Improving School Governance using an Action Learning Approach
527856-LLP-1-2012-1-PT-COMENIUS-CMP
WP7 - Internal Project Evaluation and Quality Assurance
Deliverable 7.2 – Report on Internal project evaluation & QA
As stated in the Internal project evaluation & QA handbook (7.1), because IGUANA is a
relatively small project with limited resources available for evaluation, the approach
proposed provides for a simplified version which incorporates some of the procedures
and tools that are based on the ‘PRINCE2’ approach and which concentrates on Quality
Control.
This encompasses three elements:

internal Review of project deliverables (Peer Review)

supplementary Review of a small number of designated deliverables (External
Review)

quality Register (a record of the how the deliverables have been reviewed)

A fourth element was added to this strategy - the internal Iguana evaluation
template/survey- in order to collect partner views, opinions and suggestions about all
the project implementation. This tool was applied at the final stage of the project and
was answered by all partners.
1
1. Review Process
Most IGUANA project deliverables had the form of written documents and most of
them deliverables required only ‘internal review’.
As presented in the Internal project evaluation & QA handbook (7.1), Internal Quality
Control was implemented through a ‘Peer Review’ system that worked as follows:

for each Deliverable, the deliverable owner assigned a member of their team to
run a first check on the deliverable. This is the ‘Primary Reviewer’.

the consortium then assigned another reviewer (the Second Reviewer) to
evaluate the deliverable. Though the handbook states that this would be the
task of the deliverable owner, because of the need to be more efficient and get
the project back on schedule, the partners had frequent online discussions and
exchanges of e-mail; this allowed for more shared and efficient decisions on
issues such as allocating second reviewers.
The Peer Reviewers independently review their assigned Deliverable using the Quality
Control Checklist (annex 1). Each deliverable has its own two checklists duly filled and
signed by the reviewers. For the majority of written deliverables, the ‘peer review’
method carried out through the internal review process was sufficient for the Quality
Control approach followed in IGUANA. Following the Quality Control Checklist, each
written deliverable include a Deliverable Review History (annex 2) which documents
the deliverable version number; its authors and reviewers; the dates authored and
reviewed and the changes made.
Table 1 lists the deliverables and their internal reviews, and supplementary reviews.
2
Table 1 – Internal and Supplementary Reviews
Deliverable
Internal
review
WP1: Management

D1: Project Management Guidelines

D1.2: Progress Report

D1.3 Final Report
WP2: Comparative Review

D2.1 Report on school governance in the EU
WP3: Methodology, Needs analysis and common governance model

3.1 Needs Mapping and action learning set methodology

3.2 Common training model, guidelines and standards

3.3 Training Needs Report
WP4: IGUANA Platform and Web 2.0 tools

4.1 IGUANA web platform and tools
WP5: Content Development

5.1 Emotional well-being Self-assessment tool

5.2 Draft Good Governance Training Module

5.3 Collaborative Learning Environment
WP6: Delivery and Evaluation

6.1 Evaluation methodology and toolkit

6.2 Report on Evaluation outcomes and impacts
WP7: Internal Project Evaluation and quality assurance

D7.1 Quality Plan and internal project evaluation Guidelines
D7.2: Report
WP8: Reporting and Dissemination

D8.1: Dissemination plan

D8.2: Project pack

D8.2: IGUANA Events

D13: Dissemination report
WP9: Exploitation

D9.1: Exploitation plan

D9.2: Final Exploitation and Sustainability Plan
Suppleme
ntary
review





The supplementary reviews were made by external parts, namely:
Deliverable 3.2 Common training model, guidelines and standards - Around 100 school
directors ran the Self Assessment Tool (pre-test). These school directors were involved
in the Microsoft Innovative Leadership Programme (Ministry of Education and Science
of Portugal and Microsoft Network). The idea was to test, refine and stabilize the Self
Assessment Tool.
3
Deliverable 4.1 IGUANA web platform and tools; Deliverable 5.1 Emotional well-being
Self-assessment tool; Deliverable 5.2 Draft Good Governance Training Module;
Deliverable 5.3 Collaborative Learning Environment - IGUANA Web Platform was
tested and used by all the school pilots involved in the project in the different
countries. Other entities, part of the education sector i.e. ESHA members, but also
entities out of the educational sector were also invited to test IGUANA resources i.e.
Education Centres – institutions working with young offenders serving an ‘extreme’
custodial measure – to access and make use of IGUANA, concretely the SelfAssessment Tools (SAT) and the Iguana Learning Programme (ILP),
The table 2 illustrates the quality procedures, namely in terms of the review process,
and includes for each deliverable:

The deliverable number and title

The ‘assessment criteria’ that are specific to each deliverable and against which
the deliverable is assessed (taken from Table 4 above)

The Quality Method used

The deliverable producers and reviewers

Date of review

Result of review

Date deliverable finally approved
Table 2 – Quality Register
Quali
ty
activi
ty
No.
Deliv
erabl
e
N°
Deliverable
name
Assessm-ent
criteria
Quality
Metho
d
Deliv
produc
er
Reviewer
1
D
1.1
Project
Managemen
t Guidelines
No. of
partners
rating
Guidelines
as ‘very user
friendly’
Intern
al
Revie
w
CEPC
EP
2
D
2.1
Report on
school
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Intern
al
Revie
MEN
ON
Netw
Delivery date Date
Review
Result
Approve
date
Véroniqu 30/01/201 26/02/1
e Maes & 3
3
Joe
Cullen
Accept
ed
26/02/
13
Valentina 30/09/201 05/12/1
Dagiene; 3
3
Rodrigo
Accept
ed
06/09/
13
4
governance
in the EU
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
w
ork
EEIG
3
D
3.1
Needs
mapping
and Action
Learning Set
methodolog
y
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
EA
4
D
3.2
Common
training
model,
guidelines
and
standards
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
EA
5
D
3.3
Training
needs report
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
6
D
4.1
IGUANA web
platform
and tools
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
7
D
5.1
Emotional
well-being
Selfassessment
tool
8
D
5.2
9
D
5.3
Queiroz e
Mello &
Eleni
Chelioti;
Joseph
Campbell
Valentina 31/07/201 05/12/1
Dagiene; 3
3
Rodrigo
Queiroz e
Mello
Accept
ed
06/12/
13
Valentina 30/11/201 29/11/2
Dagiene; 3
013
Rodrigo
Queiroz e
Mello
Accept
ed
30/11/
13
EA
Valentina 30/11/201 05/12/1
Dagiene; 3
3
Rodrigo
Queiroz e
Mello
Accept
ed
06/12/
13
Intern
al &
Exter
nal
revie
w
Arcol
a
Accept
ed
1/05/2
013
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al &
Exter
nal
revie
w
Conto
ur
Nikos (
1/05/2013
Menon)
Portugue
se
Principals
(Lisbons)
& ESHA
members
(Finland)
Valentina 1/09/2013 12/12/2
Dagiene
014
& Eleni
Chelioti
Accept
ed
17/12/
2014
Draft Good
Governance
Training
Module
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al &
Exter
nal
revie
w
Conto
ur
Véroniqu 01/09/201 07/01/2
e Maes & 3
015
Joe
Campbell
Accept
ed
28/02/
2015
Collaborativ
e Learning
Environment
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
Intern
al &
Exter
nal
Conto
ur
Joe
01/09/201 07/12/2
Campbell 3
014
& André
Xavier de
Accept
ed
15/02/
2015
5
out in the
Quality
Register
revie
w
Carvalho
10
D
6.1
Evaluation
methodolog
y and toolkit
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
Arcol
a
Eleni
1/12/2013 04 &
Chelioti &
07/12/1
Valentina
3
Dagiene
Accept
ed
30/11/
13
11
D
6.2
Report on
Evaluation
outcomes
and impacts
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
Arcol
a
Juliet
Scott &
Malcolm
Kirsh
31/03/201 26/04/1
5
5
Accept
ed
28/04/
2015
12
D
7.1
Quality Plan
and internal
project
evaluation
Guidelines
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
UCP
Joe
Cullen &
Malcolm
28/02/201 25/02/2
3
013
Accept
ed
28/02/
2013
13
D
8.1
Disseminatio
n Plan
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
ESHA
Véroniqu 1/05/2013 15-11e & Juliet
2013
Accept
ed
15/11/
13
14
D
8.2
Iguana
information
pack
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
ESHA
Véroniqu 1/05/2013 30/11/1
e Maes &
3
Anita
Juškevičie
nė
Accept
ed
30/11/
13
15
D
8.4
Disseminatio
n Report
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
ESHA
Anita
28/02/201 14/04/2
Juškevičie 5
015
nė &
Vasilis
Fasoulis
Accept
ed
16/04/
2015
16
D
9.1
Exploitation
plan
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
Conto
ur
Joe
Campbel
& Joe
Cullen
Accept
ed
21/12/
2013
1/07/2013 20/12/2
013
6
17
D
9.2
D9.2: Final
Exploitation
and
Sustainabilit
y Plan
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Intern
al
Revie
w
Conto
ur
Fred
Verboon
& Camila
Child
20/04/201 26/04/2
5
015
Accept
ed
2 – Internal Iguana evaluation template/survey
This internal Iguana evaluation template/survey (annex 3) encompasses a set of
questions part of the overall project level evaluation of IGUANA, aimed at getting
partners views on how the project has been proceeding, what problems they have
experienced and what changes or improvements they suggest might be useful to
incorporate in the project.
The purposes of the questionnaire was to conduct a ‘critical review’ of the project in
terms of project management, communications within and outside the project, and
progress in terms of objectives, milestones and content.
For each question the respondent was invited to think about his experience of how:
Project Management, Communication System and Scheduled Objectives have been
carried out in IGUANA and for each aspect indicate any problems experienced; what
changes or improvements would like to see and the of satisfaction with each particular
aspect of the project by circling the number which applies and using the following
scale:
-2------------------ -1------------------ 0------------------- +1------------------ +2------------------------very dissatisfied
dissatisfied
neither satisfied
satisfied
very satisfied
nor dissatisfied
Above we present the results derived from the internal Iguana evaluation
template/survey. This will be made firstly enlighten the quality data – views on project
management issues (table 3); views on communication system (table 4) and
7
26/*0
4/201
5
comparison between scheduled objectives and results achieved (table 5) – presenting
the identified problems and changes. Then we present the quantitative data
considering the level of satisfaction applied scale (table 6). In this last exercise we have
analyzed the results for each component and each aspect, presenting in table 6 the
calculated median and average values.
Table 3 - Views on Project Management Issues: Problems and Suggestions
ASPECT
(A) PROBLEMS
(B) CHANGES
Workplan
matters (carrying
out the tasks
required)
Support
from
the
project
coordinators with questions and
concerns were not responsive. For
example our difficulties in engaging
the Belgium School and finding an
alternative solution.
More forums to raise
concerns and troubleshoot
in project meetings.
Kick-off meeting in the first
month (of the project)
The delay in project beginning. Kickoff meeting was carried out only in
February
More commitment
partners
by
Difficulties
to
conclude
the
deliverable review process in time
Some delays in some tasks, namely Changes in the time-frame
the pilot process
for the deliverables of
WP3, which were due to
some delays in WP2 and
Flow between WP2 and WP3. Any the delay in the kick-off
problems were however resolved.
meeting.
Too little emphasis on exploitation More action oriented
efforts.
attitude towards execution
of exploitation activities
Not sufficiently detailed description
of the tasks.
Should be provided:
More detailed explanation
The project management was not of the tasks;
strong enough , in my view, to guide Examples;
8
and make activities happen in time Clear
explanation
and with equal commitment of all expected results.
partners
of
Financial matters UCP mostly provided timely notice
for reporting tasks.
Difficulties to have available the
correct financial documentation
from partners.
The financial
adequate
Governance
(decision-making
and
consultation)
management
was
A more proactive governance would Early risk identification and
helped the project in its risk then
addressing
with
management.
action plans.
Some difficulties to get the same
level of commitment to the project The consortium should
by all partners.
have acted more promptly
on actions that were
Some
partners
were
more behind schedule.
committed to the projects than
others.
There have been a few
times when we have not
received any response to
Consultation.
our questions. Coordinator
should
allocate
a
The governance was suitable as all responsible person for
decisions were made together and quick response.
partners consulted.
Handling of co- Generally okay if a little sporadic.
ordination and
other meetings
Communication tools
Partners meetings
Coordination could have been
stronger and the handling of
meetings with a more goal driven
focus. In my view, more online
meetings would have been an asset.
Could have done with
more regular telephone
meetings
Skype and Adobe were not
particularly suitable for
partner online meetings,
because of bad internet
connection: often it was
difficult to hear what was
said.
9
There have been a few
meetings when the agenda
was
not
enough
structured.
Table 4 - Communication System: Problems and Suggestions
ASPECT
(A) PROBLEMS
Technical
Some of the elements are not clear:
matters
how to upload content to the
(e.g.using project Schools Sharing Space; how the Peer
platform)
Review Programme is accessed.
(B) CHANGES
Instructional videos may
help to show how to
navigate through the
website
and
learning
platform.
The wiki space was not used by all
partners in the same frequency.
Availability of self-assessment tools
and learning materials in Greek
(translations have been provided)
The WIKI for internal communication
is suitable. Skype for online
meetings on the other hand was
never a perfect solution that could
not be solved by having a
professional tool such as Adobe
connect or Webex
