A2 Report form_Interim report_Knowledge...

Eramus+ KA2 Capacity Building in Higher Education Annex V - Technical Implementation Report (Progress report on implementation of the action)Project N. _______________________

page 1

Erasmus+ KA2 Capacity Building in Higher Education

Annex V - Technical Implementation Report(Progress report on implementation of the action)

Annex VI – Financial Statements(Statement of the costs incurred and Request for Payment)

561561-EPP-1-2015-1-ES-EPPKA2-CBHE-SP(Project No. / Agreement No.)

Reports and Pre-financing Deadlines Progress report on implementation of the action (Annex V)

Statement of the costs incurred and Request for payment (Annex VI)

When 70% of the 1st pre-financing has been spent but not later than

15 October 2016 for 2 year projects15 April 2017 for 3 year projects

Structure of the Report

Annex V DeclarationNarrative sections

Statistics and IndicatorsExample showing how to fill in the tables of achieved/planned outcomesTable of achieved/planned resultsCheck-list

Annex VI CBHE 2015 – Annex VI - Financial Statements (Excel file)

Please send Annex V and VI (word and excel file) according to the following instructions:a) Two paper copies: one original (with original signatures) and one copy; sent by the deadline by registered mail (date as per postmark) to:

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)Erasmus+ : Higher Education - International Capacity Building (Unit A4)Mr Ralf RahdersHead of UnitBOUR 02/171, Avenue du BourgetBE-1049 Brussels

For Annex VI, please send only the spreadsheet "Costs incurred & 2nd prefinancing"b) One electronic version of both files (word and excel) to be sent to [email protected] when submitting the paper versions of the report.

For Annex VI, you must send the complete excel file.An electronic Acknowledgement of receipt message will be sent via email upon reception of the paper copies.


page 2

DECLARATION

This declaration should be completed and signed by the following people:

1. the contact person at the Coordinator (institution);

2. the person who is legally authorised to represent the Coordinator (institution).

We, the undersigned, certify that we have submitted all the required documentation, including the documents mentioned in the checklist.

We certify that the information given in the "Progress report on implementation of the action" and the "Statement of the costs incurred and Request for payment" is correct to the best of our knowledge and complies with the requirements of the provisions of Article I.4 and II.23 (Annex II) of the Grant Agreement.

Furthermore, we confirm that the information provided has been compiled in close cooperation with all the Beneficiaries who have received a copy of all the documents submitted hereby.

We are aware that amendments to these documents will not be accepted after the date of submission.

Name of the Coordinator (institution): UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA

Name of the contact person of the Coordinator

…Miguel Angel Adame ……………………………….

Position: Professor

Place: Sevilla

Date: 4 Abril 2017

Signature:

Stamp of the Coordinator ( institution) :

Name of the legal representative of the Coordinator

Miguel Angel Castro Arroyo……………………………..

Position: Rector Magnífico

Place: Sevilla

Date:

Signature:


page 3

NARRATIVE SECTIONS

This document comprises the following narrative sections:

Section 1 Quality of the project implementation

Section 2 Impact and sustainability

Section 3 Quality of the cooperation

Section 4 Relevance

Section 5 Horizontal issues

It is mandatory to complete all sections in full and to address all the questions applicable to the project.

Guidance notes on completion of the sections are found within the sections themselves.


page 4

SECTION 1: QUALITY OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

1) Activities implementedSummarise the activities implemented so far addressing in particular the following issues:

Extent to which these activities are in line with (or diverge from) the work programme, timetable and partners' share of responsibilities presented in the application;

The applicability, added value and impact for the partner countries involved of the activities implemented so far

Describe any obstacle/difficulty encountered and the measures taken to address them.

Preliminary

The Harmony consortium is big as it consists of 17 institutions: 6 HEIs from the EU, 4 HEIs from Armenia and Belarus, and 4 organizations from Russian Federation, including the Ministries of Education and Science of the three Partner Countries participating in the Project. Please, refer to the application form for abbreviations used.

