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
IGUANA is a relatively small project with limited resources available for evaluation.
Thus, following the Internal project evaluation and the Q&A handbook (7.1), the
approach now proposed focuses on Quality Control. For this purpose we shall use a
simplified version of the procedures and tools of the ‘PRINCE2’ approach.
This approach 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 tripod: the internal Iguana evaluation
template/survey, a tool specifically designed to collect partners’ views, opinions and
suggestions on the entire project implementation. This tool was applied at the final
stage of the project and was answered by all partners.
1. Review Process
Most IGUANA project deliverables assumed the form of written documents and most
of the deliverables required only ‘internal review’.
1
As presented in the Internal project evaluation and the Q&A handbook (7.1), the
Internal Quality Control was implemented through a ‘peer review’ system that worked
as follows:

For each Deliverable, the deliverable owner assigned a member of his/her team
to run a first check on the deliverable: 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 undertook frequent online
discussions and email exchanges; this continuous exchange allowed for more
shared and greater efficiency in arriving at decisions on issues such as allocating
second reviewers.
The Peer Reviewers independently reviewed 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. In line with the Quality Control
Checklist, each written deliverable includes a Deliverable Review History (annex 2)
documenting: (i) the deliverable version number, (ii) its authors and reviewers, (iii) the
dates of the deliverable authoring and reviewing, and (iv) the changes made.
Table 1 lists the deliverables, their internal reviews, and supplementary reviews.
Table 1 – Internal and Supplementary Reviews
Deliverable
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
Internal
review
Suppleme
ntary
review




2
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





The supplementary reviews were made conducted by external parties, 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 Portuguese Innovative Leadership Programme (Ministry of Education and
Science of Portugal and Microsoft Network). The idea was to test, refine and stabilise
the Self Assessment Tool.
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; and
Deliverable 5.3 Collaborative Learning Environment - IGUANA Web Platform; these
four Deliverables were tested and used by all the project school pilots involved in the
different countries. Other entities, within the education sector i.e. ESHA members, but
also coming from outside the educational sector were equally invited to test IGUANA
resources, i.e. Portuguese Education Centres – institutions working with young
3
offenders serving an ‘extreme’ custodial measure – to access, and to make use of
IGUANA tools, namely the Self-Assessment Tools (SAT) and the Iguana Learning
Programme (ILP),
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

