Report: Quantitative Evaluation
(1st round)
1. INTRODUCTION
In addition to the “Qualitative Analysis Diagnostic” presented in the previous section, a
“Quantitative Evaluation” has been performed in order to fully diagnose the integration
of the gender dimension into the European Commission 6FP research activities. This
evaluation, that is part of the Report of the First Monitoring Round of the Tender (Ref.
INFSO 2004/S 31-026918), is presented next.
First of all, the current situation at the three positions that have been analysed at this
stage: Project Officers, Project Coordinators, and Evaluators, is summarized. Based on
the information gathered from the DG INFSO, the current number of project officers is
211 workers, being women 40 (19%) of them. In the case of Project Coordinators, there
are 11 (13%) women out of a total of 87 people. From 1698 Project Evaluators, the
current number of women is 301 (18%).
From previous data, it can be seen that in all cases the current situation is not well
balanced. In this document some insight into the reasons of these unbalanced situations
is presented. Additionally, some strategies to improve the situation towards gender
equality are presented, including the estimation (taking into account the current women
availability and constraints, for all three cases) of the appropriate range (target
percentage) of women.
To get ‘gender equality dimension’ several equal opportunities strategies could be
developed. The central core in most of them has been addressed to increase the potential
availability of women at the working offer as well as to fight against formal and
informal barriers women must handle along their professional careers. During the last
decade, new and more positive strategies insisting about the social advantages derived
from women’s incorporation to the labour market have been growing up. Gender
diversity strategy is one of them and represents the starting point of this research.
The main aim of gender diversity strategy is to get women-men equal opportunities in
labour market and professional life by incorporating the acknowledgment of gender
1
differences and the positive value of joining feminine and masculine characteristics.
Gender diversity values include the idea that most of the professional abilities and
competences are modulated by a gender profile. Gender diversity also means the
awareness that because of gender socialization processes, women and men sometimes
have different interests, desires, and behaviours being feminine profiles as useful as
masculine ones for the professional development. In that sense, any labour organization
should take into account the sex-composition of people working inside and also the
male-female interests of the potential clients being outside the organization.
If gender diversity is evaluated from measures like the sex-composition of a working
team, the male-female proportion of potential clients, and the masculine-feminine
profiles related to some professional abilities and competences, as it has been said
before, equal opportunities principle is evaluated through the analysis of women
availability as well as external and internal barriers which hamper women professional
development.
The proposed Quantitative Analysis requires, for each analysed position, to follow the
next steps:

Data acquisition. Determination, or estimation from reliable and available data,
of:
-
Abilities
-
Requirements
-
Working conditions
-
Availability
-
Current situation

Analysis of all possible actions to be performed

Evaluation of:
-
Functional requirements
-
Constraints
-
Offer

Evaluation of Gender Equal Opportunities indicator

Suggest appropriate corrective actions

Complement with Qualitative Analysis
2
For the application of the quantitative methodology a Diversity and Equal Opportunities
Model has been developed and it has also been implemented into a software tool. The
model and methodology are detailed in the next section.
2. METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS
This section describes an operative model that makes use of all the previous ideas and
then operates with both gender diversity and equal opportunity criteria.
The main ideas behind the operative model, the data needed to employ this model, and
the usual way the data is gathered is described next. In order to use the model to
perform the quantitative analysis of gender diversity and equal opportunities, it is
necessary to acquire information about women/men proportion in a working team,
women availability in a professional position, barriers against women at the labour
market, and gender diversity profiles. More precisely, the operative model analysis
requires the following data in order to define appropriately the scenario:

The starting point is the current gender situation in a particular working team
(Project Officers, Project Coordinators, and Project Evaluators working teams in
this particular case). From an operative point of view, a measure of the male/female
proportion enacting in a working team (i.e. list of people in the particular position to
be analysed) is required. The sex-disaggregated figures represent the first measure to
be taken into account by the model.

In order to enhance women’s presence in a working team, it is also important to
know the potential availability of women having qualifications and expertise
enough to access or to be promoted in a working position, then requiring data (from
available statistics of the involved organizations and their labour markets) about
women proportion having the working requirements to get a given position. The
operative model allows the study of availability in two steps. First, a number of
possible applicants is requested, i.e., the number of people fulfilling the minimum
requirements for the job, along with the percentage of women within this group.
Second, a refinement in the selection is available, by classifying the group of
possible applicants into up to three levels of knowledge or skills, not required but
highly desirable.
3

The potential availability of women determined previously is usually constrained
by possible limitations due to the presence of external and internal barriers.
Barriers are categorized by experts in organizational culture, organizational policies
and personal conditioners. These barriers must also be determined, usually by means
of interviews or questionnaires to people or workers who know about the position
being analysed.