Finding out about There is little information about Provide direct links to the
things happening things happening within the Commissions websites and
within
the Commission.
live feed updates.
Commission
Very little interactions here.
Getting answers As above, I found the coordination
from the project of this project very technical and by
co-ordinator
the book but not particularly
enabling.
A more proactive style,
engaging all partners,
creating an innovative
culture.
There have been a few
10
I do not think that was an issue.
Questions by Emails.
Deliverables
production
times when we have not
received any response to
our questions on time.
Seemed to be to a good standard Rescheduling the delivery
and mostly timely.
of WP3 deliverables.
Some delays on deliverables
production. Some of them are
dependent form other, and once
started the delay it is difficult to
recover.
Some problems in the timing of the
deliverables of WP3 in relation to
WP2 were resolved.
OK, however, we have under
delivered on exploitation. The
platform is good.
It was always difficult for partners to
stick to strict deadlines and as
mentioned before the management
team was sometimes absent. The big
delay in organising the Kick-Off
meeting did not help
Communicating
Skype was used for online meetings. Conference
calling
with
other There were some minor problems software may improve and
partners
using this environment.
provide
more
stable
platforms.
Mostly good though there could
have been more learning shared, More opportunities to
especially once piloting started.
interact
across
the
different work packages.
Difficulties to obtaining answers
from some partners.
More ownership
commitment.
and
Some partners just do not reply to
mails at all. I really felt I had to beg Partners (including us) are
really busy therefore we
11
for dissemination input.
had some delay on writing
research paper.
Collaborative work
No problems to communicate with
the other partners. Some were less
active and feed-back was sometimes
very succinct.
Table 5 - Comparison between scheduled objectives and results achieved
ASPECT
Keeping
overall
plan
(A) PROBLEMS
(B) CHANGES
to The late start of the pilot proved Was made a rescheduling
project difficult
achieving
all
the in order to accelerate the
requirements for data collection.
process and recover time.
I am not sure that strategies to keep A project extension was
the project on course were made.
addressed in due time. Overall the
project achieved its research aims.
Speeding up the WP2 work
and rescheduling the
Small delay in the kick-off meeting, following
WP3
although the delay was initially deliverables.
recovered, although more delays in
crucial tasks (i.e. pilot process) had
contributed to new delays.
Ownership
and
commitment from the
Small delay in the kick-off meeting.
exploitation partner
OK, except for exploitation.
In general, there were only
slight modifications of the
plan, however it is very
Modifications.
advisable to take into
account
the
current
The overall plan was kept with some situation of each partner
implementation
understandable delays no harming plan
stage.
the quality of the deliverables.
Project
Difficulties to have available the There have been a few
12
Management
(WP1)
contributes/documentation
for meetings when agendas
progress and final report in useful were not clear and it
time.
would be useful to receive
agendas earlier.
Clear Agendas for meetings.
Could have be stronger
Comparative
Review of school
governance
structures
and
approaches
(WP2)
This deliverable was late, could have An inter work package
been more dialogue between this workshop between WP2
deliverable and the content.
and WP5.
Delay on the deliverable 2.1
Rescheduling the following
WP3 deliverables.
Some delay in the deliverable.
Once it is decided to
exclude or add something
Review of Estonian and Latvian from/to the workplan – it
literature exclusion.
needs to be done right
away and shared the
revised version with all
Understanding significance of the partners.
review results and clear conclusions
of all reviews.
Clearly indicate main
differences
between
After some hesitations on the governance structures and
structure and harmonisation of the what they concludes.
data, the partnership came up with
solid Review.
Methodology,
Rescheduling the following
Needs analysis A big effort was put into the exercise WP3 deliverables, after
and
common and a robust methodology was the delay in WP2.
governance
developed.
model (WP3)
IGUANA Platform Choice of platform and user Provide
instructional
and Web 2.0 friendliness. Difficulties with the videos to show how to use
tools (WP4)
