in agriculture Training material M12
1.5 ToR development Training material M12
2.1 Curriculum Development Teaching material M15
2.2 Learning Content Development Learning material/Training material M24

The following procedure will be followed: the work package leader (WPL) responsible for the result will send a copy of the result to the Project Coordinator and, if it proceeds, to the assigned peer reviewer.

The PM will check the result for compliance with the agreed structure for results (template or description) and the agreed issues with respect to control and the more formal aspects of the result. The template/detailed description of the results are integral parts of the Management Plan.

The WP leader will check the result for compliance with comprehensiveness, clarity and completeness with respect to the contents, in those cases where no peer review process is required; the PM will conduct an additional check according to the same criteria. In case of peer review process, it will be the peer reviewer in charge of the checking of the result for compliance with comprehensiveness, clarity and completeness with respect to the contents.

In case the verdict is negative on either one of the aforementioned aspects the result is returned to the partner for improvements. The timing of delivery of improvements is agreed between the Project Coordinator and the partner in question.

In case the verdict is positive the result is sent to the members of the MBP, or if they consider it appropriate, to one of the team members at the partner organization. They have a period of maximum 2 weeks to present allegations which impede formal approval and indicate any improvements needed. They will send these to the Project Manager, who will revise the proposed improvements and if deemed viable, pass these on to the responsible partner. In case the proposed improvements are not viable, the MBP will be informed of the reasons. Formal approval of the result will take place in the next MBP meeting.

The quality control document to be used by the Project Coordinator (PC)/Peer reviewer for quality assessment of the contractual results is included in ANNEX 2. The procedure described above is presented in the following graphics:

WPL
develops and sends the peer assigned Result to the PC
PM
checks Result for compliance with application and templates

 

Peer
checks Result for compliance with comprehensiveness, clarity and completeness
WPL
checks Result for compliance with comprehensiveness, clarity and completeness where peer is not needed
PM
double checks Result for compliance with comprehensiveness, clarity and completeness

The described quality control will guarantee high quality level results to be presented to the Erasmus+ programme.

8.2      BENEFIT KPIs

The following activities are foreseen regarding BENEFIT progress and activities monitoring:

Unit Description Value
# Project management meetings 4
# Work plan updated each year by QOU 3
# Progress reports 3
# Quality Management Plan 1
# Quality assurance reports (every year) 3
# Impact analysis report 1
# Dissemination plan 1

The following outcomes and results are foreseen regarding BENEFIT project:

Unit Description Value
# BENEFIT ToRs produced and published in English and Arabic 6
# Courses developed/updated according to ToRs 20
# Stakeholder representatives participate actively in BENEFIT activities 500
# BENEFIT incubator created 1
% Participants share information regarding BENEFIT activities 60%
% Target group participants complete pilot evaluation 85%
# HEI providers/policymakers/managers participate in testing and feedback 30
% Stakeholders/target groups rate content as useful or very useful and relevant or very relevant 90%
% Stakeholders/target groups rate materials/course as useful/credible 90%
% Stakeholders/target groups share recommendations to use the BENEFIT results 75%

The following sustainability activities are foreseen regarding

Unit Description Value
# Engagement meetings and briefing with own stakeholders 24
# Lobbying activities 24
# Follow up meetings regarding implementation of ToRs in other PS regions (10) 5
# Projects capitalized outcomes and results of BENEFIT 5

8.3      Quality of the evaluation of the BENEFIT courses

Once the first Pilot Test has been completed, an evaluation of the training will be done in order to detect possible mistakes and improvements in the training materials, modules, case studies, support material, training methodology and e-Learning Platform, this will imply:

  • delivery of questionnaires to all the participants involved in the Training Pilot Test;
  • compilation and analysis of data gathered from questionnaires;
  • evaluation of results (the envisaged questionnaires will provide a numerical assessment of the training, platform, and contents)
  • Identification of possible mistakes and possible improvements of training material;
  • development of a Report of Training Evaluation.

The specific evaluation methodology and tools to be used will be developed in the corresponding WP4.

8.4      Quality of the dissemination activities

The evaluation of the quality of the dissemination activities will take place at two levels, one at internal level through the recollection of indicators by the consortium members themselves, one at an external level, which is addressed in the next chapter.

