Quality, risk and impact strategy.pdf

642 views
559 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
642
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Quality, risk and impact strategy.pdf

  1. 1.                      Quality  Strategy    Author:  Bulent  Yilmaz     Ver:  0.2             This  project  has  been  funded  with  support  from  the  European  Commission    
  2. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe EMPATIC Quality Strategy forms Deliverable 3.1, in Work Package 3: Qualityassurance and impact.The strategy sets out the quality and risk management procedures; together with theimpact assessment methods that the partners in the EMPATIC project will use toensure that all project outputs are of acceptable quality, that project risks areidentified and managed and that the impact of the project’s work and outcomes isassessed and evaluated. 2
  3. 3. Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2  SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 4  1.1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4  1.2. QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS .................................................................................... 5  1.3 RISK MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................... 5  1.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 5  SECTION 2: QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS .............................................................. 6  2.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES................................................................................................. 6  2.2   PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS ................................................................................... 6  2.3 ACTIVITIES AND PROCESSES ........................................................................................ 7  2.4 WEBSITE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ....................................................................... 8  2.5 PROJECT WORK PLAN ................................................................................................. 8  SECTION 3: RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 10  3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 10  3.2 RISK QUANTIFICATION ............................................................................................ 10  3.3 RISK RESPONSE/MONITORING ................................................................................... 10  SECTION 4: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 13  4.1 ........................................................................................................................... 13   3
  4. 4. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION1.1. IntroductionWithin the project plan the objective of WP3 is to ensure that project outputs are ofacceptable quality, to manage project risks and to assess the overall impact of theproject.The core objectives of the EMPATIC project are to: • draw together and valorise the results of previous Information Literacy initiatives and projects across the school, university, adult and vocational learning sectors; • use this evidence to influence policy makers’ perceptions and actions to support a marked increase in piloting and mainstreaming of Information Literacy; • have a significant impact on validating new learning paradigms and strategic thinking on curriculum reform.The major outputs of the project will be: • A state of the art report on Information Literacy covering: the role information literacy plays within respect to lifelong learning; definitions of information learning; a summary of frameworks addressing information literacy and data on the projects in the information literacy domain supported by the European Union between 1994–2010. Section 3 of the report synthesizes the point of view taken by the Empatic project which identifies three dimensions of Information Literacy: Information Literacy as a discipline of study; as a social objective; and as a cognitive acquisition of individuals. This theoretical background sets the scene for the subsequent work on the policy recommendations. • A report outlining strategic models for Information Literacy which suggests a conceptual, generic and tentative framework for the strategy/strategic model of Information Literacy development. It is not a model of Information Literacy itself, but a strategy for Information Literacy development. • A Report detailing 20 illustrative case approaches pertaining to the 4 sectors: schools, Higher Education; adult education and vocational training (5 for each sector). • A series of 4, one day, workshops - one for each sector, to validate the models through round-table discussion and to which leading European experts are invited. • 4 structured online report on Information Literacy models and case approach trials, one for each sector, validating or modifying the findings to date by means of expert input from a) active policy makers and other key stakeholders and b) expert practitioners in the field. • A series of illustrative good practice case studies of Information Literacy in action at each level (schools, higher education, adult education and vocational training) with links to key IL resources across Europe which will be used to support the exploitation and dissemination strategies. 4