peer learning platform.
and navigate the website
and portal.
The IGUANA Portal has changed at
the end of the project and became To encourage interaction
less friendly and more confusing.
and learning between
IGUANA schools we could
13
The Platform which hosts the Open have offered
Learning Space does not always webinars.
work properly.
facilitated
Have
available
and
Material available in other partners’ stabilized more early this
languages.
tools.
The platform is containing great
tools such as the quizzes on EI and
OI and offers an comprehensive
toolkit to transfer the methodology
to any European school interested.
Content
Development
(WP5)
Accessibility of the content for the
users, some language issues but also
presentation of the website could be
improved for exploitation.
The content is relevant but the
translation as so contextual is a
harder side to organise.
Delivery
and Difficulties in engaging the schools in
evaluation
of particular, Belgium. Burden on the
learning
schools having to ask for additional
environment and data.
training
programme
Modifications of evaluation the
(WP6)
toolkit.
An internal workshop on
evaluating the pilots.
The
evaluation
methodology and toolkit
were modified after when
the Lithuanian partner did
the evaluation based on
the primer handbook.
It is very advisable to take
The pilots were really the testimony into account the current
that the partnership works well and situation of each partner
the schools are demanding such pilot stage.
training and workshops.
Internal
Evaluation
QA (WP7)
Lack of clarity on the processes for Internal evaluation should
and identifying problems.
have been a regular
agenda item in project
meetings.
Difficulties
to
conclude
the
deliverables review process
Dissemination
(WP8)
Very focussed on ESHA events.
More focus at the project
level
on
local
dissemination plans.
14
Exploitation
(WP9)
Not linked enough to the evaluation Schools could have been
work.
considered stakeholders in
the
exploitation
of
IGUANA
Bad performance during the project.
No follow up on the meetings, no
training offer. This caused a lot of Should be provided:
problems within ESHA: Dissatisfied More detailed explanation
members
and
numerous of WP9;
complaints!!!
Examples provided;
Not clear description of WP9.
Clear
explanation
expected results.
of
A lot of effort has been put into
coming up with a future service
delivery and a lot of opportunities
are open to Iguana for the near
future. A service delivery model has
been discussed.
Table 6 - Level of satisfaction
Components & Aspects
Median (for each
aspect and
between
partners)
Average (for each
aspect and
between partners)
Views on Project Management Issues
Workplan matters (carrying out the tasks required)
0
0,4
Financial matters
1
1,0
1
1,1
2
1,6
Governance (decision-making and consultation)
Handling of co-ordination and other meetings
Total average for this component
Communication system
Technical matters (e.g.using project platform)
Finding out about things happening within the Commission
Getting answers from the project co-ordinator
Deliverables production
Communicating with other partners
1,0
1
0,8
0,5
0,5
1
1,1
1
1,1
1
0,5
Total average for this component
0,8
Comparison between scheduled objectives and results achieved
Keeping to overall project plan
0
0,6
15
Project Management (WP1)
Comparative Review of school governance structures and approaches
(WP2)
Methodology, Needs analysis and common governance model (WP3)
1
1,2
1
0,8
1
1,2
IGUANA Platform and Web 2.0 tools (WP4)
1
0,9
Content Development (WP5)
1
1,3
1
1,3
1
1
1,0
1,4
1
0,8
Delivery and evaluation of learning environment and training
programme (WP6)
Internal Evaluation and QA (WP7)
Dissemination (WP8)
Exploitation (WP9)
Total average for this component
Scale:
-2--------------------very dissatisfied
-1--------------------dissatisfied
1,1
0--------------------neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied
+1-------------------satisfied
+2-------------------very satisfied
As can be observed in table 6 the average values round a satisfactory level – 1 –
considering the scale. In the first component - Views on Project Management Issues –
the average value is 1,0 what does it mean that partners are satisfied with this
component. Still in this component, the aspect that which gathered lower score was
“Workplan matters (carrying out the tasks required)” with an average value of 0.4. On
the other hand “Handling of co-ordination and other meetings” was the aspect the
aspect which the partners were more satisfied – with an average value of 1.6.
Regarding the Communication System component the average value was 0,8 being the