Performance Indicator Themes/issues addressed in the evaluation
Completion of dissemination and exploitation activities –      Percentage of activities remaining to be completed without resulting to unfinished activities. Threshold for this indicator is less than 20%.
Participation level for dissemination events –      Number of expected users per dissemination tool and/or activity with respect to the number of actual users per dissemination tools and/or activity

–      Difference in % between expected users and actual users

–      Threshold for this indicator is a difference of less than 30%

Perceived quality of the on-line dissemination activities and tools –      Number of unique visitors

–      Repeating visitors

The Quality Manager recollects on a 6 monthly basis these indicators, which will form part of the quality report. The last indicator is provided by the partner in charge of the on-line dissemination activities and tools. In case of a result under threshold, the Quality Manager will signal the Project Manager who will decide, in consensus with the rest of the consortium, the type of correcting action to be taken.

When assessing the quality of the dissemination activities, one has to bear in mind that there is a limited set of dissemination activities to which specific quality evaluation can be applied.

The dissemination activities that are best placed to be subject to external quality evaluation are those that include direct interaction with the target public; these are referred to from now on as “dissemination events”. However, the project website can provide relevant information on the perceived quality by the users via feedback and user comments.

Although each of the consortium members will design the specific evaluation questionnaires for their events, all will follow the guidelines as established in the present quality plan and project‘s Dissemination, Exploitation and Valorisation Plan.

As such the consortium members will ensure that the questionnaires used in the events will reflect all of the indicated performance indicators, the list of themes indicates the type of issues to be measured. However, the list is not exhaustive and needs to be adjusted according to the specifics of the event:

Performance Indicator Themes/issues addressed in the evaluation
Organisation of the event –      Evidence of clear planning

–      Realistic timescales

–      Appropriate selection of delegates

Effectiveness of content and appropriate range and balance of activities –      Appropriate content, clearly related to the aims and objectives of the event

–      Relevant mixture of activities e.g. icebreaking activities, didactic sessions, workshops, social activities, free time

–      Appropriateness of the social programme

Effectiveness of the delivery by speakers, trainers, workshop leaders etc. –      Speakers, trainers and leaders have the appropriate subject competence and knowledge

–      Speakers, trainers and leaders are good communicators

–      Speakers, trainers and leaders have the appropriate experience for delivering

Effectiveness of shared ownership of the event –      Evidence that the needs and expectations of participants have been taken into account

–      Evidence that participants have the opportunity to contribute their own expertise

Effectiveness of the process of monitoring and evaluation –      Quality of the mechanism for evaluation

–      Evidence of on-going assistance to participants, if appropriate

Provision and suitability of materials, resources and equipment –      Evidence of appropriate prior information being issued to participants

–      Relevance and quality of materials issued during the event

–      Sufficiency, range and suitability of other resources, including, where appropriate, ICT

–      Provision of support and assistance for technology users

–      Extent to which technology and other resources are used effectively

Quality and appropriateness of the arrangements and the comfort factor –      Attention to practical details and catering

–      Suitability of the working venue

–      Quality of overnight accommodation, if appropriate

–      Evidence of special requirements (dietary for example) being met

Based upon the objective and content and taking into account the characteristics of the target public, the consortium member in charge of designing the evaluation of event will establish thresholds for each indicator identified in the evaluation questionnaire. In case an indicator is below the threshold, the consortium member must propose means for improvement.

 

Annex 1: Model for quality evaluation of transnational meetings

 

 

 

BENEFIT MEETING EVALUATION REPORT
Boosting Innovation in Education and Research of Precision Agriculture in Palestine

 

Boosting Innovation in Education and Research of Precision Agriculture in Palestine Project title
BENEFIT Project acronym
609544-EPP-1-2019-1-PS-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP Project reference number
Al-Quds Open University (QOU) Coordinator
January 15, 2020 Project start date
36 months Project duration
Reference no and title of work package
Marta Harnicarova

Jan Valíček

Authors
Event
Type of Event
venue
Organizer
Date
Total Number of Participants

 

 التنظيم   (Organization) Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Meeting organization
Working session
Partners´ participation in the meeting activities *
Conversation control by the hosting organisation
Documentation and information of the project distributed by the leader and organization *
Are you the right person to attend this meeting
You have given enough information about the meeting before attending the meeting
Meeting Place
Meeting duration
Meeting timing
Percent
PROBLEMS encountered and SUGGESTIONS to improve the quality of this aspect of the project (Transnational Meeting):

 

