Lead Partner event 20/02/18 feedback survey results

Lead Partner event, 20 Feb 2019
Post-event survey feedback
Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5 – What did you like most about the event?
 Being split into groups, having SG at our tables and being able to network
with others running similar projects.
 An opportunity to discuss with and hear the experiences of other Lead
Partners. The update on changes to EUMIS was also useful.
 Table discussions were interesting (although got repetitive after the first 2)
 The opportunity to share experiences with other lead partners and sound out
colleagues from the MA face to face on some operational challenges.
 I liked that you were allocated a table. Delegates were mixed up. Participation
was the key and lessons could be learned from sharing experiences.
 Group discussions - mix of organisations and experiences at the table. It was
good to have a facilitator too who was prepped to encourage discussion.
Question 6 – What did you like least?
 Room was quite tightly packed. Refreshments were of poor quality.
 Left with no new information.
 all presentations at the end - could of been more spaced out
 Workshop sessions, groups too big, not everyone feels comfortable speaking
in such big groups. Refreshments very poor
 Some of the presentation were a little dry
 Difficult to see the slides with figures presented even sitting at the front of the
room.
 Allocated a table that discussed participants, our SI does not have
participants therefore much of the discussion was irrevant. Attendees with
negative attitudes and was more of a counselling session, its not celebrating
the great work on the ground and promoting the event to get the best out of
people.

Question 7 – How do you think this event could have been improved?
 Possibly more information/thoughts from MAs point of view
 Some discussion/update about common errors and omissions in claims would
have been helpful. This would help provide a common understanding of the
evidence requirements expected by the MA.
 I think that portfolio managers could be more involved
 It would be good to hear how claims are prioritised by MA and the reasons
why it takes so long to verify claims.
 It will hinge on the outcome of the Workshops post-it-pads, if these can be
written up and disseminated quickly then potentially some meaningful and
useful actions can be put in place that will improve overall the time consuming
and sometime pedantic nature of the claims/verification process we have
been operating to date.
 a better mix of workshops and presentations so that its not all of the
workshops first and then all of the presentations together.
 Feedback from Article 125 and 127's or EC audit would have been good to
highlight issues raised.
 Presentations could have been more in depth and relevant to day to day
issues
 A more positive spin to find solutions after discussion issues on performance,
delivery etc not to have a rant on - participants, eumis, inconsistent guidance,
communications - there are more solutions than problems and we should
work in partnership to resolve common issues
 Share Case Studies / Success Stories from Lead Partners. Beneficiaries to
attend and share stories of how Structural Funds have supported them.

Question 8
Question 9 – What topics would you like to see covered in future Lead Partner
events?
 Updates, new requirements
 Maybe some case study material - examples of how lead partners have
improved reporting or increased spend or improved forecasting - it would be
good to share positive examples that others may be able to follow.
 Follow up to the workshop session and any improvements made as a result of
the suggestions put forward on post-it notes
 Feeback from EC visits.
 more on EUMIS & audits
 More focus on the impact we are having on beneficiaries and communities
rather than on compliance! It would be nice to think about the good we are
doing rather than the paperwork we might not be providing.

 Audit feedback, possible any general errors being made and how to rectify
these.
 Compliance - more guidance on acceptable evidence
 Common Problems - EUMIS, Evidence, Actual Progress reporting.
 I would like to see a clear steer from SG policy officials on key objectives in
the ESF Operational Prog such tackling poverty and exclusion, employability
etc where ESF complements and does not clutter the funding landscape etc
 Monitoring and Evaluation and reporting requirements I would like more
separate sessions for ERDF/ESF lead partners as sometimes there are a lot
of differences which make grouping these SIs together difficult when it comes
to group discussions
 As above Phase 2 - also a Q&A about compliance
 EU exit - and guarantees
Question 10 - Are there any other thoughts, comments or suggestions you
would like to share?
 A worthwhile exercise - the key measure of success will be the extent to
which anything will change as a consequence of the event.
 It is sometimes difficult to remember that we are not at odds with the
Managing Authority in this process. A genuine need to work together is
required, with many experienced MA staff moving on, it is important that new
staff are aware of this partnership approach and the need to work together to
avoid further Programme decommitments.
 This was a well attended event and well worth attending, the opportunity for
ERDF & PSI operations to workshop specific challenges and explore
solutions/share best practice would be useful.
 I hope that the comments / suggestions are taken on board and that we see
real change in turnaround times to verify claims
 I enjoyed the event and look forward to the next one.
 Reassurance that there will be action taken as a result of the post it notes
points. Please circulate common themes and how these will be addressed
and consider at a future LP event.
 It would be good to hold two or three times a year.

Lead Partner event 20/02/18 feedback survey results

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Featured

Lead Partner event 20/02/18 feedback survey results