Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

WP3 Quality Management Plan

3,556 views

Published on

WP3 Quality Management plan for the WelDest projectg

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Sex in your area is here: ♥♥♥ http://bit.ly/2F7hN3u ♥♥♥
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dating direct: ❤❤❤ http://bit.ly/2F7hN3u ❤❤❤
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • My colleagues were searching for a form a few days ago and encountered an online platform with lots of sample forms . If you are requiring it too , here's http://pdf.ac/9j9ugt
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

WP3 Quality Management Plan

  1. 1. 1 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 ERASMUS Lifelong Learning Program Health & Well-being in Tourism Destination 2012 - 2014 Work Package 3: Quality Management Date: 2013-02-01 Author: Donna Dvorak (IHM) Distribution: WelDest project team internal use File name 2012.2.1.QualityPlan.v05.IHM Version: 5.0 Description: Report presenting the quality management plan for project WelDest Version Date Status Author Changes 1 2012-10-01 Draft Dvorak - IHM 2 2012-11-03 Draft Dvorak – IHM Updates to tables, Format 3 2012-12-12 Draft Dvorak – IHM Updates to tables, clarification of terms, modifications in response to peer comments 4 2013-01-16 Draft Dvorak-IHM Updates to tables, clarification of status reports and risk assessment matrix 5 2013-02-01 FINAL Dvorak-IHM 6 2013-08-20 FINAL Dvorak-IHM Revised after removal of UOP team
  2. 2. 2 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Background......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Aim and Scope of the Quality Management Plan .............................................................................................................. 5 2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES....................................................................... 6 2.1 Organization structure - roles ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Division of Work................................................................................................................................................................. 6 3 PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Quality Requirements......................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Plans.................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Performance Quality .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Preventative Activities – Risk Management....................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.2 Evaluation of Project Deliverables - Outputs ................................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Process Quality ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 4 COMMUNICATION .........................................................................................................................................14 4.1 Meetings............................................................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Exchange of Documents, Correspondence ....................................................................................................................... 14 5 DOCUMENTS .....................................................................................................................................................15 5.1 Document Storage and Accessiblity ................................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Outputs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 15 5.3 Document Format............................................................................................................................................................. 15
  3. 3. 3 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 5.4 Nomenclature of Documents: ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix 1 – Work packages and Subtasks ................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment Matrix........................................................................................................................................... 18 1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to give a brief description of the WelDest project, including the rationale, objectives and expectations. 1.1 Background The Wellness trend is a growing demand factor for tourism and leisure activities globally. However, there are specific needs and challenges regarding this trend that should be met. For both the customer and the industry, there is some confusion about correct terminology, as well as what constitutes appropriate services and products for varying needs. This also extends to a lack of proper educational material and course design at the tertiary and adult-learner level on Health & Well-being destination development. Wellness is less seasonal and more labor-intensive, and there is a need for this in many European countries where tourism can act as an economic booster. The WelDest project aims to address the needs that have been identified above by creating a development framework to be used by public bodies, destination management organizations (DMOs) and private companies at tourism destinations willing to strengthen the elements influencing the well-being level of tourists and locals alike. The framework, supported by educational material, enables development of the tourism destination towards a more holistic and sustainable H&WB destination. The objectives of the project are: 1 To outline, via research, the key service supply, resources, staff competencies and elementsof H&WB at tourist destinations appreciated by both tourists and locals. 2 To identify or strengthen the potential for business opportunities in tourism and leisure and to foster innovation around H&WB based services and destination development 3 To contribute to lifelong learning at various educational levels, between disciplines and related industries. The learning process is supported by the following outputs: a An electronic handbook “Keys to developing a holistic health & well-being tourism destination” (working title), including a self-assessment and development tool, to be used by public and private bodies developing their businesses and destinations. For use in tertiary educational institutions with various types/levels of study, the handbook will be accompanied by course design, including educator instructions. b A blog providing industry, academia and citizens with new opportunities to improve and share their knowledge on H&WB and tourism related issues.
