​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

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

Workplanfor project year 2

Workplan for project year 3

2.2      BENEFIT results

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

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:

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

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:

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

7.2      Collaboration within consortium

7.3      Project activities and results

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:

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:

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:

The following outcomes and results are foreseen regarding BENEFIT project:

The following sustainability activities are foreseen regarding

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.

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:

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

Annex 2: Model for quality assessment of contractual results

Assessment of the Result[1]

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

Use the following grades for evaluating the following question

Workshop Evaluation

How would you rate the information presented in this workshop?

Additional Comments:

Presenter Evaluation

Additional Comments:

Workshop Content and Objectives

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