  5. 5. • An interactive web environment will provide state-of -the art support for the whole range of EMPATIC’s dissemination and information activities. It will be underpinned by a stakeholder distribution database, chiefly drawn from the policy making community. • An advocacy framework covering: planning, explanations of the various advocacy methods and materials available, information about their deployment and use, together with an illustrative range of advocacy materials which campaigners can customise and build on, aimed at policy makers. • A Strategy and set of Recommendations setting out ways and means to improve the spread and level of Information Literacy at both transversal level and across the four sectors; and proposing a future means of stakeholder community ownership and maintenance of the portal environment. The Declaration from the Final Policy Conference will be added after the conference. • Final policy conference, for up to 150 policy makers and representatives of national and international associations representing the four learning sectors and also IL.1.2. Quality of project outputsTKD will be responsible for assuring the quality of project outputs by putting in placeand implementing appropriate peer review mechanisms, using the project’s‘basecamp’ file sharing and communications facility. Working with MDR, the co-ordinator, it will also ensure that any modifications to the nature or timing ofdeliverables are agreed by the PMB and reported to the Agency.1.3 Risk managementContinuous monitoring and management of the risks faced by the project is essentialfor project success. Potential risk factors can include both internal factors (e.g. lack ofcommitment, poorly defined goals; resource problems, delays, personal orprofessional issues) and external factors (e.g. lack of target group willingness orcapacity to cooperate, lack of interest of policy-makers, lack of knowledge in somecountries about information literacy and its positive impact). TKD have drawn up arisk management framework which covers: risk identification; risk quantification; riskresponse; and risk monitoring and control. TKD will use this to actively monitor andmanage project risks throughout the project.1.4 Impact assessmentTKD, supported by MDR, have developed a clear set of criteria, measurements anddata collection tools for evaluating the impact of the work and outcomes of theproject. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used. Thefocus is on measuring, at various stages, the impact of the project’s work on policymakers, their interest in and attitudes towards information literacy, and any changesin their behaviour and actions as a result of the sequence of interventions by theproject. This involves the identification of sample and control groups of policy makerswhose responses can be tracked or surveyed throughout the timeframe of EMPATIC. 5
  6. 6. SECTION 2: QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS2.1 General principlesIn order to ensure the quality of the outputs in the project, all deliverables are subjectto a quality assessment review prior to finalisation. Each deliverable, as it nearscompletion, is made available to the other partners for comment, adjustment andimprovement if necessary. TKD is responsible for ensuring that all deliverables gothrough such a quality management review process. Working with MDR it will alsoensure that any modifications to the nature or timing of deliverables are agreed bythe Project Management Board and notified to the agency.The overall quality management of the project and its outputs is ensured through twomain mechanisms: 1. the proactive participation of all partners in the regular project management meetings; 2. the day to day co-operation and support partners give each other in ongoing work, often remotely. This ongoing dialogue and co-operation is facilitated and supported by the collaborative file sharing and communication system (basecamp) which has been established for the project   2.2 Preparation of documents A template has been created for project deliverables which complies with EACEA requirements for project reporting. All project reports are presented in this format. Each document: • is presented in Verdana font (minimum size 11) • has a title page which carries the logos of both EMPATIC and the EACEA, as well as the lifelong learning programme, the project name and agreement number, the deliverable number (where appropriate), and the title • has a description of the status and provenance of the document • an executive summary • an clickable contents page • and where appropriate: o a selected bibliography o references o list of figures o list of graphs o list of tables o list of abbreviations o etc 6
  7. 7. All documents will be written in English, some will be translated during the project – as stipulated in the work plan. Wherever possible all deliverables will be presented to the Agency in pdf format (with paper copy as required).2.3 Activities and processesThe partners will carry out a simple self assessment exercise of the activities andprocesses at least twice during the course of the project. The results of the first self-assessment exercise are summarised in the table below: Activity Actions and assessment (Completed/satisfactory, Needs improvement (what), Delayed (why/new date), Other Communication Satisfactory with the EC Communication Other – the work of the first year is necessarily largely with the preparatory (creating the initial materials). stakeholders Communication largely kicks off in second year. Internal Satisfactory – basecamp established and well used communication within the project team General quality Satisfactory management according to the general principles Setup of the Satisfactory – some tasks re-scheduled at PMB meeting project team and in June 2010 planning, distribution of tasks Responsibilities of Satisfactory – partners are clear about their roles and project team responsibilities members are clear Regular reviews Satisfactory – regular online communication and 3 PMB and meetings of meetings held the project team members Quality assurance Satisfactory – has taken place either face-to-face during of deliverables meetings or electronically Document Satisfactory – basecamp and website successfully 7