  4. 4. 4 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 The WelDest project combines the knowledge, experience and expertise of academic and industry partners from five countries (Finland, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and the UK). The main project language is English, though partners’ languages will also be used in various stages of the project.
  5. 5. 5 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 The duration of the project is 24 months (October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2014) and is comprised of six work packages: 1 Project management and leadership 1 Dissemination 2 Quality management of the project 3 Research 4 Creation of educational materials 5 Exploitation 1.2 Aim and Scope of the Quality Management Plan This document, for internal use by the WelDest project team, will act as a guide for the internal quality management of the WelDest Project and contains the general rules agreed upon in order to ensure its success. The plan shows how the project will be carried out, measured, and monitored. This quality plan defines the organization structure and the relationships between the partners so that there is a clear distinction of roles for all participants, and a clear procedure for how the project will be managed and followed up. It also contains the project time plan, including a timeframe for milestones and major deliverables. Quality standards, including criteria and indicators are defined, and an evaluation framework, involving both formative and summative evaluation, is used to ensure quality and continuous improvement. An important aspect of the quality plan is the capacity for flexibility, allowing for modification or re-aligning of the project processes and objectives based on feedback and evaluation findings. All partners will be involved as part of the assessment process while delivering this project. QP developed and approved at beginning of project to confirm major deliverables/milestone acceptance criteria and manage approved project processes.
  6. 6. 6 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 2 Project Organization and Responsibilities 2.1 Organization structure - roles Management team - The project is led by a management team made up of one representative from each of the partner countries. Members of this team participate in all partner meetings as well as monthly Skype meetings. They are also responsible for coordinating communication with their industry and associate partners as well as their other team members. The Project Manager, responsible for overall project management, leads this team. Team members are: Susanna Saari (TUAS), Daniel Binder (FH Joanneum), Harprit Thacker (UCB), Donna Dvorak (IHM), Christian Husak (CHC), Steffen Lange (HNEE) HEI (Higher Education Institutes) Coordinators – Members of the management team also act as coordinators in their respective countriesand are responsible for managing the completion of the tasks and subtasks outlined in their work packages as well as reporting to the Project Manager. HEI Team members – Responsible for completing the tasks and subtasks of the WPs assigned to their team. In addition, one member of each team attends the partner meetings along with the coordinator from their team. Industry partners – Each country in the project is represented by two industry partners. Industry partners provide research data in the form of interviews and surveys as well as case study material for development of the handbook, participating also in focus groups as part of the research work package. An industry partner representative also attends the national-level WelDest camp workshop to be held in pilot destinations, participates in national meetings to discuss and advise on content issues, and takes part in the international networking and benchmarking event and seminar in Berlin. Associate partners –Each country in the project is represented by 1-2 associate partners who may provide research data and material, but whose main role is in disseminating and sustaining the outcomes of WelDest. Associate partners also participate in local meetings to discuss and advise on content issues. External auditors – Responsible for assessing the content and usability of the e-handbookand course design. 2.2 Division of Work To achieve the objectives of WelDest, work is divided into 6 work packages, each with specific subtasks. The list of WPs and subtasks can be seen, along with the project time plan and duration of each WP and specific subtask in chart 1 in the appendix. Lead of WP 1: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari. WP 1 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks: (ST= Subtask, name of the leader in brackets)
