Leonardo da Vinci Transfer of Innovation Project “Perspectives 360”
No. LLP-LdV-TOI-371
PROJECT PARTNER EVALUATION ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND THE
P360 FACILITATORS‘ TRAINERS‘ TRAINING (FTT)
Project partners where asked to evaluate impact of project activities during first half of project year. From
the beginning of the project activities till May this year.
Questioner was distributed among partners asking to evaluate every aspect of project management with
marks. Partners where asked to give every process a mark 1 till 5. 1-lowest evaluation and 10 – best.
This evaluation was divided in to two bigger parts:
1. Feedback on project managements.
2. Feedback on facilitators‘ trainers‘ training (FTT)
In first part respondents indicated their opinion about project activities during first half of the year,
activities carried out during first half of the year, management process during first half of the year and product
development during first half of the year.
Summarizing partner answers it is clear, that partner organizations are very interested in adopting
P360 tool and they are taking constructive steps in adopting P360 tool. Partners also see that it is possible to
transfer the experience of the P360 to the activities of their organizations. Partner evaluations on their
organizations allocation of time, human and financial resources for the project activities are also quite high
meaning, that partners are happy with it. Partners also think that there is relevant infrastructure in other
partner organizations, including coordinating partner to carry out project activities.
In the second part of the evaluation partners where asked to give feedback on facilitators‘ trainers‘
training (FTT) which took place in UK.
Partners evaluating this training session gave high marks for this event. They indicted, that during
training session they have learned a lot of new things that will find their place in their training of P360
facilitators, generating and analyzing results of P360 questioners and giving feedback to the managers that are
assessed. There were a lot of new things indicated which partners will use in better performance of their
organizations. Partners also remained very happy with training administration and facilities training was carried
out. Partners also provided some hints for future delivery of that kind of training: what and how could be made
better.
I. feedback on project management
1. INPUT TO THE PROJECT ACTIVITIES DURING FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR (11-2010 – 05-2011)
All partners have indicated that their organization is very interested in adopting P360 tool in their
countries. Average answer rate to this question is 9.14 meaning, that most of the partners evaluated this
aspect with highest marks.
Very similar answers were also to the question whether partner organizations are interested in adopting
P360 tool. Average answer rate to this question is 9.14 meaning, that organizations are very interested in
adopting and using this tool.
Evaluations on constructiveness of steps in adopting P360 tool in to partner countries organizations are
also very high. Average answer rate to this question is 8.87 meaning, that steps towards use of this tool are
very constructive.
Most partner organizations see this project as “value for money”. Average answer rate to this question is
7. 7 meaning that partner organizations see P360 tool as possibility to earn money.
Most of the partners see that it is possible to transfer the experience of the P360 to other activities of their
organization. Average answer rate to this question is 8.85 meaning, that they see it as very useful toll which will
be a part of their activities.
Partners indicated that attention to this project and its activities received a lot of attention from the
business. Average answer rate to this question is 7 meaning, that business companies are interested in this
methodology, they care about their manager management skills and they would use it to plan in-service
training for their managers.
2. IMPUT TO THE PROJECT ACTIVITIES DURING FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR (11-2010 – 05-2011)
Project partners where asked to evaluate input to the project activities during first half of the year. From
the beginning of project activities till May this year.
Answering to the following question partners indicated that partner organizations are allocating enough
human resources for project activities. Average answer rate to this question is 7.3 meaning that partners
working on this project are quite happy with help they have for project activities. Best indication for this could
be, that project activities are going smoothly without any interruptions.
Partners also think, that other partner organizations, including coordinating partner are allocating enough
human resources for the project activities. Average answer rate to this question is 7.9 meaning that partners
working on this project are happy with output from other partners or coordinating partner.
While evaluating time resources, partner organization think that their organizations allocated sufficient
time resources for the project activities. Average answer rate to this question is 8.4 meaning that partner
organizations are happy with it.
All partners think that there is relevant infrastructure in their organizations for caring out project activities.
Average answer rate to this question is 9.6. Partners also think, that there is relevant infrastructure in other
partner organizations, including coordination partner for caring out project activities. Average answer rate to
this question is 9.
Partners evaluate with 8.8 the sufficiency of financial resources allocated for this project. It means that
partners are very happy with the financial side of the project.
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS DURING FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR (11-2010 – 05-2011)
The answers provided should take into the account project management during the first half of the year
Project partners where asked to evaluate project management activities during first half of the year. From
the beginning of project activities till May this year.
Evaluating project management activities partners indicated, that in general project activities are in line
with the deadlines. Their evaluation average is 8.1. This means, that activities are very good planed, and in
general results are delivered on time.
Partners also evaluated other partner’s contributions. Their general opinion about partnership contribution
to project results are quite good. Therefore average evaluation is 7.8.
Evaluating level of partner performance accuracy, partnership gave average of 8 points. What means, that
partners are quite happy with partners performance accuracy and there is no need to make changes in this
field.
Speaking about another question where partners have indicated the quality of the partners’ performance,
they think it is sufficient and rate it with average of 8.6.
On the other hand partners think, that instructions received for activity implementation are clear (average
of 9), they think that all activities fit the purpose (Average of 9.4) and they are motivated to carry out assigned
project activities (Average of 9.4). As we can see these aspects are rated very well.