We are pleased to inform you that half way into the life of the project we have implemented more than half of the activities foreseen for the whole duration of the Project, the only delay being the purchase


page 5

of equipment due to adjustments in the needs. The Workplan has been followed as originally conceived and produced, and there has been no substantial departure from it, the only thing to point out is that we have included some small additions. For that reason it is easy to track down the process of implementation of the project. Therefore, all instruments described in the LFM are still in place. The timing of the activities has also been adjusted each time to the needs of the hosting institution. Therefore, from our perspective the level of implementation of Erasmus+ Harmony (hereinafter Harmony) is considered fair. As stated later on, to the number of activities foreseen in the Workplan we have added a significant one, which was not originally planned but that will build in on transfer of know-how and dissemination. As we are crossing the Ecuator of the project, the feeling of being part of a team and project ownership itself are becoming more evident. The co-coordinating institutions are constantly asking for feedback from the partners and through the Intranet anybody can add comments or suggestions and Harmony has become a self-driving project in which each partner plays satisfactory its role in driving the engine.

Regarding the contents of Harmony, it is good to remember that a proper process of internationalisation for a HEI requires two things. On the one hand, an organisation or reorganisation of a solid office of international relation. On the other hand a clear idea of what the institution want to achieve with the means available. The beneficiary institutions were very committed to internationalisation but they needed more organisation and know-how in the field. For that reason, we have worked in these two themes. In this line, all beneficiary institutions have already visited four EU partner institutions, (Kassel is the only one not hosting any workshop and Tomar will host them in 2018) where they have been introduced to different models of offices of international relations. Representatives from all beneficiary institutions have rotated through the visited EU partner institutions. They have learned about the different models of OIRs, either big ones or small ones, and they have been shown different ways of organising the work. At the same time, we have emphasized the strategic plan of internationalisation (SPI) --also known as Action Plan (AP) that is the new terminology that is expanding and that we use in Harmony--, as a useful tool to manage the progressive opening of the beneficiary institutions to the world.

This is a flowchart of Harmony:


page 6

We would like to remark that there is a strong commitment of all partners in the consortium to internationalisation, which is clearly reflected by the remarkable personal involvement of some Rectors and Pro-rectors directly in the activities and workshops. This coordinator has to admit that it is very unusual to see Rectors and Pro-Rectors not only attending a whole workshop but also actively participating in it. Regarding the ministries, one has to say that the Ministry of Education of the Republic Belarus has been present in many events, including those taking place in other countries. We are particularly pleased as Belarus is very sensitive to international affairs and maintains a very delicate diplomatic balance. Representatives from the Ministry of Education of Armenia also attended the first kick-off meeting in Sevilla, yet this person left the Ministry afterwards without giving notice and proper transfer of information to anybody. This situation has been corrected following the advice of the National Erasmus+ Office in Armenia and we currently have involved two new representatives who have to catch up. The right moment is now, as the involvement of the Ministries will really start during the second half of the project implementation. In the distribution of tasks we keep on insisting that the real involvement of the Ministries has to be done by each national contact institution. This is the case of the Ministry of Education in Russia that is linked through the University of Voronehz.

The pages that follow also address the remarks made by the National Erasmus+ Offices in the partner countries as a result of their monitoring visits on the implementation of Harmony. We also would like to take advantage of this Report to thank in particular the National Erasmus+ Offices in the beneficiary countries for their continuous support.

It should be noticed that we did not start officially on October 15, 2015, as payment was delayed. The consortium agreed to use the starting date of the calendar year, January 2016. The actual date of inception and completion of the deliverables is for that reason detailed later on in the particular description. In principle, it does not mean that we are behind schedule, as activities have been streamlined and forwarded up to the point that as described at this stage we are even a little ahead of the official schedule.

A detailed description of each activity and their implementation is included later on. In summary, the 11 deliverables that had to be finished by the Interim Report have been duly implemented. Others have been started, but in the last part of the Report we will reference only those completely finished as per the LFM.

These 11 deliverables, from Workpackages 1, 2, 5, 6 and (along with the main institution responsible for the deliverable), are the following:

1.1. Methodological workshop on in-depth analysis University of Seville1.2. Questionnaire Development Belarusian State University2.1 Desk and field study of EU HEIs best practice Instituto Politécnico de Tomar2.2 Study of EU and National policies in education, research, innovation, Eurasia International University2.3 Interviewing and data collecting Eurasia International University2.4 SWOT analysis Instituto Politécnico de Tomar5.1 Quality Control Action Plan Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University5.2 Internal Evaluation Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) UniversityAston University5.3 External Evaluation Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University, Aston UniversityAston University6.1 Project Information Materials Belarusian Trade and Economics University ofConsumer Cooperatives7.3 Coordination Meetings Voronezh State University

These deliverables from Workpackages 5 and 6 have been undertaken before schedule:


page 7

5.4 Project Expert Board5.5 Inter-project coaching6.4 Development & signing of collaboration agreements between partner universities