  7. 7. 7 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 ST 1 Project implementation plan (TUAS) ST2 Financial management (paid to partners in 30%, 30%,40% parts), (TUAS) ST3 Contract process , (TUAS) ST4 Reports for TUAS (Financial and Functional from partners), (TUAS) ST5 Reports for EU (progress report & Final report), (TUAS) ST6 Tenders when needed, (TUAS) ST7 Partner meetings, agendas, (TUAS) ST8 Partner meetings, minutes and action points lists (UCB) Lead of WP 2: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari (work redistributed after removal of UOP team) WP 2 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks: ST 1 Dissemination plan (TUAS) ST 2 Dissemination follow up templates (UCB) ST 3 Blog (on-going), (FH JOANNEUM) ST 4 Logo (FH JOANNEUM) ST 5 Power point presentations (about WelDest project & blank template) (FH JOANNEUM) ST 6 Project Newsletters & mailing lists (UCB) ST 7 Leaflet (language versions (EN/EN, EN/FI, EN/GE, EN/HU, EN/CZ) (FH JOANNEUM, all responsible for their own language versions) ST 8 International networking & benchmarking event with seminar (HNEE) ST 9 WelDest Camp workshop on destination development (IHM, all responsible for the national set-up) ST 10 Media contacts (press releases, interviews etc.) (IHM) Lead of WP 3: Donna Dvorak, The Institute of Hospitality Management in Prague (IHM), Czech Republic WP 3 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks: ST 1 Quality plan (for internal & external project quality) (IHM) ST 2 WelDest meeting/workshop quality questionnaire & summary, (IHM) ST 3 WelDest process quality follow up with mid & end project reports, (IHM) ST 4 Quality assessment of educational materials (eHandbook), (UCB) [WP 1, TUAS takes care of all tenders if needed for subcontracting quality experts] Lead of WP 4: FH JOANNEUM, Austria, Prof. Kai Illing WP 4 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks: ST1 Research methodology plan (FH JOANNEUM) ST 2 Destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research (FH JOANNEUM) ST 3 Current status of health and well-being destinations, secondary research (HNEE) ST 4 Stakeholder research OST (CHC) ST 5 Summary and framework for health & well-being destination elements (TUAS) Lead of WP 5: Christian Husak Consultancy (CHC), Austria
  8. 8. 8 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 WP 5 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks: ST 1 Development plan for educational material (CHC) ST 2 Creation of eHandbook (FH JOANNEUM) ST 3 Course design development including educator material (TUAS) ST 4 Piloting of the educational material and the course design (CHC) ST 5 Improvements and amendments of the educational material (CHC) Lead of WP 6: UCB, England, Harprit Thacker WP 6 covers the following activities & methods in the listed subtasks: ST 1 Exploitation plan (UCB) ST 2 Exploitation follow up templates (UCB) ST 3 Articles in national, professional magazines (ALL PARTNERS) ST 4 Conference / seminar participation with a paper and scientific article (TUAS) ST 5 End project seminar & webinar (TUAS) ST 6 Exploitation of the educational material and other outcomes (UCB) 3 Project Quality Control 3.1 Quality Requirements This section includes a list of the methods that will be used to ensure the required level of quality. Quality management is divided into three categories: Plans Performance quality - preventative activities, evaluation of project deliverables) Process quality Evaluation instruments and mechanisms used: Risk assessment analysis Quality/satisfaction questionnaires for partner meetings Quality/satisfaction questionnaires for events (workshops, WelDest camp) Peer review of deliverables Expert review of deliverables (external audits) WP status reports (three times per year) Focus sessions during partner (and Skype) meetings Interim and end project progress reports
  9. 9. 9 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Cost report analysis 3.2 Plans Draft versions of the implementation plans for each WP are presented at the first partner meeting. The drafts are discussed and approved at the meeting by general consensus after feedback and alterations. The plans are then updated by the WP leaders and reviewed by the partners until final acceptance. There will be a minimum of two rounds of feedback and alterations for each plan. Updates to the plans should be included in WP status reports. The WP implementation plans will include qualitative and quantitative indicators for project progress which will be followed and reported on a regular basis as part of internal project reporting. Plans also include target dates for submission of deliverables.Plans are stored in the Optima workspace. Target dates for final versions Plan Target Date Project implementation plan December 2012 Dissemination plan December 2012 Quality plan December 2012 Research methodology plan December 2012 Research methodology plan 2 – original plan