Women current presence and women actual availability for a working position are
not the only factors to be taken into account. A gender diversity profile is also an
important indicator to diagnose gender diversity and equal opportunities in order to
promote gender action measures to improve women positions. The gender diversity
profile includes the study of gender stereotyped abilities and competences for a
professional position, where the gender stereotyped attribution has been assigned by
experts in Gender Perspective (determined with the help of questionnaires answered
by people or workers knowing the position).

The adequate gender diversity profile for a position can also be slightly modified
by the male/female proportion involved inside or outside the organization, as staff
and working people (inside de organization) or as potential clients or users (outside
the organization). This data of internal and external client must be made available
from statistics of the organizations.

Finally, a potential and possible corrective actions database must be determined
for each position and organization under study, with the aim to improve gender
diversity and equal opportunities within the organisation (determined by means of
questionnaires and interviews to experts knowing the position and organizations
gender policies responsible). The possible corrective actions are addressed to
eliminate external and internal barriers hampering women career development as
well as to increase women proportion at the analysed positions by improving the
potential availability of women at the working offer. Actions addressed to barriers
should refer to Organizational Culture, Organizational Policies and Personal
Conditioners. Actions addressed to improve the women participation are listed
under the heading of Scenario. An application time horizon is attached to each
action: Short (S), Medium (M) and Large (L) time.
In summary, the data is mainly collected from statistics of the organizations and through
surveys sent to a selection of workers knowing the positions being analysed.
4
The questionnaires should have a first part covering the assignment of grades of
relevance to the set of enlisted characteristics, a second part about gender barriers, and a
third part that is open to comments and suggestions that can help in defining the
corrective actions database. The database is complemented, of course, with interviews
to experts knowing the position as well as the organizations gender policies responsible.
When all data is collected the analysis can be performed. First of all, data is arranged
and transformed into appropriate variables to be used in the operative model, i.e. can be
handled mathematically and then allowing a quantitative analysis. This transformation
of collected data leads to “measures” of three variables (actual diversity, offer diversity,
and functional diversity representing the actual, potential and ideal presence of women):

The current gender situation in a particular working team is conceptualised with the
name of actual diversity.

The information about women candidate proportion in the labour market for a
position (potential availability of women), and then modified by the constrains due
to the presence of external and internal barriers, is the concept labelled as offer
diversity.

The analysis of gender diversity profile but taking into account the internal and
external clients is labelled as functional diversity.
The measures coming from these three variables are then evaluated and compared, then
producing a diagnosis of the situation from the gender diversity and equal opportunities
perspective. Some examples of the analysis and comparisons done are:

Functional diversity. If values (usually ranges) are low (% of women abilities), then
a redefinition of the position is required, according with the gender diversity and the
new organizational demands.

Offer diversity. If values (usually ranges) are low (% of women available), then the
labour market and the gender barriers are a problem.

Functional diversity – Offer diversity. A comparison between ideal and potential
presence of women in a position is done. The bigger the difference between them,
(being lower the offer than the functional diversity) the bigger the gender
5
segregation into the organization is. A big difference usually points out about a need
to implement actions to improve the offer.

Functional diversity - Actual diversity. A comparison between ideal and actual
presence of women in a position is done. A big difference usually points out that the
selection criteria when establishing working teams does not properly take into
account gender criteria.

Offer diversity – Actual diversity. A comparison between potential and actual
presence of women in a position is done. A big difference usually points out that the
selection criteria does not take into account the availability of people but only other
not determined criteria.
Additionally, and in order to have numerical and global information, some indexes have
been also defined:

Functional: the adequacy of the team composition to the Functional diversity, from
0 to 1. Value 1 would be the optimal situation, meaning maximum adequacy. Value
0 means total inadequacy, however it does not always define a bad situation, since
actual diversity can be inadequate to Functional diversity either when there are less
women than the recommended, either when there are more women than the
recommended. The first case would be inadequate and very bad. The second case is
still inadequate, but quite good.