The Quality Method used

The deliverable producers and reviewers

Date of review

Result of review

Date deliverable was finally approved.
Table 2 – Quality Register
Quality
activity
No.
Deliver
able
N°
Deliverable
name
Assessment
criteria
Quality
Method
Deliv
producer
Review
er
1
D 1.1
Project
Managemen
t Guidelines
No. of
partners
rating
Guidelines
as ‘very user
friendly’
Internal
Review
CEPCEP
2
D 2.1
Report on
school
governance
in the EU
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
MENO
N
Networ
k EEIG
Delivery date Date
Review
Result
Approval
date
Véron 30/01/201 26/02/1
ique 3
3
Maes
& Joe
Cullen
Accept
ed
26/02/
13
Valent 30/09/201 05/12/1
ina
3
3
Dagie
ne;
Rodrig
o
Queir
oz e
Mello
&
Eleni
Chelio
ti;
Josep
h
Camp
Accept
ed
06/09/
13
4
3
D 3.1
Needs
mapping
and Action
Learning Set
methodolog
y
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
EA
4
D 3.2
Common
training
model,
guidelines
and
standards
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
EA
5
D 3.3
Training
needs report
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
EA
6
D 4.1
IGUANA web
platform
and tools
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
&
Externa
l review
Arcola
7
D 5.1
Emotional
well-being
Selfassessment
tool
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
&
Externa
l review
Contou
r
8
D 5.2
Draft Good
Governance
Training
Module
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Internal
&
Externa
l review
Contou
r
bell
Valent
ina
Dagie
ne;
Rodrig
o
Queir
oz e
Mello
Valent
ina
Dagie
ne;
Rodrig
o
Queir
oz e
Mello
Valent
ina
Dagie
ne;
Rodrig
o
Queir
oz e
Mello
Nikos
(
Meno
n)
Portu
guese
Princi
pals
(Lisbo
ns) &
ESHA
memb
ers
(Finla
nd)
Valent
ina
Dagie
ne &
Eleni
Chelio
ti
31/07/201 05/12/1
3
3
Accept
ed
06/12/
13
30/11/201 29/11/2
3
013
Accept
ed
30/11/
13
30/11/201 05/12/1
3
3
Accept
ed
06/12/
13
1/05/2013
Accept
ed
1/05/2
013
1/09/2013 12/12/2
014
Accept
ed
17/12/
2014
Véron 01/09/201 07/01/2
ique 3
015
Maes
& Joe
Camp
bell
Accept
ed
28/02/
2015
5
Register
9
D 5.3
Collaborativ
e Learning
Environment
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
&
Externa
l review
Contou
r
Joe
01/09/201 07/12/2
Camp 3
014
bell &
André
Xavier
de
Carval
ho
Eleni 1/12/2013 04 &
Chelio
07/12/1
ti &
3
Valent
ina
Dagie
ne
Accept
ed
15/02/
2015
10
D 6.1
Evaluation
methodolog
y and toolkit
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
Arcola
Accept
ed
30/11/
13
11
D 6.2
Report on
Evaluation
outcomes
and impacts
12
D 7.1
Quality Plan
and internal
project
evaluation
Guidelines
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
UCP
Joe
28/02/201 25/02/2
Cullen 3
013
&
Malco
lm
Accept
ed
28/02/
2013
13
D 8.1
Disseminatio
n Plan
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
ESHA
Véron 1/05/2013 15-11ique
2013
&
Juliet
Accept
ed
15/11/
13
14
D 8.2
Iguana
information
pack
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
ESHA
Véron 1/05/2013 30/11/1
ique
3
Maes
&
Anita
Juškev
ičienė
Accept
ed
30/11/
13
15
D 8.4
Disseminatio
n Report
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
out in the
Quality
Register
Internal
Review
ESHA
Anita 28/02/201 14/04/2
Juškev 5
015
ičienė
&
Vasilis
Fasoul
is
Accept
ed
16/04/
2015
16
D 9.1
Exploitation
plan
Deliverable
meets the
'acceptance
Criteria' set
Internal
Review
Contou
r
Joe
1/07/2013 20/12/2
Camp
013
bel &
Joe
Accept
ed
21/12/
2013
Arcola
6
out in the
Quality
Register
17
D 9.2
D9.2: Final
Exploitation
and
Sustainabilit
y Plan
Cullen
Internal
Review
Contou
r
Fred
Verbo
on &
Camil
a
Child
2 – Internal Iguana evaluation template/survey
This internal Iguana evaluation template/survey (annex 3) encompasses a set of
questions that are part of the overall project evaluation, 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 on how
Project Management, Communication System and Scheduled Objectives have been
carried out in IGUANA and for each aspect indicate any problems experienced.
Furthermore, respondents were asked to state what changes or improvements they
would like to see and to express their 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
Next, we present the results derived from the internal Iguana evaluation
template/survey. This will be made firstly focusing on the quality data – views on
7
project management issues (table 3); views on communication system (table 4) and
comparison between scheduled objectives and results achieved (table 5) – presenting
the identified problems and changes. Then we shall present the quantitative data
considering the level of satisfaction scale (table 6). In the latter case, we have analysed
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) ISSUES , REMEDIES
AND CHANGES
Workplan matters Support from the project More forums to raise
(carrying out the coordinators with questions and concerns and troubleshoot
tasks required)
concerns were not responsive. in project meetings.
(for example our difficulties in
engaging the Belgium School and
finding an alternative solution).
The delay in project beginning. Kick-off meeting in the first
Kick-off meeting was carried out month (of the project)
only in February
Difficulties to conclude the More commitment
deliverable review process in partners
time
by
Changes in the time-frame
Some delays in some tasks, for the deliverables of
namely the pilot process
WP3, which were due to
some delays in WP2 and
the delay in the kick-off
Flow between WP2 and WP3. meeting.
Any problems were however
resolved.
Too
little
emphasis
exploitation efforts.
Not
sufficiently
action-oriented
on More
attitude towards execution
of exploitation activities
detailed
8
description of the tasks.