lowest value in “Finding out about things happening within the Commission aspect”
and the higher one in the aspect “Deliverables production” and “Getting answers from
the project co-ordinator”. Finally and regarding the last component - Comparison
between scheduled objectives and results achieved – the mean value was again 1,1
which refers to a satisfactory level. The lowest satisfaction levels are in WP9 –
Exploitation and the highest ones are in Dissemination. Regarding the aspect “Keeping
to overall project plan” the mean value was 0,6.
16
Annex 1 – Quality Control Checklist
Quality Control Check
Y/N
Reviewer
recommendations/comments
Generic Minimum Quality Standards
Document Summary provided (with adequate
synopsis of contents)
IGUANA format standards complied with
Language, grammar and spelling acceptable
Objectives of Description of Work covered
Work deliverable relates to adequately covered
Quality of text is acceptable (organisation and
structure; diagrams; readability)
Comprehensiveness is acceptable (no missing
sections; missing references; unexplained
arguments)
Usability is acceptable (deliverable provides clear
information in a form that is useful to the
reader)
Deliverable specific quality criteria
Deliverable meets the 'acceptance Criteria' set
out in the Quality Register (see Table 5)
For Supplementary Review Deliverables only
Deliverable approved by external reviewers
Checklist completed by
Name:
Signature:
Date:
17
Annex 2 – Deliverable Review History
Version
Name
Status *
Date
Summary of changes
Annex 3- Internal Partner survey/template –Quality
IGUANA Internal evaluation template
This set of questions is part of the overall project level evaluation of IGUANA, aimed at getting
partners views on how the project has been proceeding, what problems they have experienced
and what changes or improvements they suggest might be useful to incorporate in the project.
The purposes of the questionnaire are to conduct a ‘critical review’ of the project in terms of
project management, communications within and outside the project, and progress in terms of
objectives, milestones and content.
Everyone involved in the project, including full partners, associate partners, sub-contractors and
users group representatives are called to answer the questionnaire. We welcome ‘individual’ as
well as ‘organisational’ views.
NAME: _______________________________________
ORGANISATION:_______________________________
For each question please think about your experience of how  Project Management,
 Communication System and  Scheduled Objectives have been carried out in
IGUANA and for each aspect indicated, write down:
 in Column A, any problems you have experienced;
 in Column B, what changes or improvements you would like to see;
 in Column C, your satisfaction with this particular aspect of the project (circle the
number which applies, using the following scale):
-2------------------- -1------------------- 0-------------------- +1------------------ +2------------------
18
--
--
-
--
--
very dissatisfied
dissatisfied
neither satisfied
satisfied
very satisfied
nor dissatisfied
1.
VIEWS ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT ISSUES: PROBLEMS AND SUGGESTIONS
ASPECT
(A)
PROBLEMS
(B) CHANGES
(C) SATISFACTION
Workplan
matters
(carrying out
the tasks
required)
Financial
matters
Governance
(decisionmaking and
consultation)
Handling of
co-ordination
and other
meetings
Are there any other points or suggestions on project management you would like to
make?
19
2.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: PROBLEMS AND SUGGESTIONS
ASPECT
(A) PROBLEMS
(B) CHANGES
(C)
SATISFACTION
Technical
matters
(e.g.using
project
platform)
Finding out
about things
happening
within the
Commission
Getting answers
from the
project coordinator
Deliverables
production
Communicating
with other
partners
20
Are there any other points or suggestions on project management you would like to
make?
21
3.
COMPARISON BETWEEN SCHEDULED OBJECTIVES AND ACTUAL RESULTS
ACHIEVED UP TO NOW
ASPECT
(A) PROBLEMS
(B) CHANGES
(C)
SATISFACTION
Keeping to
overall
project plan
Project
Management
(WP1)
Comparative
Review of
school
governance
structures
and
approaches
(WP2)
Methodology
, Needs
analysis and
common
governance
model (WP3)
IGUANA
Platform and
Web 2.0
tools (WP4)
Content
Development
22
(WP5)
Delivery and
evaluation of
learning
environment
and training
programme
(WP6)
Internal
Evaluation
and QA
(WP7)
Disseminatio
n (WP8)
Internal
Evaluation
and QA
(WP8)
Exploitation
(WP9)
Are there any other points or suggestions on project management you would like to
make?
23