These deliverables from Workpackages 3, 4, 6 and 7 are already in progress/advanced:3.1 Development of a Framework and Action Plan by project partners3.4 Staff up-skilling in management4.1 Drafting of the tool kits structure and drafting of the recommendation structure for harmonization of internationalization strategy6.2 Project public events.7.1 to 7.4 deliverables related to the management of the project

Currently we have just had the Rome meeting, 27-31 March 2017 in Sapienza. The Rome meeting, as stated later on in different parts of this report, comprises:

1. The methodological workshop on drafting of Framework of a Comprehensive internationalization strategy and PC HEIs Action Plans of Internationalisation with usage of analytical materials prepared under WP22. Discussion on the proposed structures of the tool-kit and the recommendations3. 1st training workshop with Bologna process experts4. Coordination Meeting5. Ceremony of the cooperation agreement signing with participation of authorized persons from partner universities

Therefore, it targets the following deliverables:3.3 Implementation of Pilot Internationalization Action Plans of HEIs4.1 Drafting of the tool-kit structure and drafting of the recommendation structure for harmonization of internationalization strategy3.4 Staff up-skilling in management7.3 Coordination Meetings6.4 Signing of collaboration agreements

On May 16-20, 2017 we will be holding a meeting in Voronezh, originally not planned, that will bring together the following activities:1. International conference on European identity2. Training workshop on financial management of the Erasmus+ projects3. Public event4. Inter-project coaching

Therefore, it targets the following deliverables:3.4 Staff up-skilling in management6.2 Project public event5.5 Inter-project coaching

Taking into account all the above, we are pleased to say that the level of implementation of Erasmus + Harmony corresponds with the Workplan as originally submitted and produced per the LFM.

All statements in this Intermediate Report are supported by evidence.

2) Quality Assurance measures


page 8

Please describe the quality assurance (QA) measures applied to the activities implemented so far as well as the measures foreseen for upcoming activities.You should address in particular the following elements:

Provide the electronic link to the project quality assurance plan, if available; Describe the functioning of the internal QA (i.e. composition of the team(s), roles and actors involved;

type and frequency of measures envisaged; feedback mechanisms in place; etc.), the measures already implemented and the remedial actions taken if any;

Describe the functioning of the external QA (i.e. identity of the external evaluator(s) and criteria used for their selection; type and frequency of measures envisaged; feedback mechanisms in place; etc.), the measures already implemented and the remedial actions taken if any;

The Quality Control Plan was presented during the Aston meeting as scheduled (see below in description of deliverables).Some screen shots of different aspects of the QCP


page 9

Information is gathered and automatically anonymised by the online survey tool that guarantees confidentiality. Running this software, periodical polls have taken place among partners. In particular, as explained later on, together with the QCP there are several annexes with specific questions, a sample of which is produced here Annex 1 – Evaluation of Work packages and deliverables

A. Overall implementation of the WP 1. Was the overall management provided by the WP leader and WP co-leader efficient?2. Was the distribution of work reasonable and appropriate?3. Was there enough time allocated for ensuring the outcome of the WP? 4. Were staff resources sufficient and appropriate for ensuring the outcome of the WP? 5. Were the outputs of the WP achieved?6. Does the outcome of the WP correspond to the expected WP results?7. What problems, if any, did you encounter in meeting the required output and deadline?8. How could any of the above be improved?1. Implementation of Deliverable X2. Was the overall management provided efficient?3. Was the distribution of work reasonable and appropriate?4. Was there enough time allocated for ensuring the outcome of the deliverable? 5. Were staff resources sufficient and appropriate for ensuring the outcome of the deliverable?

Were the outputs of the deliverable achieved?Does the outcome of the deliverable correspond to the expected WP results?What problems, if any, did you encounter in meeting the required output and deadline?

6. How could any of the above be improved?

Annex 2 - Evaluation of Project EventsName of the Conference, Workshop, Seminar (dates)

A. Structure1. Were the goals of the event clear?2. Was the event structure clear?3. Were you given an opportunity to contribute to the structure of the event?4. To what extent have the goals been achieved?5. Was there a good range and balance of activities?6. To what extent have participants contributed to the discussion and decision making?

B. Organisation7. Was the communication satisfactory before to the event?8. Was the organisation satisfactory during the event?9. Was there a clear and reasonable timetable in place?10. Did the event adhere to the agenda?

C. Environment and Resources11. Was the working environment satisfactory?12. Was the provision of materials, resources and equipment suitable?