Should be provided:
More detailed explanation
of the tasks;
Examples;
Clear
explanation
of
expected results.
Financial matters
UCP mostly provided timely
notice for reporting tasks.
Difficulties to have available the The project coordination
correct financial documentation undertook
financial
from partners
coercive measures
Governance
(decision-making
and consultation)
A more proactive governance Early risk identification
would helped the project in its then addressed with action
risk management.
plans.
Some difficulties to get the same The consortium should
level of commitment to the have acted more promptly
project by all partners.
on actions that were
behind schedule.
Some partners were more There have been a few
committed to the projects than times when we have not
received any response to
others.
our questions. Coordinator
should
allocate
a
responsible
person
for
Consultation.
quick response.
Handling of co- Generally okay if a little sporadic.
ordination
and
other meetings
1. Communication tools
2. Partners meetings
Could have done with
more regular telephone
meetings
1. 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
2. There have been a
few meetings when
the agenda was not
enough structured.
Table 4 - Communication System: Problems and Suggestions
ASPECT
Technical
(e.g.using
platform)
(A) PROBLEMS
matters Some of the elements are not
project clear: how to upload content to
the Schools Sharing Space; how
the Peer Review Programme is
accessed.
(B) ISSUES, REMEDIES
AND CHANGES
Instructional videos may
help to show how to
navigate through the
website
and
learning
platform.
The wiki space was not used by A
final
effort
was
all partners in the same undertaken to guarantee a
frequency.
maximum
project
accountability via the Wiki
Availability of self-assessment
tools and learning materials in
Greek (translations have been
provided)
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
from the project co- coordination of this project very
ordinator
technical and by the book but not
particularly enabling.
I do not think that was an issue.
Questions by Emails.
Deliverables
production
A more proactive style,
engaging all partners,
creating an innovative
culture.
There have been a number
of requests by project
coordination that were not
given any timely response.
Seemed to be to a good standard Rescheduling the delivery
and mostly timely.
of WP3 deliverables.
10
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.
Communicating
with other partners
Skype was used for online
meetings.
There were some
minor problems using this
environment.
Conference
calling
software may improve and
provide
more
stable
platforms.
Mostly good though there could More opportunities to
have been more learning shared, interact
across
the
especially once piloting started.
different work packages.
Difficulties to obtaining answers More ownership
from some partners.
commitment.
and
Some partners just do not reply Partners (including us) are
to mails at all. I really felt I had to really busy therefore we
beg for dissemination input.
had some delay on writing
research paper. Work
overload is a key problem
Collaborative work
for partners under heavy
demand.
11
Table 5 - Comparison between scheduled objectives and results achieved
ASPECT
(A) PROBLEMS
(B) ISSUES, REMEDIES
AND CHANGES
Keeping to overall The late start of the pilot proved An early and appropriate
project plan
difficult
achieving
all
the rescheduling was done in
requirements for data collection. order to accelerate the
process and retrieve time.
I am not sure that strategies to
keep the project on course were A project extension was
addressed in due time. Overall requested and granted.
the project achieved its research
aims.
Small delay in the kick-off
meeting, although the delay was
initially recovered, although more
delays in crucial tasks (i.e. pilot
process) had contributed to new
delays.
Small delay
meeting
in
the
kick-off
OK, except for exploitation.
Modifications
Speeding up the WP2 work
and rescheduling the
following
WP3
deliverables. Most pilot
implementation periods
ended-up coinciding with
the beginning of school
recess
and
summer
holidays, which entailed
waiting for the beginning
of the following academic
year
(2014-15)
to
accomplish all pilot tasks
ascribed to each partner.
Ownership
and
commitment from the
exploitation partner was
further requested
In general, there were only
slight modifications of the
plan. However, better
account of the current
situation of each partner
plan implementation stage
could
have
been
12
undertaken.
Project
Management (WP1)
Difficulties to have available the
contributes/documentation for
progress and final report in useful
time.
Clear Agendas for meetings.
Comparative Review
of
school
governance
structures
and
approaches (WP2)
Partners were too easygoing in providing the data
for final reporting. A major
effort was deployed at the
latter part of the deadline
to meet the final reporting
requirements. It would
have been better if
partners
were
more
cooperative in a timely
and gradual collation of all
information and data that
was requested of them in
due time.
There have been a few
meetings when agendas
were not clear and it
would be useful to receive
agendas earlier.
This deliverable was late, could An inter work package
have been more dialogue workshop between WP2
between this deliverable and the and WP5.
content.
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
from/to the workplan – it
Review of Estonian and Latvian needs to be done right
literature exclusion.
away and the revised
version shared with all
partners in order to avoid