  8. 8. exchange internally established and externally Timely delivery of Satisfactory – project schedule and timing of some tasks and deliverables adjusted as workloads involved became deliverables as clearer at June PMB meeting according to the work plan Official reporting Needs improvement – slightly late at end of first period (with regard to LLP Standard)2.4 Website and distribution facilitiesThe official website of the project is available at http://empat-ic.eu/eng/It has been developed using the EzPublish open source content management system.It is in English and the top level pages of the site will be translated into Turkish(completed), Polish (part), Italian and Greek (shortly).The site provides information about the project, the partners, the main activities andlinks to events (the Validation Workshops and later the Final Conference).As the first year of the project has been largely preparatory usage of the site is slightto date, but this will change as the project enters its second year. Registration for the4 validation workshops for example will be via the site and will drive awareness andtraffic.Usage and referral statistics are presented below:2.5 Project work planThe project has a number of work packages: 8
  9. 9. WP Type Title Start FinishNo1 Development Desk research 1 42 Dissemination Dissemination 3 24 Quality assurance3 Quality Plan 3 24 and impact Strategic4 Exploitation 5 11 modelling5 Exploitation Validation 12 16 Resource6 Exploitation 17 21 development Exploitation7 Exploitation 17 23 strategy Project8 Management 1 24 managementThe work plan and some delivery dates were revised as follows at the June PMBmeeting: 9
  10. 10. SECTION 3: RISK MANAGEMENT3.1 IntroductionContinuous monitoring and management of the risks faced by the project is essentialfor project success. Potential risk factors can include both internal factors (e.g. lack ofcommitment, poorly defined goals; resource problems, delays, personal orprofessional issues) and external factors (e.g. lack of target group willingness orcapacity to cooperate, lack of interest of policy-makers, lack of knowledge in somecountries about information literacy and its positive impact).TKD have compiled a risk management framework which covers: risk identification;risk quantification; risk response; and risk monitoring and control. They use this toactively monitor and manage project risks throughout the project. Using theframework the partners have identified a number of real and potential threats to asuccessful project outcome and determined the activities required to minimise oreliminate them.3.2 Risk QuantificationPartners identified a number of actual or potential risks and quantified using thefollowing Summary Risk Profile (or probability/impact matrix): Risk Likelihood Impact1 Alterations to timing of Med Low activities or deliverables2 Unexpected costs arise or Low Med cost overspends3 Conflicts between partners Low Med4 Project approach found to Low High be unsuitable5 Required information Low Med unavailable6 Project resources not good Low Med quality/suitable7 Difficulty involving policy High Med makers and stakeholders8 Project has limited visibility Low Med3.3 Risk response/monitoringFor each risk identified above TKD has identified the following actions, designed toeither eliminate or mitigate the risk: 1. Timing of project activities and delivery of outputs to be monitored on an ongoing basis by the project managers (MDR) and any significant or required 10
  11. 11. deviations discussed and re-planned if necessary by project partners, preferably at PMB meetings but if necessary by email.2. MDR will provide all partners with copies of the Grant Agreement and other guidance from the Agency, MDR will seek to ensure that all partners understand the cost ‘rules’ and will also ensure that all partners adhere to this when submitting cost claims.3. Project management activities, decision making processes and procedures for dealing with any conflict are clearly articulated in the work plan: • MDR will be responsible for co-ordinating the project’s work and monitoring progress in order to achieve successful delivery of the expected results and the accomplishment of the objectives, on time and to budget, including:. o activity planning and day to day management of the project, its communication and its activities o supervising the project’s management and decision-making procedures o communication with and reporting to the Agency in compliance with its requirements o effective management of the project’s finances and payment procedure o organising Project Management Board (PMB) and kick-off meetings • Project decisions will be taken by the PMB, consisting of all partners, with secretariat support provided by MDR. The PMB will meet on at least five occasions during the project, where possible in conjunction with other project events in order to minimise costs. . Telephone conferencing will be used where interim decision making or problem solving is needed. The PMB will be responsible for making all strategic decisions regarding the project. Decisions of the PMB will be made by a majority vote (in case of a tie, the Co-ordinator will have the casting vote). All PMB Meetings will be notified at least 2 weeks in advance and will be formally minuted. A lead partner is clearly indicated for each individual workpackage and will be responsible for achieving the intended results in that workpackage, reporting to the PMB. • In the event of a conflict arising between any of the partners, MDR will attempt to negotiate a resolution within the limits imposed by the contract and will inform the PMB and where necessary the Project Officer at the Agency of the of the situation. If negotiation fails, the matter will be referred to the PMB for a simple majority decision on the action to be taken. The decision of the PMB will be binding for all partners.4. PMB will meet regularly and any failings or difficulties with the project approach will be discussed. Ways to overcome the difficulty will be identified and if necessary alternative methods will be devised and adopted to achieve the required result.5. This applies particularly to the initial desk research phase. CERIS as WP leader and the other partners have considerable prior knowledge and expertise in this area so the risk is anticipated to be low. However, should it be the case that particular reports or details are unavailable to the project for some reason, assistance will be sought from the Agency to encourage the organisation involved to be more open about the information. 11