D. How can any of the above be improved?E. Evaluation Form

13. How useful do you find this form?14. How would you rate its structure?15. How would you rate the online platform used for generating the evaluation form?16. How can this form be improved?

Annex 3 - Evaluation of Project Communication Tools(Website and Intranet – to be evaluated separately)

Please rank different aspects of the project communication tools on the scale 1-4 (1: Not at all; 2: To a small degree; 3: To a large degree; 4: Completely)


page 10

A. Design and Efficiency1. Do you like the design?2. Does it look professional?3. Is it easy to navigate?4. Has it been reliable?5. Have you had any problems using this tool?

B. Has it been free from errors?C. Content

6. Does the content correspond to the general purpose?7. Is it logical and comprehensive?8. Is it up to date?9. Is it professional?10. Is it informative?11. Would it be useful to a wider audience?12. Would you recommend it to colleagues?

D. Satisfaction14. What is the most satisfying aspect of the tool?15. What is the most disappointing aspect of the tool?16. How can it be improved?

Annex 4 – Progress of the project(to be completed at the progress report and the final report stage)

Indicators of Progress: Results of research of internationalization level at higher education in the countries involved; Framework of a Comprehensive internationalization strategy Tool kits for harmonization of internationalization strategy in EU and Partner Countries Retraining programs for HEI administrative staff Expert network for internationalization in higher education Implementation of Pilot Internationalization Action Plans in HEIs Adaptation of recommendations for harmonization of internalization strategies at national levels

Please answer yes or no (If no, explain)

A. Progress of the project

Timetable (each partner)1. Did all activities take place according to the work plan?2. Did you respect the deadlines?3. Did your WP partners respect the deadlines?4. Did the timetable change during the evaluated period?5. Was reasonable period of time provided to adjust to those changes?

Communications1. Were communications with the partners effective?2. Were communications within your institution effective?

Products and activities (each partner)1. Have you undertaken all required activities according to work plan?2. Did you deliver all products (material, training day, questionnaires, etc.) as required?3. Are you satisfied with the quality of your activities or outputs?4. Did the workload correspond to your estimation?

Goals (whole partnership)1. Did the project meet the main goals for the evaluated period?2. Were all activities appropriately designed for meeting the goals?3. Are there some goals that have not been met?


page 11

4. Did all activities and outputs correspond to the envisaged goals?5. Are you satisfied with the quality of activities and outputs of the partnership?

Learning (added value of European cooperation)1. I have learned through being a partner in this project.2. European co-operation offered input I would never have obtained if I had not been a partner

in this project.3. The group has evolved during the evaluated period; opinions and visions regarding the

project subject have changed.4. My institution has benefited from this partnership.

B. Achievements of the project1. What is, in your opinion, the strength of this project?2. What are, so far, the weak points of this project?3. Define problem areas that should be tackled as soon as possible:4. Suggest some measures for solving the problem(s):5. Name at least two successful activities (actions) within the project:6. Which activities (actions) were not successful?7. Name at least two achievements realised through the project:8. What new links have you made at institutional and inter/national level?

3) Project Visibility Please indicate the address of the project website and describe briefly its structure (including the

purpose and content of sections restricted to the beneficiaries), the maintenance and updating plan in place, as well as the actions implemented for ensuring its visibility to all interested stakeholders.

Describe and, if applicable, provide the electronic link to any information and support material produced by the project for visibility and promotion purposes.

Explain how the consortium ensures that the visibility, exploitation and publicity obligations described in the grant agreement (art. I.10.8, I.10.9) are respected.

Significant efforts have been made to make sure that project visibility is pervasive. Internal information activities have taken place in each institution.The image of the Harmony is consistent as required in the Grant Agreement. The logo designed by BTEU and approved by all the partners and the disclaimers are used in every external and internal communication.As per the application, a periodical newsletter and a flyer have been developed also.The interim webpage from day 1 was hosted by US http://serragarci.com/clientes/erasmus/. The official webpage was developed in due course by Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki (ATEITh) and now is hosted http://harmonyproject.eu/


page 12

Logo was duly implemented from the onset.

We have also stressed the importance of consistent posters and other dissemination materials.E.g. Poster of the 1st International Conference of Harmony:


page 13

To spread the visibility of the project on a regional and national level several partners of the consortia (P2, P3 and P.8) have established project-related information websites on their institution websites, which are also cross-linked with the official website. This way the effect of project visibility in the internet is multiplied. For instance, the project webpage at VSU http://euspace.vsu.ru/ru/erazmus/aktsija-2/harmony / . The webpage is in Russian in order to promote the project among Russian universities and local authorities.