to be revised after completion of the needs analysis March 2013 Development plan for educational material January 2014 Exploitation plan December 2012 3.3 Performance Quality 3.3.1 Preventative Activities – Risk Management These are techniques to be used early in life-cycle of the project to minimize risks. A risk assessment matrix (see appendix 2 for original version) has been developed for the various project activities related to work involved in the project WPs. For each of the activities, the following are identified: ● Risks ● Their potential impact on the project ● Effect (level of impact) ● Probability of occurrence The level of impact is assessed with a value of “negligible, marginal, critical or uncontrollable.” Probability is assessed with a value of „low, medium, or high risk.” Following the calculation of risk exposure, the proposed solution or mitigation strategies are presented. Work package leaders are responsible for constantly monitoring and assessing risks related to their respective work packages, paying special attention to the higher level risks. An interactive version of the matrix is posted separately on Optima and is accessible to all the project team members to allow for tracking of status and monitoring of the evolution of
  10. 10. 10 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 the mitigation strategies. Evaluation of the risks as well as strategies and updates will be included as part of the WP status reports and will be discussed with each team separately at partner meetings. 3.3.2 Evaluation of Project Deliverables - Outputs Table 1 contains the key project deliverables to be measured for satisfactory quality level. Deliverables are measured and approved using instruments that include meeting evaluation forms, event evaluation forms, a peer review process, and expert review process - external audits. Meeting and event evaluations – to be done by all participants. Quantitative and qualitative data collected through questionnaires using a digital survey tool that allows respondents to remain anonymous. A 5-point Likert scale is used wherever possible. A summary of the data collected, including suggestions for changes and improvements will be compiled after each meeting or event. A standard questionnaire form is used for partner meetings, and specific questionnaires are developed for each event. Peer review of deliverables – For deliverables to be evaluated using this instrument, each is reviewed by a partner, who is nominated by the WP leader and not involved in the production of the deliverable. The deliverable is sent to the WP leader at least 15 days before the expected delivery date. The WP leader immediately forwards it to the reviewer for evaluation. The reviewer verifies whether the deliverable satisfies the requirements, description, or objective; identifies deviations from requirements or problems; and suggests improvements to author. The reviewer returns the evaluation to the author, whose responsibility it is to either accept or reject the suggestions and decide what actions are to be undertaken. The deliverable is then submitted to the WP leader along with the reviewer’s evaluation for final approval or approval contingent on further modification. For certain deliverables the peer review process may be carried out by multiple reviewers to ensure quality. Peer review evaluations should include the following information: General comments:  Thoroughness of contents  Correspondence to project objectives Specific comments:  Relevance  Format(layout, spelling, etc.) Author submits deliverable to WP leader (or directly to reviewer) WP leader forwards deliverable to nominated reviewer Reviewer evaluates deliverable and sends evaluation to author Author accepts/rejects suggestions, makes changes, returns deliverable and eval. to WP leader WP leader gives final or contingent approval
  11. 11. 11 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Suggested actions:  The following changes should be implemented  Missing information  Further improvements A template to be used by reviewers for writing peer review evaluations can be found in the WP 3 folder in Optima. Expert review of deliverables - external audits - 3 to 5 external specialists will be subcontracted to quality audit the outcomes of WP 5. The specialists will be representing different area of knowledge (e.g. eLearning, destination/regional development, tourism development, health and well-being) and will check on the content and usability of the e- Handbook& course design and the Self-assessment & development tool. They will be named later as this is a procedure that involves tenders. The instructions and auditing documents will be created by the lead of WP 5as part of WelDest. The feedback from the audit will be used to improve the final e-Handbook and its attachments.
