Presentation of results of the Analysis of the bilateral relations within the EEA and Norwegian Grants 1. 3. 2016 Era svět, Jungmannovo náměstí 767, Praha 1
Content of the presentation 1 Methodology Description of the EY approach to the Project 2 Creation of partnership Evaluation of the partnership during its creation Benefits of 3 partnership during project execution Evaluation of the partnership‘s benefits during 4 Benefits of the project execution partnership beyond the project scope Evaluation of the partnership‘s benefits beyond the project scope
Methodology
Evaluation questions The following set of evaluation questions was chosen for the Project Evaluation questions Evaluation question categories A. How were potential partners identified / selected? B. How were mandatory / predetermined partners selected? Creation of partnership C. How was cooperation with a partner established? D. What were the problem areas in the search for partners? E. What were the problem areas in negotiating partnerships? A. What was the manner of partner cooperation during project / programme implementation? Execution of partnership during B. What were the benefits of partner cooperation during project / programme implementation? project implementation C. What were the most common obstacles / problem areas of partner engagement? Development of partnership after A. How does the partnership continue on projects / programmes after the grant is exhausted? project completion / independent of B. What are the reasons for ending the partnership after the grant is exhausted? project implementation C. What is the partnership benefit beyond project / programme implementation?
Data collection method questionnaire 167 155 Addressed beneficiaries Addressed project partners 106 74 Responses Responses from from the the project beneficiaries partners
Data collection method structured interviews • Programme operator • Czech programme partner • Donor state programme partner • Beneficiaries (20 selected beneficiaries) • Partners of beneficiaries in donor states (20 selected partners) • The National Focal Point • The Norwegian Embassy in Prague
Creation of partnership
Initiators of cooperation 23% 5% 72% Beneficiaries Partners Mutual initiation
Identification of partners We received contact from 21% the programme partner / programme operator We identified the partner 16% based on media / his public activities We identified the partner 16% based on his web presence Contact from colleagues 15% from different organisation Through an event organised 13% by the programme operator We new the partner from 12% previous projects Personnal contact wit the 7% partner International conference 6% Other 18% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Main reasons for agreement to cooperate Interest in the project 73% 27% Interest in the cooperation with 27% 59% 14% your organisation Interest in the funds 9% 32% 50% 9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Main reason Significant reason Minor reason Not a factor
Problematic areas of creation of partnership 1 2 3 4 5 Limited time Limited for Limited communicatio Competences Administrativ preparation/ capacities of n due to the between e burden of creation of project distance partners programme partnership partners .
Recommendations and best practice Database of potential partners ► Analysis of relevant programmes ► Up-to date database Enhancement of Timely provision of cooperation with information about the partners at need of partnerships programme level ► Time schedule of the ► Increased calls cooperation on promotional activities ► Information about the need of ► Capacity building partnership is communicated in advance
Best practice example: Programe CZ06 Culture heritage and contemporary art Terms and conditions for achieving the objective - bilateral • international cooperation in the field of "Heritage and Contemporary Art" Resources and opportunities to establish and deepen • bilateral relations Timetable of activities aimed at achieving the goals • Results of bilateral cooperation in the framework of the • Program CZ 06 Ing. Vladimír Študent Ministry of Culture Director of Department of EEA grants
Benefits of ; partnership during the project execution
Perception of benefits of involvement of partners Partner's participation is 36% (was) absolutely necessary 38% for reaching the project goals Partner's participation is 43% (was) important for reaching 55% the project goals Partner's participation is 20% (was) useful but not 6% necessary Partner's participation is 0% (was) not necessary nor 1% useful for the project 0% 20% 40% 60% Beneficiaries Partners of the beneficiaries
Involvement of partner – perception of beneficiary 85% Know-how, experience and contacts sharing 84% 68% Outputs production 73% 29% Capacities (human resources) support 26% 10% Administrative support 7% 4% Financial support 5% New business opportunities 3% 8% Other 5% 0% 50% 100% In which activities was the partner mostly involved in In which areas was the impact of the partner's involvment the biggest
Involvement of partner – perception of partner 80% Know-how, experience and contacts sharing 81% 55% Delivery of outputs 61% 38% Capacity (human resources) support 33% 26% Administrative support 9% 12% Financial support 12% 10% New business opportunities 4% Other 9% 0% 50% 100% In which activities was the partner mostly involved in In which areas was the impact of the partner's involvement the biggest
Potential for greater involvement of partner 1% 21% 38% 40% Certainly Probably yes Probably not Definitely not
Obstacles for greater partner ivolvement The nature of the 47% project (the project 23% did not enable / require deeper Distance 39% involvement) Other obstacles 36% Administrative Short time for the • 38% burden implementation of projects 19% Different setting of • Insufficient allocation reporting of grants 26% of the financial Insufficient setting / • 17% support definition of cooperation Capacity reasons during creation of 21% partnerships 33% Limited personal contact • Programme 4% limitation 9% Other 7% 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% Obstacles according to the beneficiaries Obstacles according to the partners of beneficiaries
Further cooperation with partner 8% Would you realize the project with same conditions and same partner? 35% 57% 8% 2% Yes Rather yes Rather no Do you plan to continue with the 48% cooperation after the end of the 43% financial support? Yes Rather yes Rather no No
Recommendations and best practice Providing Greater involvement documentation in of partner in the both language preparation of project versions ► Instruction for ► Greater participation financial reporting, in the project exchange rates, preparation timesheets ► Sufficient information ► Provision of all about all aspects of documentation in cooperation both language versions
Best practice example: Project Exhibition „Brave New World“ Hedvika Máchová Development manager DOX Centre for Contemporary Art
Benefits of partnership beyond the project scope
Further cooperation potential 87% Other / similar projects 81% 74% Know-how and experience sharing 74% 13% Capacity support 17% 8% Financial support 17% 6% New business opportunities 7% 3% Other 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Beneficiaries Partners of the beneficiaries
Benefits of partnership beyond the project scope New know-how or its extension 86% 70% New contacts 74% 89% New competencies 47% 52% New business opportunities 14% (expansion of market, products, 26% segments, etc.) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Beneficiaries Partners of the beneficiaries
Best practice example: Motion activity as a part of treatment of psychiatric patients The current European changes in the care of psychiatric • patients - strengthening ambulatory care in the system of of complex care Status of physical activity in the mobilization patients • Different cultural attitudes in Central Europe, France and • English-speaking countries Finding a common topic Physical Activity Motivation • Enrichment of traditional applications of intervention programs • Implemented project results • Doc. PhDr. Běla Hátlová, PhD. Jan Evangelist Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem
Best practice example: Support of the activities of the National Coordination Centre for the prevention of injuries, violence and child safety Doc. MUDr. Veronika Benešová, CSc. Motol University Hospital
Debate
Thank you for your attention
Recommend
More recommend