The general project information and the link to the project web site are also uploaded at SFedU to the university web site http://inter.sfedu.ru/node/4416

Furthermore and in addition to the newsletter the partners have launched several press releases on the project to a local, national and international audience. (e.g. see the Kassel site at https://www.uni-kassel.de/projekte/owwz-projekte/harmony/news-and-activities.html, or the Armenian RAU one at these addresses:http://international.rau.am/eng/international-projects/harmony

http://international.rau.am/eng/26/384• http://international.rau.am/eng/26/harmony-uk• http://international.rau.am/eng/26/harmony-ateith• http://www.rau.am/rus/news/delegaciya-rau-na-seminare-erasmus-harmony/0• http://international.rau.am/eng/26/boost

https://www.uni-kassel.de/projekte/owwz-projekte/harmony/news-and-activities.html

https://www.uni-kassel.de/projekte/owwz-projekte/harmony/news-and-activities.html

http://inter.sfedu.ru/node/4416

http://euspace.vsu.ru/ru/erazmus/aktsija-2/harmony%20/


page 14

• http://www.rau.am/rus/news/internacionalizaciya-obrazovaniya-v-armenii-sinergiya-mezhdu-proektami-erazmus--harmony-i-boost

Additionally the HARMONY project was and will be presented by the partners on regional, national and international events, exhibitions and conferences related to the wide topic of internationalisation. (E.g. Kassel University presented the project on the annual ERASMUS+ conference in Bremen (Germany) in September 2016 and most likely will present HARMONY on the bilateral conference “Supporting the Belarus Roadmap for Higher Education Reform” co-organised by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in Minsk in May 2017).

Another chanel used for expanding Harmony is through the network of Russian federal universities. In this sense, SfedU is a member of the network of federal universities, on the one hand, and the consortium of southern Russian universities, on the other hand, that’s why we have selected for interviewing our partners from both networks. Besides, these partner universities represent three out of four large groups of Russian higher education institutions: federal universities (as part of leading universities’ cohort), region-oriented universities, and state universities. Altogether twelve universities filled in the external questionnaire and they will be informed of the project findings in this field later.

4) Equipment Describe the equipment(s) already acquired by the project and, if applicable, present the timetable and

type(s) of equipment still to be acquired (by and for whom). Justify how equipment items have been used in the project activities (for teaching, learning, research,

the provision of new services, etc.) for the different target groups (specifying the nature of these target groups and the estimated number of final beneficiaries of the equipment on a yearly basis) and describe the actions implemented (/foreseen) for maximising their usage;

Indicate where it has been installed. As compared to the proposal, what changes have occurred (/do you foresee) for the purchase and/or

usage of equipment?

Equipment is currently being purchased.We received requests from most of beneficiary institutions asking for some changes in the equipment to be purchased. This was due to a combination of several factors: mainly the experiences gained during the first year of implementation that have opened up possibilities unknown before, as well as several investments by the beneficiary institutions themselves.With these suggestions, we contacted the Project Officer and asked for permission to make the changes. The list of the new equipment was reported to the Project Officer and we will attach it to the Final Report.Once that the changes were passed and approved, we started the contracting procedure. The deadline for the submission of different proposals was set for November 20, 2016, yet it is true that at the level of implementation that we are boasting now, we need the second tranche of the grant to pay for the equipment. It should be stressed that usually Erasmus+ projects foresee purchasing early in the life of the project, but we have not been affected by it. It should be noticed also that Harmony budget for equipment, as any Tempus or Erasmus + proposal is pretty limited, nothing to compare with the old Tacis projects.

For Curriculum Development projects

5) Bologna principles Explain to what extent the new curriculum takes into account the principles set out in the Bologna

process (e.g. integration in the 3 cycles, definition of learning outcomes in accordance with a national or European Qualification Framework EQF, application of student-centred approaches, compatibility


page 15

with European Credit Transfer System ECTS and with the European Standards and Guidelines ESGs for QA, etc.)

The first training taken place in Rome has addressed several aspects of the EHEA and the Bologna process. This will continue in the next training foreseen as per the application. Yet, it should be noticed that Harmony is not a Curriculum Development type of project, and therefore the trainings addressing Bologna have to be focused toward internationalization.