  12. 12. 12 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Table 1: Evaluation Methods for Specific Deliverables Work Package Deliverable Method of Evaluation 1 -Project Management Lead : TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari WelDest Meetings (partner meetings only) Partner meeting evaluation forms, focus sessions Project meeting agendas To be assessed as part of partner meeting evaluation form Interim and final EACEA reports Peer review of deliverable 2 – Dissemination Lead: TUAS, Finland, Susanna Saari Dissemination plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version WelDest newsletters Peer review of deliverable WelDest leaflet Peer review of deliverable International networking and benchmarking event and seminar Plan for the event to be drafted and peer-reviewed Satisfaction evaluation form for events - specific form for the event WelDest Camp workshops for destination development Plan for the event to be drafted and peer-reviewed Satisfaction evaluation form for events 3 – Quality Lead: IHM, Czech Republic, Donna Dvorak Quality plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version Quality assessment of educational materials Peer review of deliverable 3 to 5 external specialists subcontracted to quality audit the outcomes of WP 5. 4 - Research Lead: FH Joanneaum, Austria, Prof. Kai Illing Research methodology plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensusat kickoff meeting, at least 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version. Plan to be revised again with 2 rounds of feedback and alternations after completion of needs analysis Summary report on destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research Peer review of deliverable Summary report on Current status of health and well- being destinations, secondary research Peer review of deliverable Summary report on stakeholder research Peer review of deliverable Summary report on framework for health and well-being destination elements Peer review of deliverable 5 - Creation of Educational Material Lead: Christian Husak and Consultancy, Austria Creation of e-handbook and self-assessment and development tool Peer review of deliverable, pilot testing with feedback, external auditors 6- Exploitation Lead:UCB, England, Harprit Thacker Exploitation plan Draft discussed and approved by general consensus at kickoff meeting, 2 rounds of feedback and alterations before approval of final version End project seminar and webinar Satisfaction evaluation form for events - specific form for the event
  13. 13. 13 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 3.4 Process Quality Process quality will be monitored through summary reports, which are based on meeting or event questionnaires and focus sessions, WP status reports, and evaluation reports from external audits. Process quality involves Project progress meetings Information about work progress Focus sessions – These sessions will allow for more in-depth monitoring of key questions related to the project. They will also provide a forum for complaints, suggestions, and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with changes and progress. Quality will be included in the agendas, and focus sessions will take place at both partner meetings and Skype meetings. WP status reports - Status reports ensure the quality of the WPs and should be submitted by each WP leader three times per years to the Quality WP lead in order to compile the interim and end project progress reports. WP status reports shall be structured as follows: Introduction Project activities - (summarize activities in the previous reporting period, list deliverables produced, presentations given, meetings attended), WP status - (including subtask reporting*) (Describe the WP started, continued or completed during reporting period. Summarize their status – e.g. in progress, completed, etc). (Status should include reference to the risk assessment matrix – noting any updates, new risks or changes, continuing risks, and strategies that have been implemented to reduce risks). Project deliverables status–(list deliverables and summarize their status [started, delivered, under evaluation, accepted) Comments on the project – (general issues arising from activities performed during the reporting period, new risks that have arisen during the reporting period) Project work plan – (forecast what progress is expected in next period and highlight any changes of plan with respect to the quality plan and last status report) *Subtask reporting – subtask leaders will send their own status reports to the lead of each WP they are involved in at least 10 days before the submission of the WP status report. Status Report Date 1 January 2013 2 May 2013 3 September 2013 4 January 2014 5 May 2014 6 September 2014
  14. 14. 14 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 4 Communication 4.1 Meetings Meetings are important to ensure the progress of WelDest and to maintain the technical and social relationships among the partners in the project. WelDest meeting types and topics to be covered: Partner meetings - all relevant WPs on agenda Location Date Austria October 2012 CzechRepublic May 2013 Belgium October 2013 Germany March 2014 UK June 2014 Finland September 2014 Skype meetings - held at three levels: 1) WelDest management issues, with only management team participating 2) WelDest content issues where e.g. WPs are discussed and all the relevant members are attending 3) WelDest WP issues – one-on-one meetings between WP leaders and the project coordinator National meetings - conducted by HEI to industry and associate members to discuss and advise on content related issues. Decisions in all international partner meetings will be made based on simple majority should consensus not be reached. If the distribution of votes is even, the project manager’s vote decides. If the national meetings will not reach consensus, the matter should be taken to the international (Skype) meeting for decision making. 4.2 Exchange of Documents, Correspondence All documents and computer data files should be exchanged as much as possible viathe Optima workspace. Colleagues should post in the general discussion area when a file has been added or changed. Colleagues are alerted to new messages through a message sent to their work email.