Understanding significance of the further
delays
and
review
results
and
clear ambiguous
conclusions of all reviews.
interpretations.
Clearly indicate main
differences
between
governance structures and
what they concludes.
13
Methodology,
No significant problems.
Needs analysis and
common
governance model
(WP3)
Rescheduling the following
WP3 deliverables, after
the delay in WP2.
IGUANA
Platform Choice of platform and user Provide
instructional
and Web 2.0 tools friendliness. Difficulties with the videos to show how to use
(WP4)
peer learning platform.
and navigate the website
and portal.
The IGUANA Portal has changed
at the end of the project and
became less friendly and more
confusing.
To encourage interaction
and learning between
IGUANA schools we could
have offered facilitated
webinars. We lacked the
resources to ensure an
adequate portal evolution
as project matured over
time.
The Platform which hosts the Have these tools made
Open Learning Space does not available and stabilized
always work properly.
earlier on.
Material available
partners’ languages.
in
Full portal translations
other were provided in Greek
and Portuguese languages.
However
the
WP
responsible partner did
not have the resources to
localise the platform in
these
alternative
languages.
Content
Development (WP5)
Accessibility of the content for See
previous
the users, some language issues comments
but also presentation of the
website could be improved for
exploitation.
Delivery
and
evaluation
of
learning
environment
and
training programme
Difficulties in engaging the
schools in particular, Belgium.
Burden on the schools having to
ask for additional data.
point
An internal workshop on
evaluating the pilots.
The
evaluation
methodology and toolkit
were modified after when
14
(WP6)
Modifications of evaluation the the Lithuanian partner did
toolkit.
the evaluation based on
the primer handbook.
It is very advisable to take
into account the current
situation of each partner
pilot stage.
Need of a better planning
of pilot implementation in
relation to school calendar
and holiday seasons.
Internal Evaluation Lack of clarity on the processes Internal evaluation should
and QA (WP7)
for 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.
Greater focus project level
on local dissemination
plans.
A better planning and
advanced notice of papers
under preparation would
have helped in partners
collaboration.
Exploitation (WP9)
Not linked enough
evaluation work.
to
the Schools could have been
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 problems within
ESHA: Dissatisfied members and
numerous complaints!!!
Not clear description of WP9
The following elements
should
have
been
provided:
More detailed explanation
of WP9;
Examples provided;
Clear
explanation
of
expected results;
Better
fit
between
exploitation meetings of
wide information and
project
partners’
availabilities in order to
avert the creation of
15
frustrating gaps between
demand and supply of key
project
assistance
to
interested customers.
Table 6 - Level of satisfaction\Components & Aspects
Median (for each Average (for each
aspect and
aspect and between
between partners) partners)
Views on Project Management Issues
Workplan matters (carrying out the tasks required)
0.5
0.6
Financial matters
1
1.0
Governance (decision-making and consultation)
1
1.1
Handling of co-ordination and other meetings
2
1.6
Total average for this component
1.1
Communication system
Technical matters (e.g.using project platform)
0.5
0.8
Finding out about things happening within the Commission
0.5
0.5
Getting answers from the project co-ordinator
1
1.1
Deliverables production
1
1.3
Communicating with other partners
1
0.8
Total average for this component
0.9
Comparison between scheduled objectives and results achieved
Keeping to overall project plan
0.5
0.6
Project Management (WP1)
1
1.4
Comparative Review of school governance structures and approaches
(WP2)
1
0.8
1.5
1.3
1
0.9
Methodology, Needs analysis and common governance model (WP3)
IGUANA Platform and Web 2.0 tools (WP4)
16
Content Development (WP5)
1
1.3
Delivery and evaluation of learning environment and training programme
(WP6)
1
1.3
Internal Evaluation and QA (WP7)
1
1.1
1.5
1.5
1
0.6
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. In the
first component – Views on Project Management Issues – the average value is 1.1
meaning that partners are quite satisfied with this component. Still in this component,
the aspect which gathered lower score was “Workplan matters (carrying out the tasks
required)” with an average value of 0.6. On the other hand “Handling of co-ordination
and other meetings” was the aspect for which partners showed a higher satisfaction,
with an average value of 1.6. Regarding the Communication System component the
average value was struck at 0.9; under this item the lowest value is in “Finding out
about things happening within the Commission aspect” and the highest is on
“Deliverables production”. 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 registered in
Exploitation and the highest are in Dissemination.
17
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:
18
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---------------------very dissatisfied
dissatisfied
neither satisfied
satisfied
very satisfied
19
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?
20
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
21
Are there any other points or suggestions on project management you would like to
make?
22
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
23
(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?
24