6) New/updated coursesFor each of the courses intended to be developed (/updated) for the benefit of the partner country Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), specify The title of the course, its volume (when applicable, in ECTS), The HEIs (or other type of training organisation) that will include the course in their curricular/training

offer, and the degree/diploma it will be part of The level of development reached as compared to the final product Describe for each of the partner countries involved, the recognition and accreditation procedures to be

followed and the activities already implemented in this respect. In case the Partner Countries involved are Bologna signatory countries, explain to what extent the accreditation process will be done in accordance with the EQAR (European Quality Assurance Register) Guidelines.

Globally (i.e. for the totality of the courses intended to be developed/updated) and as compared to the proposal, express in percentage the level of achievement so far concerning

The development/update tasks The recognition/accreditation tasks The percentage of courses already implemented/delivered to the target group(s)

Non applicable

Teaching / Training Activities

7) Mobility for Teaching, Training and/or project research activities2

Describe the type and objectives of the teaching / training / research carried out and the mobility flows linked to them.Explain the methodologies adopted by the partnership for informing, identifying and selecting the participants who have been or will be involved in these activities.Non applicable

SECTION 2: IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY

1) Awareness raising, dissemination, sustainability and exploitation of the project results Explain briefly the actions already taken (as well as those envisaged until the end of the project) for raising awareness and contributing to the dissemination, exploitation and sustainability of the results achieved (/products delivered) by the project. In particular: Provide an electronic version of the project Dissemination and sustainability/exploitation if available; Explain the role (and commitment) taken by the partner country beneficiaries in this respect and the

concrete measures taken for: ensuring the visibility of the project at all levels (i.e. department and faculty, institution, local and

regional, national, international); guaranteeing the sustainability of the project outcomes beyond the project lifetime (specify the

funding sources if known) …) Please add a list of realised deliverables/project products

Explain and justify any change as compared to the dissemination and sustainability measures envisaged in the application.

2 Please note that this section does not concern the mobility implemented for project management purposes


page 16

Dissemination activities are proceeding as expected and they will gear up during the second half of the project implementation. As described later on, we have produced flyers, newsletters and there have been several press releases.

The Dissemination Plan was the result f a consensus and was finally drafted by Anna Efstratiadou from Thesaloniki. Among its features, there are the following items:

Creating a video about the PROJECT HARMONY which will uploaded on our website , on YouTube and to the Erasmus+ Dissemination Platform in December 2016 (http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/projects )

Each participating university to its website must to upload information about the HARMONY PROJECT and to uphold it with workshops and public events

Each participating university organizing workshops and public events should give promotional material to ATEITH in digital form (posters, program, photos, press realise)

E-library for the Internationalization The official website of the Erasmus + Harmony Project operates from 30.11.2016 and upload

of all project materials Project Book «The Approaches to harmonization of a comprehensive internationalization

strategies in higher education, research and innovation at EU and Partner Countries»

TASK 6.26.2. Project public events

Creating totally 9 videos about the workshops and public events which will uploaded on our website , on YouTube and to the Erasmus+ Dissemination Platform.

(http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/projects )Seville, Birmingham , Thessaloniki April, 2017

Minutes of the events, Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events May, 2017 Rome

Minutes of the events, Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events October , 2017 Minsk

Minutes of the events, Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events December , 2017 Yerevan

As agreed by the partners during the first meeting in US, proprietary information that leads to a competitive advantage of one HEI member of the consortium will not be published till later on in the implementation of the Project. In any case, we have established in agreement with the Auditors who are working with us from day1 that the execution of each activity will be proved by sending through the institutional email to the Project Administrator the following elements:

1. Electronic power point presentation or materials used for training; and2. Electronic copy of the materials prepared or books developed or translated. All materials will be published in the ProjectBook that will be printed with ISBN during the last semester of implementation of the Project.

The Project book will be done in printed format, as well as in electronic format, and will be widely disseminated not only in the three beneficiary countries, but also overseas.

Joint publication in VSU peer review journal by the results of comprehensive research on the level of internationalisation implemented by the project will be prepared according to the schedule of the journal issue.

Sustainability of the project partnership ensures exploitation of the project results focusing on internationalisation seen as strategic approach. The partners develop their close collaboration achieved due to the Harmony project.


page 17

The establishment of the Network is an important part of sustainability as it is assumed that i twill exist even after the project is finished. In Rome in March we have signed the general cooperation agreement that will enable us to continue cooperating.

