eContentplus programme

1
eContentplus programme

• From an evaluators viewpoint

2
Who am I?

• Worked 20 years KULeuven (AVdienst) head of
  production of learning media and content,
  research projects.
• ECOTEC research and consultancy, director of the
  Brussels office (contracts for EC in the Learning
  Technologies sector)
• Founder and managing co-director ATiT (Belgian
  SME, learning technologies)
• Customers WB, EC, Fortis, ICWE, ESA, UNESCO, DFID
• Less Projects (SME you know)
• Lecturing eLearning (Interfaculty Maastricht)

3
Project experience

• Project collaborator and subcontractor
• DELTA prep action (1988) r
• As coordinator, partner, subcontractor
• EC III, IV, V, VI, (VII?) FP r
• Socrates (Minerva) p
• ESA, JISC, B, Irl, F, UK
• As evaluator and reviewer
• eLearning, IV, V, VI, VII FP, eTEN, eContentPlus
  national research projects (FR, IE, UK), WB,
  DFID

4
Who is the evaluator?

• One of you, one like you (peer review process)
• Experts/experienced/professionals from different
  sectors
• In the specific domain
• In related domains
• In related aspects of project management
• Neutral and Objective
• International mix
• Multilingual
• Paid
• Independent (personal and anonymous, not
  representing country/company)

5
(No Transcript)
6
According to the EU

• Experts perform evaluations on a personal basis,
  not as representatives of their employer, their
  country or any other entity. They are expected to
  be independent, impartial and objective, and to
  behave throughout in a professional manner. They
  sign an appointment letter, including a
  confidentiality and conflict of interest
  declaration before beginning their work.
  Confidentiality rules must be adhered to at all
  times, before, during and after the evaluation.

7
Expert selection

• List of experts capable of evaluating the
  proposals that have been received.
• A high level of expertise
• An appropriate range of competencies
• An appropriate balance between academic and
  industrial expertise and users
• A reasonable gender balance
• A reasonable distribution of geographical
  origins
• Regular rotation of experts

8
Some prejudices

• Not fair

9
Some prejudices

• Fairest of all processes

• Not fair

10
Some prejudices

• Fairest of all processes

• Not fair
• Evaluators don t know what they are talking
  about

11
Some prejudices

• Fairest of all processes
• Serious (a lot at stake for projects and EC)

• Not fair
• Evaluators don t know what they are talking
  about

12
Some prejudices

• Fairest of all processes
• Serious (a lot at stake for projects and EC)

• Not fair
• Evaluators don t know what they are talking
  about
• Money down the drain

13
Some prejudices

• Fairest of all processes
• Serious (a lot at stake for projects and EC)
• Public responsibility (public investment money)
  Shareholders

• Not fair
• Evaluators don t know what they are talking
  about
• Money down the drain

14
Some prejudices

• Fairest of all processes
• Serious (a lot at stake for projects and EC)
• Public responsibility (public investment money)
  Shareholders

• Not fair
• Evaluators don t know what they are talking
  about
• Money down the drain

Rather hard work
15
Starting the process

• Evaluators are selected from the big pool (join
  !)
• Briefing documentation is often sent beforehand
• Experts are invited to come to Brussels,
  Luxembourg (at home)

16
Ext. evaluation
evaluators read
Eligibility
evaluators read
evaluators read
Support and facilitation
17
Ext. evaluation
evaluators read
evaluators make indidual Report/score
Eligibility
evaluators read
evaluators make indidual Report/score
evaluators read
evaluators make indidual Report/score
Support and facilitation
18
Ext. evaluation
evaluators read
evaluators make indidual Report/score
Eligibility
evaluators read
evaluators make indidual Report/score
evaluators discuss
evaluators agree score
all evaluators rank
Negotiate
evaluators read
evaluators make indidual Report/score
Support and facilitation
19
Free advice

• No pay, no cure
• Submitting a proposal is a gamble (human process)
• Success ratio?
• Find a good acronym

20
(No Transcript)
21
Free advice

• No pay, no cure
• Submitting a proposal is a gamble
• Success ratio?
• Find a good acronym
• Make your proposal SMART have a clear objective
• Suitable (meets identified needs, yours and
  theirs)

22
(No Transcript)
23
Free advice

• No pay, no cure
• Submitting a proposal is a gamble
• Success ratio?
• Find a good acronym
• Make your proposal SMART have a clear objective
• Suitable (meets identified needs, yours and
  theirs)
• Manageable (fit to carry out the tasks)
• Appropriate (is the most efficient way of meeting
  the needs)
• Responsible (is it relevant to the call and
  policies)
• Tansferable (sustainable and accepted)

24
Free advice (2)

• Read the call, understand the objectives, the
  rationale
• Read all documentation provided (evaluators
  guidelines when available)
• Look at existing projects (deliverables...)
• Read your own proposal, have it (peer) reviewed
  at different stages
• Early idea
• Concept
• Draft
• Final version

25
Free advice (3)

• Demonstrate dedication and committment
• Be realistic and set achievable but ambitious
  goals
• Start in time working on your proposal (as soon
  as call is open)
• Respect the deadlines (no mercy, electronic
  submission)
• Make the proposal self explanatory, use the
  single oportunity and make sure you cannot be
  misinterpreted EVIDENCE and JUSTIFICATION
• Go for excellence
• Show value for money

26
Free Advice (4)

• How to create a good partnership complimentarity
  rather than similarity?
• If at first attempt no success, try again

27
Free Advice (4)

• How to create a good partnership complimentarity
  rather than similarity?
• If at first attempt no success, try again
• Good luck!

Mathy Vanbuel ATiT mathy.vanbuel_at_atit.be