 الاتصال(Communication) Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Communication between partners
Clarity and fluency of the communication
Helpfulness of the communication
Percent
PROBLEMS encountered and SUGGESTIONS to improve the quality of this aspect of the project (Communication):

 

   تنظيم الاجتماع (Meeting Organization) Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Organization of the meeting
Sustainability and organization of the timetable *
Clarity of the task
Distribution of tasks between the partners
Percent
PROBLEMS encountered and SUGGESTIONS to improve the quality of this aspect of the project (Project Work plan):

 

تنظيم العملبينالشركاء

(Organizing the work between the partners)

Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Instructions and help given by the promoter for the development of the meeting activities
Difficulty of the activity
Usefulness of the activity *
Success of the activity
Percent
PROBLEMS encountered and SUGGESTIONS to improve the quality of this aspect of the project (Organizing the work between the partners):

 

  الاتفاقيات (Agreements) Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Contractor & Partner Agreement – instructions and help given by the partner responsible for the development of this activity:
Contractor & Partner Agreement – difficulty of the process*
Percent
PROBLEMS encountered and SUGGESTIONS to improve the quality of this aspect of the project (Proposals for the models to be used during the project – Contractor & Partner Agreement):  

 

 

 

 

Annex 2: Model for quality assessment of contractual results

 

 

 

BENEFIT MEETING EVALUATION REPORT
Boosting Innovation in Education and Research of Precision Agriculture in Palestine

 

Boosting Innovation in Education and Research of Precision Agriculture in Palestine Project title
BENEFIT Project acronym
609544-EPP-1-2019-1-PS-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP Project reference number
Al-Quds Open University (QOU) Coordinator
January 15, 2020 Project start date
36 months Project duration
Reference no and title of work package
Marta Harničárová

Jan Valíček

Authors
WP
Type of result
Reviewer
Date

 

Assessment of the Result[1]

Completeness Are the contents complete and cover the objective of the result? Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Clarity Are all parts of the result understandable?
Comprehensiveness Does the result address all the issues as specified in the project plan?

 

Template Does the result use the project template correctly? Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف
Version control Is the version control used in a correct way?
IPR/GDPR Are graphics used properly and referencing/sourcing done in an adequate way?

Is the personal data protection according the GDPR?

Suggestions for modification / improvement (bearing in mind the timing, resource and other features of the research context)

 

 

 

Any other observations (e.g. minor corrections that need attention)

 

 

Annex 3: Workshop Evaluation

 

 

 

BENEFIT MEETING EVALUATION REPORT
Boosting Innovation in Education and Research of Precision Agriculture in Palestine

 

Boosting Innovation in Education and Research of Precision Agriculture in Palestine Project title
BENEFIT Project acronym
609544-EPP-1-2019-1-PS-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP Project reference number
Al-Quds Open University (QOU) Coordinator
January 15, 2020 Project start date
36 months Project duration
Reference no and title of work package
Marta Harnicarova

Jan Valíček

Authors
Workshop Name:
Workshop Place:
Workshop Organizer:
Workshop Date
Workshop duration
Workshop duration

Use the following grades for evaluating the following question

5 4 3 2 1
Excellent ممتاز V. Good

جيد جدا

Good         جيد Average متوسط Weak ضعيف

Workshop Evaluation

How would you rate the information presented in this workshop?

How well was the material organized and presented?
How useful were the learning activities you participated in?
How helpful was this workshop for you?
What is your overall impression with the workshop?
Would you recommend this workshop to others?
How was the organization of this workshop?

Additional Comments:

 

 

Presenter Evaluation

The presenter was prepared for class.
The presenter was able to communicate clearly.
The presenter answered the questions.
The presenter addressed the audience with critical thinking (or debate) approach.
The presenter supported his argument with real world examples.
The presenter followed good time management throughout his presentations.
I would recommend the presenter for related topics in future workshops.

Additional Comments:

 

 

Workshop Content and Objectives

The role of assessment in the teaching process.
Different types of assessment.
Requirements of good test.
Evaluating Alignment of Instructional and Assessment Materials.

Additional Comments:

How would you improve this workshop?

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Please add any additional comments and suggestions (including activities or initiatives you think would be useful, for the future (Check all that apply):

  • Provide better information before the workshop
  • Clarify the workshop objectives
  • Reduce the content covered in the workshop
  • Increase the content covered in the workshop
  • Update the content covered in the workshop
  • Improve the instructional methods
  • Make workshop activities more stimulating
  • Improve workshop organization

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button