The project partners have jointly submitted some proposals at this stage, and are currently exploring further possibilities for the next coming call in early 2018.VSU and IPT and VSU and ATEITh have submitted 2 applications for E+ Action 1 credit mobility aiming at arranging master student mobility in a range of disciplines. US and VSU have submitted joint CBHE project focusing on improvement of student-centred approach implementation in joint master programmes whereas joint VSU and ATEITh proposal is targeted on looking for new potentials in entrepreneurship.

SECTION 3: QUALITY OF COOPERATION

Organisation of the project teams

1) Project managementDescribe the project management procedures and in particular The process for finalising the Partnership Agreement and, if applicable, the difficulties encountered (and

solutions found) in this process The management tools used (e.g. dashboards/roadmaps, data/information collection and sharing systems,

etc.) The performance indicators established The internal communication mechanisms adopted (i.e. language, meetings, on-line…) and the decision

making processes chosen. Explain any modification or adaptation of the project management approach as compared to the application

Harmony is a big consortium, and we have calculated that during its implementation around 200 people will be involved in it. For that reason, and from previous experiences, from the onset we have insisted on a protocol of management the rules of which in essence are following

Communications will be done between Coordinators and contact partners. Co-coordinators do not deal directly with individual experts.

The intranet is conceived as the main meeting point regarding Harmony. All activities and relevant information generated in the life of the project will be published there by all the partners, and e-files are uploaded to the project Dropbox.

The address of the Intranet is http://erasmusharmony.ning.com

Due to the size of the consortium, partners mainly use the Ning Intranet for posts of general interest (academics, project execution, coming activities etc). For that reason, we have insisted that all partners develop the habit of checking into the intranet at least once a week. We have also insisted that the partners refrain from regular email for ordinary communications unless strictly necessary.Any partner can publish entries or comments in the intranet blog. The intranet is provided with an internal email which can be used to communicate with a relevant person. We suggested thatthe embedded message service provided by the Intranet be used for communications between partners instead of their institutional email services. The idea is that once somebody connects to the Intranet they have there all the past and up-to-date information related to Harmony. However, the external institutional email is used for sending the materials for processing payments. As mentioned before, the intranet is supplemented with a Dropbox specific address for Harmony, that works as a repository of documentation, that in turn will be incorporated in the Project book at the end of the implementation of the proposal.


page 18

We have also worked in the idea that the partners have to direct their messages to the right person, without unnecessarily spamming others; also to make sure that they contact the right person responsible for each task, and not to involve other people and not to send messages to others unless no answer is received in due time.

Another rule strictly enforced is that when there is any doubt or specific assistance needed regarding execution of activities in each institution, to email the contact person in that institution, who has to organise an agenda, with a copy to the co-coordinators.Finally , we insist that partners have to respond to electronic requests and communications in a maximum of 3-4 working days. Acknowledgment of receipt is required.

2) Involvement of partners and stakeholders Describe the share of responsibilities between partners and in particular the role given to Partner country

partners. Explain how less experienced partners are involved and, if applicable, why some partners are less (/not)

involved. Explain how the partner country needs (for HEIs, the target groups or the society at large) are taken into

account by the management teams Explain how and to what extend the Public Authorities (at national, regional or local level) from the

partner countries have been involved in the project implementation. Specify their role and the nature of their contribution.

Explain how and to what extent students and other external stakeholders are involved in the project management and/or implementation. Specify the type of stakeholders, their number, their role and the nature of their contribution

If applicable, explain to what extent the project contributes to increased cooperation between universities and non-academic sectors of the society?

Harmony follows a de-centralized horizontal management structure in which the aim from day one has been to empower partners and make sure that there is solid project ownership. Project management has been so far fluid and smooth and the beneficiary institutions have gained ownership in the project.

The daily run of the project is done both through the Intranet and subsidiary through emailing. The Intranet is updated every week, and at the time of submitting this Intermediate Report has got 195 main blog posts, each of them with commentaries made by the partners. This illustrates a live project in which partners actively and regularly participate.

The partners have all the information on the activities from the beginning, and next coming activities are periodically reminded to them via videoconferences, so that they can start preparing for them. Decisions have been taken by all partners involved. The timing of the activities itself has also been adjusted every time to match the needs of each hosting institution.

We have used all meetings to discuss the progress of the project. This has been possible due also to the fact that senior staff from most of the universities, including Rectors and Pro-rectors have been personally involved in many of the activities, which guarantees a fair degree of satisfaction among partners.

The project is in practice co-coordinated by a joint team of US and Voronezh, but in each activity the hosting institution is granted a leading role, together with the partners in charge of each of the WP.

This de-centralized horizontal management structure has allowed partners to get maximum involvement from day one.