  15. 15. 15 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 5 Documents 5.1 Document Storage and Accessiblity All documents are to be stored in the Optima workspace for visibility and use for all partners when needed. Documents are to be stored in the following folders (folders may be added or updated as needed): Folder/Content Introduction to WelDest and Contacts Full proposal and support documents - the project application and official documents related to the application EACEA agreements and subcontracts - the official project award, evaluation feedback related to the application Reporting folders–LLPProject handbook 2012 and official reports submitted to the EACEA as part of the project management process Partner meetings 2012-2014 - Agendas, minutes, presentations, working papers for all partner meetings and Skype meetings Work packages 1-6 - Details of the working documents and outputs related to each work package Photos, etc. 5.2 Outputs Project outputs will be stored separately in the relevant folder in the Optima workspace as they are developed 5.3 Document Format All documents will be saved in MS Word or MS Excel. A template (including font, built-in header, footer, page numbers, etc.) to be used for the creation of Word documents can be found posted as a separate document in the WP 3 folder in Optima. Final versions of documents should be marked as final and uploaded to Optima in read-only format. 5.4 Nomenclature of Documents: All documents must be listed giving for each the issue date, its name, version number (if necessary), status, the author’s institution, and a sequential number to use as reference (R1,R2....Rn) in communication and correspondence. Documents should be named as follows: Date: yy.mm.dd Document name: Chosen by author (the name should clearly identify the document by stating the purpose or information it contains) Version number: (v01, v02....)
  16. 16. 16 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Status – (draft, final) Author’s institution: Authors should use the proper acronym for their institution (IHM, TUAS, UCB, FHJ, CHC) Reference number: R1, R2....Rn (any change to the document must be followed up with a new reference number) Example: 2012-10-11-QualityPlan-v01-Draft-IHM-R1 Example: 2012-11-01-PressRelease-FHJ-R6 In communication, the document can simply be referred to as Quality Plan R1 or Press Release R6.
  17. 17. 17 WP 3: Quality| ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Appendix 1 – Work packages and Subtasks Work is divided into work packages and subtasks all with a lead partner and WP / sub task duration. Health & well-being in tourism destination (WelDest) 1 2 3 2013 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2014 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Work Packages and Tasks Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Agu Sep WP1 Project management 24 months ST 1 Project implementation plan ST2 Financial management 30 % 30 % ST3 Contract process ST4 Reports for TUAS F&F F&F ST5 Reports for EU 1.10 . 30.9. ST6 Tenders if/ when needed ST7 Partner meetings, agendas PM/AT PM/CZ PM/HU PM/DE PM/UK PM/FI ST8 Partner meetings, minutes Skype meetings to take place once a month S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. WP 2 Dissemination 24 months ST 1 Dissemination plan ST 2 Dissemination follow up templates ST 3 Blog ST 4 Logo ST 5 Power point presentations ST 6 Project Newsletters & mailing lists from all partners 1 2 3 4 5 ST 7 Leaflet ST 8 International event Berlin ST 9 WelDest Camp workshop WS WS WS ST 10 Media contacts WP 3 Quality 24 months ST 1 Quality plan ST 2 WelDest meeting/workshop quality ST 3 WelDest process quality ST 4 Quality of outcomes WP 4 Impl; research (16 months) ST1 Research methodology plan ST 2 Destination and consumer needs analyses (primary research) Plan ST 3 Current status of H&WB destinations (secondary research) plan ST 4 Stakeholder research (interviews and Open Space Technology) ST 4 Summary and framework WP 5 Impl: Creation of educational material (14 months) ST 1 Development plan for educational material plan ST 2 Creation of ehandbook ST 3 Course design development including educator material ST 4 Piloting of the educational material and the course design ST 5 Improvements and amendments of the educational material WP 6 Exploitation (24 months) ST 1 exploitation plan plan ST 2 exploitation follow up templates ST 3 An article in a national, professional magazine ST 4 Conference participation with an academic article ST 5 End project seminar y.2014 with a webinar call for papers call for papers Finland ST 6 Exploitation of the educational material and other outcomes