Partners indicate that communication between the project partners is effective (Average of answers 8.8)
and they receive all the information they need on time (Average of answers 8.9). These figures show that
partnership is quite happy with these aspects of project management process.
All partners think, that atmosphere of the project team is open and friendly. Partners also indicate that
their role and responsibilities in the project are clear. This opinion is backed up by high evaluations, which
average is 9.4.
4. PRODUCT DEVELOPMNENT DURING FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR (11-2010 – 05-2011)
Project partners where asked to evaluate product development during first half of the year. From the
beginning of project activities till May this year.
All partners agree that P360 tool is user friendly and easy to use, the content of P360 is relevant for
assessing the competence gap of the SMEs functional managers, and the competence of the partnership is
sufficient to adopt P360 tool in their organizations. Answering questions partners gave high evaluations
therefore average is 9.
II. feedback on facilitators‘ trainers‘ training (FTT)
Partner overall satisfaction with the 12-13 May training is very good. Average satisfaction is 8,25.
Partners also indicated some features which could be included in future training sessions.
5. Please list up to three topics covered during the training, which were new to you:
According to a survey, many participants replied, that P360 as a tool and its features such as generation
of P360 reports and results analysis were very new to them. All training participants indicated that P360
feedback features are new to them.
Also for some training participants feedback giving technics were new. Some of the participants indicated,
that they learned about preparation steps for the feedback meeting based on P360 report, others about
the couching, some of them found new feedback experience with P360.
6. Please list up to 3 topics that will be most useful for you during the training of P360 facilitators:
Most of the training session participants mentioned that P360 functions related to manager evaluation
and report generation will be most useful during the training of P360 facilitators. Also provided facilitators
guide will be at great value, especially the tips linked to the feedback meeting, feedback cycle, Johari
window, techniques and advices for giving effective feedback to managers. Finally, participants explained,
that they improved their skills in results and report analysis, communication with managers, planning of
feedback meeting, recognize the concept of the competence and understood the ways of handling denial.
7. Please list up to 3 topics that will be most useful for you when providing feedback to the assessed
managers:
Talking about providing of feedback to the assessed managers, training session participants think that
the most useful topics will be feedback giving principles, practice and guidelines. Also they mentioned the
aspect of good preparation for the feedback meeting, what to focus on in feedback, how to give a feedback
for very bad results.
Participants indicated the importance of motivating others, teamwork encouragement. Also, according to a
survey, some kinds of communication are important, especially essential points about how to
communicate to managers, how to emphasize manager’s strengths when appropriate and how to resolve
conflicts.
Participants also noticed that reports and results analysis, P360 evaluation tool and Johari window will be
useful when providing feedback to the assessed managers.
Training session participants are optimistic about their readiness for training of P360 facilitators. Their
average evaluation is 7.5. Participants also outlined suggestions what could be added while organizing such
training sessions.
Partner evaluation on their readiness to provide feedback to the assessed managers is also quite high.
Partner average of this evaluation is 7.87. Participants also outlined suggestions what could be added while
organizing such training sessions.
8. Please provide some hints for future delivery of that kind of training:
Training session participants provided some hints for the future delivery of that kind of training. All
participants mentioned that they want to communicate while training: they suggested using more
discussion methods and case studies, for example, greater discussion on the analysis of different P360
reports and a discussion by the group on how they would analyze it. Also they suggest a two-way
communication between the lecturer and trainees, check that the participants understand the training
goals. Participants indicated the importance of the feedbacks and practice. According to a survey results,
sample feedback presentation given and some other examples how to present them would be very useful.
Also, individual feedback given to the training participants and observed practice with individual feedback
from both the person receiving feedback and the observer are essential. They would like more time on
feedback giving techniques and less time for platform admin. Moreover, participants suggested developing
and using e-learning module for facilitators. Good preparation and planning of training session, excellent
delivery were mentioned as strong sides of session.
9. What will you be able to do on personal level after the training that you could not do before?
Participants marked the developed skills after the training. Most of them concluded that they will be
able to use P360 system, especially give feedbacks in a better way, and explain the Johary window deeper.
Some of them expect some behavioral changes based on the training content. Some also gained more
competence in interpretation of P360 reports and analysis of the results, giving feedbacks and suggesting
learning possibilities.
Also participants think that they will be more prepared to deal with different kinds of results, be able to
organize IT, create and develop training and support process so as to ensure that the training does work.
Finally, they believe to have the necessary competence to cope with facilitation of internal training and
feedbacks, offering support for managers.
10. What changes do you expect in your organization in relation to the P360 activities after the training?
Participants mentioned some advantages that could help to develop their organizations and
companies. First of all, they expect more skill based manager in-service training, training transfer to enable
employees and trainers to apply skills learned. This tool will give the possibility to all managers to test their
skills. Training participants indicated other advantages that could affect the organization directly, for
example, encourage the modifications to company policies and procedures regarding manager skills testing
and training, what could result in better teamwork, setting objectives and so on.
11. Training session participants overall satisfaction with training content is very high: 8.25.
12. They are also very happy with training administration and facilities. Average of their evaluation is 9.4.