Offer: the adequacy of the team composition to the Offer diversity, from 0 to 1.
Again, the optimal value for this index would be 1, since this means maximum
adequacy to the study of availability at the offer. However the percentage of women
at the actual diversity can be lower than the suggested by the offer, to reach a total
and negative inadequacy; or it can be higher than the suggested, which does not
match to the study of the offer but is rather good.

Equal Opportunities (EO): the global index of gender barriers, from 0 (very bad)
to 10 (very good).

Scenario: scores the situation of both diversity functions, and the proximity to the
ideal situation, from 0 (very bad) to 10 (very good).

Selection: scores the selection made according to the diversity functions, from 0
(very bad) to 10 (very good).
6

Global: scores the overall situation and selection, from 0 (very bad) to 10 (very
good).
Finally, a selection is made from a list of corrective actions with the aim to improve
gender diversity and equal opportunities within those areas where deficiencies have
been detected. These corrective actions are arranged in the form of a knowledge
database (i.e. rules) whose inputs are the measures of actual diversity, offer diversity,
and functional diversity, and different indexes that comes out from the comparison of
them. The output of the knowledge database is the appropriate combination of
corrective actions to overcome the situation detected by measures and indexes.
In the next section, the obtained results from these analyses, detailing which sources of
information were used, are explained for Project Officer, Project Coordinator, and
Evaluator positions.
3. RESULTS
The previously described operative model has been implemented in a software
tool that performs the analysis of gender diversity and equal opportunities based on the
gathered information about gender barriers, the diversity profile, and numbers of
availability of women at the offer. The automated process is as follows:

A gender diversity profile is produced, based on a classification of a list of
characteristics considered relevant for the position, graded by importance by the
workers occupying the job being analysed. Each characteristic has one of three
stereotypes assigned (Masculine, Feminine, Neutral), based on previous studies.

A study of the offer is done, taking into account the availability of women matching
the minimum requirements, an additional classification according to higher
expertise and careers, and the limitation due to the presence of gender barriers.

These two previous variables, along with the information about the current diversity
at the position being analysed, are evaluated and a diagnosis of the situation is
produced.
7

A selection is made from a list of corrective actions, with the aim to improve the
gender diversity and equal opportunities within those areas where deficiencies have
been detected.
Information about the diversity profiles and the indices of gender barriers were
gathered through surveys that were sent to a selection of workers performing the
positions being analysed. The information about the availability and percentages of
women and men at the offer has been extracted from the documentation supplied.
Following, the analyses are explained, detailing which sources of information
were used, and the results obtained, for each position.
3.1. Project Officer
Concerning Project Officers, the current composition of the group of project
officers (actual diversity of Project Officers) is 211 workers, being 40 of them women
The statistical data has been provided by DG INFSO.
The data for the analysis of this position has been taken from 9 answered
surveys (5 Male, 4 Female) about working conditions and functional requirements.
3.1.1. Project Officer Functional Diversity.
The gender diversity profile (functional diversity) has been determined from an
average of the answers to the surveys received (more detailed data is in the Annex).
Provided that figures on internal and external client were not available, 50 % has been
considered for both (the real impact of these figures is small). The gender diversity
distribution produced in this case, from the weighted average of the list of
characteristics, is:
Characteristics Masculine Feminine Neutral
%
23
31
46
8
From these numbers, a diversity profile distribution function can be depicted
(graphically shows a range of percentages where the gender diversity to cover the
position would be optimal. The shape of the graph has some optional parameters). The
following plot shows that from the diversity profile point of view, the optimal
percentage of women for an adequate diversity profile should be between 40% and 69%
of the total amount of project officers.
Functional diversity. Percentage of women (0-100%) vs. adequacy (0-1). The study of
diversity profile depicts an optimal adequacy of 40 to 69% of the team being women.
3.1.2. Project Officer Offer Diversity.
The required data would be the number of people in the European Union meeting the
minimum requirements to be Project Officers, and the percentage of women among
these possible applicants. An assumption has been made in order to proceed with the
analysis: since it would be of a great difficulty to compute a number of available
candidates from all the workers at the European Union, the amount of people and
gender segregation of the IST staff has been considered as the base model of the
available offer for the position of Project Officer. Thus, according to the gathered
information, there is a total of 268 workers at the IST, being 44 (16%) of them women.
No further classifications of applicants according to knowledge levels have been made,
since this information is not available.
As explained before, the gender barriers would limit the availability of women at the
offer (Offer Diversity). The questionnaire about gender barriers issues included in the
9
survey and concerning specific areas that may affect women project officers in
developing their work (see the Annex for more details and data), gives in this case the
following indices of gender barriers:

Organizational Culture: 6.7

Organizational Policies: 7

Personal Conditioners: 6.1

Global Equal Opportunities Index: 6.6
The availability function (green, without barriers) and Offer Diversity (blue, including
barriers) are shown below. The offer diversity function depicts an availability at the
offer of 11 to 18% of women of the total number of possible applicants.
Offer diversity. Percentage of women (0-100%) vs. adequacy (0-1). The study depicts
an availability at the offer of 11 to 18% women.
3.1.3. Project Officer Scenario Analysis.
Taking into account both diversity functions together and also the actual number of
Project Officers (211 people, 40 of them women), an analysis of team composition has
been done.
Functional Div. Suggestion
Minimum
Maximum
% of woman in the team
40
69
# of woman in the team
82
143
10
Offer Div. Suggestion
Minimum
Maximum
% of woman in the team
11
18
# of woman in the team
23
38
In the following figure, a combination of the information of previous tables with the
actual team composition (see the red square, that is 40 women and 171 men) can be
seen. There is a low adequacy of this team to functional diversity (functional diversity
index of 0) but a maximum adequacy to offer diversity (offer diversity index of 1).
Scenario analysis. A selection of 19% of women at the team produces an adequacy of 0
to the Functional diversity (too few) and 1 to the Offer diversity (maximum adequacy).
3.1.4. Project Officer Scenario Diagnosis.
In summary, the indexes defined previously give in this case the following figures.

Functional Diversity Index: 0 (over 1)

Offer Diversity Index: 1 (over 1)

Equal Opportunities Index: 6,6 (over 10)

Scenario: 4 (over 10)

Selection: 2 (over 10)

Global: 3 (over 10)
11
The Functional Diversity index is highly inadequate and not good, because it indicates
that the actual diversity does not reach the optimal suggestion of diversity percentages
depicted by the Functional Diversity. On the other hand, The Offer Diversity index
gives evidence that actual diversity is making use of the optimal availability of women
at the offer.
Finally, the main ideas that can be now extracted as written diagnosis from the
information available are:

There is a DIFFERENCE between the Offer Diversity and the functional Diversity.
The number of women among the candidates is not enough to achieve the proposed
Gender Diversity,

The Organizational Culture, Policies and personal conditioners of the Institution
might be an OBSTACLE to achieve Equal Opportunities and Gender Diversity, and