  18. 18. 18 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment Matrix RISK ANALYSIS PROJECT ACTIVITIES PROBLEM/RISK POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE PROJECT LEVEL OF IMPACT PROBABILITY ELIMINATION OF THE RISK WP1 Project Management R1.1 Risks stemming from multidisciplinary nature of partners Failure to successfully transfer knowledge and experience from academia to the industry partners Critical Medium Smart and continuing communication with all partners R1.2 Underestimation of time needed to produce deliverables Tasks not completed / Deliverables not submitted on time Critical Medium Ensure the successful completion of the activities and the validity of their results; Project management ensure timely submission of deliverables R1.3 Underestimation of effort needed to complete activities Resource / Budget overrun / Timetable overrun Critical Low Management structured so as to closely monitor resource/budget consumption – take corrective actions wherever necessary R1.4 Lack of experience and qualifications of staff involved Results of low quality Critical Low All partners commit sufficient knowledge and experience R1.5 Issues related to partners communication Co-ordination problems / Disputes among partners Critical / Marginal Low Communication plan as a part of Project implementation plan
  19. 19. 19 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 WP 2 Dissemination R2.1. Dissemination activities fail to target the correct audiences. The project may fail to get the expected end user satisfaction Critical Medium Preparation of appropriate dissemination materials. Monitor feedback from dissemination activities WP 2 Dissemination R2.2. Poor dissemination towards the general public The project may fail to get the wide acceptance and the participation of the end Users Critical Medium Preparation of appropriate dissemination materials. Monitor feedback from dissemination activities R2.3. Poor common promotion and dissemination actions Failure to establish a common identity of project as well as failure to systematically expose the knowledge and experience gained of the relevant EU projects to the relevant end users group Marginal Low Dissemination related ideas, such as make use of a range of tools in order to effectively promote and disseminates the project´s results WP 3 Quality R3.1. Lack of experience and qualifications of staff involved Low quality of Quality plan and all quality processes Critical Medium All partners commit sufficient knowledge and experience R3.2. Issues related to partner communication Co-ordination problems Critical Low Communication plan as a part of Project implementation plan and Quality plan R3.3. Selection of unsuitable external specialists to audit quality Failure to produce quality eHandbook&course design and the Self/assessment & development tool Critical Medium Setting up the experience with similar kind of materials as the main condition for choice suitable external specialists to audit quality
  20. 20. 20 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 WP 4 Research R4.1. Lack of experience with primary and secondary analysis Setting up inappropriate methodology Critical Low All partners commit sufficient knowledge and experience R4.2. Issues related to partners communication Co-ordination problems / Collection of incorrect data Critical Low Communication plan as a part of Project implementation plan and Research methodology plan R4.3. Selection of wrong destinations in each country Obtaining incomparable data Critical Medium Pilot research by the partners. All teams working with same definition and core indicators of H&WB destination WP 5 Creation of Educational material Lack of sufficient quality information resulting from the research phase Poor quality of e- Handbook&course design and the Self/assessment & development tool Critical Medium Project management ensure timely submission of deliverables of each WP Lack of time Low quality of e- Handbook&course design and the Self/assessment & development tool Critical Low Project management ensure compliance of time plan Other requests from the partners countries Different level (range) of use of Educational materials by the partners, tourism experts, etc. in each country Critical Low Communication with the industry partners about their needs and expectation. Outcomes of WP4/ST2 Destination and consumer needs analyses, primary research
  21. 21. 21 WP 3: Quality | ERASMUS WelDest 2012 - 2014 WP 6 Exploitation Lack of time Materials may not be seen as current. Material will not reach all target groups. Critical Low Project management ensure compliance of time plan Poor target market selection Information distribution will be limited Critical Medium Defining target groups and methods to reach them RISK EXPOSURE IMPACT PROBABILITY HIGH MEDIUM LOW UNCOTROLLABLE High High Medium CRITICAL High Medium Medium MARGINAL Medium Medium Low NEGLIGIBLE Medium Low Low

×