  12. 12. 6. Quality of project outputs will be assured by the processes outlined in Section 2 above.7. The partners anticipate that it might be difficult to engage policy makers and other stakeholders. For this reason there are already built into the workplan a number of strategies to help minimise this problem. For example, the project will devote considerable effort and attention to producung case study and advocay materials that Information Literacy (IL) campaigners, activists and practioners can use in various circumstances to to engage and influence policy makers and decision makers. In addition activities such as the Final Conference and the prior circulation and consultation about the projects recommendations will specifically target policy makers and other influential stakeholders. These activities will be monitored by TKD and also discussed at the regular PMB meetings as well as virtually as required to ensure they are as effective as possible.8. The workplan includes four work packages (4,5,6 and 7) which focus on exploitation and a number of activities designed to ensure that the project has both impact and credibility are included in the plan. Exploitation begins with WP4 with the production of strategic models, standards and performance measures and illustrative case approaches which are then validated in workshops and road-tested in real world trials in WP5. The learning and new information acquired from these will be applied in WP6 when advocacy materials are created and finalised case studies produced. These will be published on the project website and, following a consultation period they will be presented at the Final policy conference along with a set of recommendations designed to stimulate action and emulation of good practice at national and sector levels. EMPATIC aims to ensure optimal use of results beyond the project by achieving sustainability for its web portal. These activities will be monitored by TKD and also discussed at the regular PMB meetings as well as virtually as required to ensure they are as effective as possible. 12
  13. 13. SECTION 4: IMPACT ASSESSMENT4.1 IntroductionIn the project work plan we state that: TKD, supported by MDR, will develop a clear set of criteria, measurements and data collection tools for evaluating the impact of the work and outcomes of the project. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches will be used. The focus will be on measuring, at various stages, the impact of the project’s work on policy makers, their interest in and attitudes towards information literacy, and any changes in their behaviour and actions as a result of the sequence of interventions by the project. This is likely to involve the identification of sample and control groups of policy makers whose responses can be tracked or surveyed throughout the timeframe of EMPATIC.4.2 Impact on policy makersHowever, during discussions around the planning and creation of this document itbecame clear that the main tools and processes which the project expects to influencethe policy makers (the advocacy materials and recommendations) will not be availableuntil near the end of the project – and will not in fact be presented to policy makerson a wide scale until the final policy conference which takes in the penultimate monthof the project. Therefore it is difficult to see how we might reasonably assess theimpact on policy makers in any quantitative way.What we can and will do is begin to engage with policy makers and other influentialstakeholders at each of the 4 sectoral workshops taking place in early summer 2011.Each workshop will involve up to 30 invited policy makers and other expertstakeholders (including researchers and representatives from the learning/teachingprofessions) to discuss and further define major issues against a backdrop of theEMPATIC findings to date. The organisers will seek to ensure that participation isregionally and otherwise representative of different policy environments across theEU. The mode of the workshops will be open and highly interactive but will start with asummative presentation of EMPATICs work and results to date. The results of thesesworkshops will be presented in 4 separate reports (one for each sector) detailing theoutcomes and showing how the case study materials were either validated or modifiedas a result of input from policy makers and experts. These reports will be available inSeptember 2011. The learning and new information acquired from these workshopswill be applied during WP6 to the creation of advocacy materials and the production ofmodified and finalised case studies.Attendees at the workshops will be asked to complete a short questionnaire (to bedevised nearer the time) but it might include questions about, for example:Were   you   aware   of   the   best    practices  included  into  the  report?   13
  14. 14. Can   you   use   the   information    included   into   the   report   in   your  work?  If  yes,  how?  Are   there   any   techniques,    methods   which   you   felt   would   be  particularly  useful?  Do   you   feel   that   the   report   has    gaps   or   need   further   investigation  in  any  specific  area?  How   do   you   think   we   might   best    encourage   the   inclusion   of  Information   Literacy   classes   in   the  curriculum  What   are   the   main   barriers   that    prevent   Information   Literacy   skills  being   widely   taught   at   the  moment  Etc    The Final Policy Conference will also provide a platform at which the project’s outputs,including the Recommendations and the Exploitation Strategy (which will set out theways and means to improve the spread and level of Information Literacy) will bedisseminated and where we can promote their exploitation and wider take up.4.3 Project indicatorsIn addition we will monitor: • Number of relevant case studies introduced • Number of registered stakeholders • Number of best practices collected • Number of EMPATIC presentations on various events 14
  15. 15. http://empat-ic.eu/eng/ Project funded by the European Commission under the Lifelong Learning Programme This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot beheld responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 1

×