The team composition is totally unbalanced.
3.1.5. Project Officer Corrective Actions.
Based on the diagnosis and the situation of the gender barriers, a set of corrective
actions can be chosen from an actions’ database. Each item in the gender barriers' list
has a different set of actions attached; the value of the index for each specific gender
barrier determines which actions are selected from each set of actions attached.
As previously said, the database of actions should be written by experts, targeting on the
specific organizations the analysis is concerned at. In this case, to build a specific
actions database for the DG INFSO is an activity not developed at this stage. A generic
database has been used instead.
The quantitative analysis of gender diversity in the group of project officers depicts a
centred and balanced gender diversity profile for the position (Functional diversity), but
a very poor gender diversity at the offer (Offer diversity). As can be seen in the figure
depicting the Offer diversity, the effect of the gender barriers is almost undetected,
which means that there would be mainly a problem of availability of women at the
offer, meeting the minimum requirements for the position. The actual diversity indicates
12
a low presence of women as well, although the Offer Diversity Index shows that the
number of women at the team corresponds to the optimal number of availability at the
offer, under the current circumstances. Therefore, although the percentage of women is
low, there would be an interest in achieving gender diversity.
It must be highlighted that the information about the amount of possible candidates
meeting the minimum requirements to be project officers has had to be estimated, due to
the difficulty of obtaining such numbers among all the workers citizens of the European
Union. The percentage of women at the available offer has been extracted from the
statistics of the IST staff.
Full results for the group of project officers are listed in the annex, but a summary of
main actions is presented next:
S
Rewarding teams which suggest and apply measures beneficial from a gender
perspective and which foster gender equality.
S
Spread the result of the actions taken within the institution which have favored
or improved the work environment thanks to the application of gender
S
Publish the good practices that, regarding harassment, have been implemented
by the Organization.
S
Reward all those suggestions or practices which favor the inclusion of women
workers in the institution and the achievement of diverse working teams.
S
Economically reward dedication at executive or management positions as a
measure that can serve as a reference to the women of the Organization.
S
Acknowledge and praise women's work whenever this has been done
satisfactory or served as labour promotion.
L
Sensitize the staff of the Organization on EO and the benefits of gender
equality.
M
Review and remove the values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and labor conditions
that could be favoring the maintenance of discriminative and sexist stereotypes
that can lessen the satisfaction of women workers with the recognition of their
worth and personal contribution, as a consequence of their exclusion.
S
Analyze quantitatively and qualitatively the level of satisfaction with the
recognition of their worth and professional contribution and the causes behind
it, to face the results and suggestions drawn.
M
Design and establish awareness and motivation programs to promote women
workers' mobility either vertical and horizontally within the Institution.
S
Specify the existence of vacancies open to all the staff with the required
qualifications, ensuring that the information reaches all the possible applicants
13
meeting the mentioned requirements, no matter which position they are
occupying currently.
S
Revise the foresights of future promotions at the Institution, favoring women's
professional development and the creation of equally gendered work teams.
M
Educate the executive as well as human resources members about new
techniques and procedures regarding promotion and evaluation, which could
favor the principle of equal opportunities and gender diversity.
M
Examine the channels currently used for spreading vacancies in the
organization, removing those that, used outside of the formal and objective
channels, can benefit specific sectors or gender. such as informal meetings,
discussions in corridors, work meals...
M
Re-examining the public image of the institution and the public image that the
institution wants, thus preventing offensive or excluding messages to women.
3.2. Project Coordinator
Concerning Project Coordinators, the current composition of the group (actual
diversity of Project Coordinators) is 11 (13%) women out of a total of 87 people. This
information has been extracted from the list of IST projects. Unfortunately, official
gender-segregated statistics have not been provided: the sex of the Coordinators has had
to be guessed from their names.
The data for the analysis of this position has been taken from 4 answered
surveys (1 Male, 3 Female) about working conditions and functional requirements.
3.2.1. Project Coordinator Functional Diversity.
The gender diversity profile (functional diversity) has been determined from an
average of the answers to the surveys received (more detailed data is in the Annex).
Provided that figures on internal and external client were not available, 50 % has been
considered for both. The gender diversity distribution produced in this case, from the
weighted average of the list of characteristics, is:
Characteristics Masculine Feminine Neutral
%
27
31
43
14
From these numbers, a diversity profile distribution function can be depicted. The plot
shows that from the diversity profile point of view, the optimal percentage of women
for an adequate diversity profile should be between 39% and 65% of the total amount of
project officers.
Functional diversity. Percentage of women (0-100%) vs. adequacy (0-1). The study of
diversity profile depicts an optimal adequacy of 39 to 65% of the team being women.
3.2.2. Project Coordinator Offer Diversity.
Project Coordinators develop their work in different organizations, with different nature
and pursues. A study of the offer in this case refers to the available offer within each
organization the Project Coordinator works for. With this objective, a question was
added to the questionnaire, which asked the Project Coordinator to enter the number of
men and women in the organization with his/her same position or hierarchical status.
Considering that inside the organization, any other worker with his/her status could
have been able to perform as Project Coordinator, this information tells about the
available offer of possible applicants to be Project Coordinators at each organization.
Putting together all the numbers from the 4 answered surveys, yields an offer of 17
people, being 9 (53%) of them women. This percentage has been considered as the
standard of availability at the offer, stating a number of applicants sufficiently high
enough for the total amount of 87 Project Coordinators.
15
The questionnaire about gender barriers issues included in the survey and concerning
specific areas that may affect women project officers in developing their work (see the
Annex for more details and data), gives in this case the following indices of gender
barriers:

Organizational Culture: 8

Organizational Policies: 8.1

Personal Conditioners: 8.1

Global Equal Opportunities Index: 8
Organizational culture and policies, however, are not of interest for the analysis, since
they are not referred to the European Union, but the different organizations where the
Project Coordinators develop their work.
The availability function (green, without barriers) and Offer Diversity (blue, including
barriers) are shown below. The offer diversity function depicts an availability at the
offer of 39 to 62% of women of the total number of possible applicants.
Offer diversity. Percentage of women (0-100%) vs. adequacy (0-1). The study depicts
an availability at the offer of 39 to 62% women.
3.2.3. Project Coordinator Scenario Analysis.
Taking into account both diversity functions together and also the actual number of
Project Officers (87 people, 11 of them women), an analysis of team composition has
been done.
Functional Div.
Minimum
Maximum
16
Suggestion
% of woman in the team
39
65
# of woman in the team
34
57
Minimum
Maximum
% of woman in the team
40
62
# of woman in the team
34
54
Offer Div. Suggestion
In the following figure, a combination of the information of previous tables with the
actual team composition (see the red square, that is 13% of women) can be seen. There
is a low adequacy of this team to both Functional and Offer diversities (both indices
equal 0).
Scenario analysis. A selection of 13% of women at the team produces an adequacy of 0
to both Functional and Offer diversities.
3.2.4. Project Coordinator Scenario Diagnosis.
In summary, the indexes defined previously give in this case the following figures.

Functional Diversity Index: 0 (over 1)

Offer Diversity Index: 0 (over 1)

Equal Opportunities Index: 8 (over 10)
17

Scenario: 10 (over 10)

Selection: 1 (over 10)

Global: 7 (over 10)
Both Functional and Offer Diversities indexes are highly inadequate and not good,
because they indicate that the actual diversity does not reach the optimal suggestions of
diversity percentages depicted by Functional and Offer Diversities.
Finally, the main ideas that can be now extracted as written diagnosis from the
information available are:

Offer Diversity and Functional Diversity almost coincide. There is enough
availability of women among the candidates to achieve the proposed Gender
Diversity,

The Organizational Culture, Policies and personal conditioners of the Institution
might be an OBSTACLE to achieve Equal Opportunities and Gender Diversity, and

The team composition is totally unbalanced.
3.2.5. Project Coordinator Corrective Actions.
Based on the diagnosis and the situation of the gender barriers, a set of corrective
actions can be chosen from an actions’ database. Each item in the gender barriers' list
has a different set of actions attached; the value of the index for each specific gender
barrier determines which actions are selected from each set of actions attached.
The quantitative analysis of gender diversity in the group of Project Coordinators
depicts a centred and balanced gender diversity profile for the position (Functional
diversity), and an excellent availability of women at the offer who would meet the
requirements to be Project Coordinators. The effect of the gender barriers is almost
However, as can be seen from the figures and the results, it seems that there is a lack of
interest to achieve a balanced gender distribution of Project Coordinators. Despite the
availability, few women can be found at the Project Coordinators list.
18
It must be highlighted that the information about the offer has had to be estimated, due
to the difficulty of obtaining such numbers among all the workers citizens of the
European Union. The percentage of women at the available offer has been extracted
from the answers of the Project Coordinators at the questionnaire. The actual diversity,
as well, is not complete, since the gender segregation has been obtained by reading the
names and assigning a Male or Female category to each. Some names have been unable
to assign a category, and some errors may have been produced too.
Full results for the group of project officers are listed in the annex, but a summary of
main actions is presented next:
S
Make visible the recruitment of women to the organization, their work and the good
practices, as well as the changes obtained with the application of the measures
proposed, to motivate and let others know about the goals achieved.
S
Consider the knowledge or experience acquired by women during their private lives
as a way of favoring their potential selection.
M
Set evaluation programs for the work proficiency in order to be able to value the
individual contributions from the staff and proceed to its recognition.
S
Acknowledge courses in Gender Awareness as a criterium to favor promotion.
3.3. Project Evaluator
The current composition of the group (actual diversity of Project Evaluators) is
301 (18%) women out of a total of 1698 people. This number has been obtained by
putting together evaluator databases of the FP6, in years 2003 and 2004. In this case
there was a field indicating the sex of the Project Evaluator, so the numbers and
percentage of women are accurate values.
The data for the analysis of this position has been taken from 7 answered
surveys (5 Male, 2 Female) about working conditions and functional requirements.
3.3.1. Project Evaluator Functional Diversity.
The gender diversity profile (functional diversity) has been determined from an
average of the answers to the surveys received (more detailed data is in the Annex).
Provided that figures on internal and external client were not available, 50 % has been
19
considered for both. The gender diversity distribution produced in this case, from the
weighted average of the list of characteristics, is:
Characteristics Masculine Feminine Neutral
%
27
16
57
From these numbers, a diversity profile distribution function can be depicted. The plot
shows that from the diversity profile point of view, the optimal percentage of women
for an adequate diversity profile should be between 22% and 67% of the total amount of
Project Evaluators.
Functional diversity. Percentage of women (0-100%) vs. adequacy (0-1). The study of
diversity profile depicts an optimal adequacy of 22 to 67% of the team being women.
3.3.2. Project Evaluator Offer Diversity.
The numbers of availability of women at the offer have been taken from two sources:
one is the current number of Evaluators at the IST, being 3836 people, 840 (22%) of
them women. The other source is a database of evaluators at the FP5 in 1999. It is likely
that those who were Evaluators for the FP5 are being called and asked to be Evaluators
at the FP6, therefore two levels of expertise at the available offer have been stated: at
the ground level, the numbers of Evaluators among the IST staff; at a higher level, those
who were Evaluators for the FP5 in 1999.
20
The questionnaire about gender barriers issues included in the survey and concerning
specific areas that may affect women Project Evaluators in developing their work (see
the Annex for more details and data), gives in this case the following indices of gender
barriers:

Personal Conditioners: 6.8

Global Equal Opportunities Index: 6.8
The availability function (green, without barriers) and Offer Diversity (blue, including
barriers) are shown below. The offer diversity function depicts an availability at the
offer of 10 to 17% of women of the total number of possible applicants.
Offer diversity. Percentage of women (0-100%) vs. adequacy (0-1). The study depicts
an availability at the offer of 39 to 62% women.
3.3.3. Project Evaluator Scenario Analysis.
Taking into account both diversity functions together and also the actual number of
Project Evaluators (1698 people, 301 of them women), an analysis of team composition
has been done.
Functional Div.
Suggestion
Minimum
Maximum
% of woman in the team
22
67
# of woman in the team
374
1138
21
Offer Div. Suggestion
Minimum
Maximum
% of woman in the team
10
17
# of woman in the team
170
289
In the following figure, a combination of the information of previous tables with the
actual team composition (see the red square, that is, 18% of women) can be seen. There
is a high adequacy at both indexes, which indicates a well-balanced selection according
to the gender criterion and the current circumstances of a poor availability of women at
the offer and the wide range of the gender diversity profile (index of Functional
Diversity equals 0.75, index of Offer Diversity equals 1).
Scenario analysis. A selection of 18% of women at the team produces an adequacy of
0.75 to Functional Diversity index and 1 to Offer Diversity index.
3.3.4. Project Evaluator Scenario Diagnosis.
In summary, the indexes defined previously give in this case the following figures.

Functional Diversity Index: 0.75 (over 1)

Offer Diversity Index: 1 (over 1)

Equal Opportunities Index: 6.8 (over 10)

Scenario: 3 (over 10)
22

Selection: 6 (over 10)

Global: 4 (over 10)
Both Functional and Offer Diversities indexes depict an adequate selection, taking into
account the conditions of the scenario.
Finally, the main ideas that can be now extracted as written diagnosis from the
information available are:

There is a SMALL DIFFERENCE between the Offer Diversity and the Functional
Diversity. The number of women among the candidates is not enough to achieve the
proposed Gender Diversity, though. As can be seen in the figure, the Functional
Diversity is so wide that it reaches the availability depicted by the Offer Diversity.

The personal conditioners of the Institution might be an OBSTACLE to achieve
Equal Opportunities and Gender Diversity., and

The team composition is totally unbalanced.
3.3.5. Project Evaluator Corrective Actions.
Based on the diagnosis and the situation of the gender barriers, a set of corrective
actions can be chosen from an actions’ database. Each item in the gender barriers' list
has a different set of actions attached; the value of the index for each specific gender
barrier determines which actions are selected from each set of actions attached.
The quantitative analysis of gender diversity in the group of Project Evaluators depicts a
situation where the study of the gender diversity profile turns into a wide range of
optimal distributions of gender at the team. Concerning the Offer Diversity, the study
yields that there are very few women who could be possible applicants for the position
of Project Evaluator. Since there is a little effect of the gender barriers, it seems that the
reason is a lack of availability.
The high values of both Functional and Offer diversities is a sign that the selection has
been made trying to follow the gender criterion as much as possible.
23
Full results for the group of Project Evaluators are listed in the annex, but a summary of
main actions is presented next:
L
Design and apply Mentoring programs, as a tool with the objective to motivate
people to promote to managerial positions.
M
Establish evaluation programs of the labor proficiency, in order to evaluate
personal contributions and proceed to acknowledge them.
S
Establish management styles centered on the individual attention of the staff to
take into account the worth and professional contribution of the women of the
Institution.
24