As a matter of fact, US has only been in charge of WP1, and immediately has passed the task to other partners. US only periodically reminds the partners of their tasks but even this is not necessary. All


page 19

the partners have responded to the expectations, and they have enthusiastically carried out their respective tasks on their own.

One has to say that it has been easy to proceed like this, as the selection of partners was done very carefully at the outset and we knew that all partners were very solid and have previous Tempus experience. With such a team, implementation has been fairly straightforward, especially since the experience of the beneficiary partners is sometimes even bigger than that of the EU partners, which is very reassuring.There has been already a clear impact in the beneficiary countries. We are not going to repeat ourselves, as it has been pointed out already in the different field monitoring Visits in the three countries by EACEA officers. We just want to point out as a good example of the external stakeholders’ involvement in Harmony the extension of our questionnaires in the three countries to most of the local HEIs, which we hope will have a multiplier effect in the future. This started in Belarus, then moved to Armenia and finally is taking place also in the Russian Federation. In particular, in the Russian Federation we are organizing between the 15-19 May a tranining session for HEIs in Erasmus+ management and accompanying financial rules, as we have detected a strong need among external stakeholders there. This activity is an addition to the normal implementation of the project.

It should be noticed also that, as requested during one Field Monitoring Visit, that in Armenia, we are pleased to inform that we have undertaken a project intercoaching with Tempus Picassa which targeted the whole Caucasus area. Inter project coaching has also been conducted with Erasmus + "Boosting Armenian Universities Internationalization Strategy & Marketing (BOOST)” during the kick-off meeting of the project in Yerevan, Armenia on 20-21 February 2017. The project objective is to foster and promote further internationalization of Armenian Higher Education through development of national and institutional policy framework and tools, and has many common outcomes with HARMONY project. It has been agreed that HARMONY project will be sharing the intermediate results of the project, especially the methodology and external surveys among Armenian universities, which will enable BOOST project to reach wider outcome on national level using the results of HARMONY project.

Financial management

3) Management of the grant Describe the grant management procedures in place and explain how the partners have been familiarized

with the rules for managing the grant. If applicable, describe how the specific concerns, needs or constraints of the partners (particularly from

Partner countries) have been taken into account How is the project coordinator informing the consortium members on the use of the grant? Please specify

the internal methodology used to communicate the financial reports on the use of the grant. Explain any difficulty encountered (or that could be encountered) for what concerns the management of

the grant (transfer of funds to partners, reimbursement of costs, tender procedure…).

The management of the grant has followed the customary procedure. We started by putting together all the PAs and processing the transfer of payments to each beneficiary. The only PA that was not signed was that of the Russian Federation. The Project Officer has been informed of that circumstance. We have learned that this is always the case in the Russian Federation, as the Minister of Education does not sign PAs. Furthermore, under domestic Russian law, public servants cannot receive money from a foreign government or corporation. Consequently, the money allocated to this country has not been transferred yet. We have asked the Project Officer if we are allowed to transfer this money to the University of Voronezh instead of sending it back to the EACEA which would look strange, and we are waiting for their reply.


page 20

Money has not been transferred to the Ministry of Education in Armenia either. The reason being is that despite several requests for a bank account from the local officers, we have been informed that they do not have a bank account. We plan to resolve this during the first visit to Yerevan soon, and we are working with the new representatives appointed by the Ministry in substitution of the previous one, who was involved from the beginning.

The financial implementation of Harmony is being smooth. Apart from the two issues explained above that have to do with domestic laws in the two countries involved and therefore an Act of the Sovereign, we have not had any other problems, which says a lot about such a big consortium.

Some of the partners did not understand the financial rules at the beginning. For that reason, starting already in the kick-off meeting we decided to reinforce a specific training on the new financial rules set up by Erasmus +, both in unit costs and in staff costs accruals. From the onset we detected that the partners were mostly unaware of the new financial rules. For that reasons, and to avoid problems in the future, we designed a carefully crafted plan to explain them the rules. The partners have been lectured several times by US staff from our financial Office, offering them particular examples. We normally manage Harmony through an intranet, but we have set up a specific helpline email to deal with the questions regarding the financial documents to be submitted under Erasmus +.

Some of the partners did not understand the financial rules at the beginning. For that reason, starting already in the kick-off meeting we decided to reinforce a specific training on the new financial rules set up by Erasmus+, both in unit costs and in staff costs accruals. From the onset we detected that the partners were mostly unaware of the new financial rules. For that reason, and to avoid problems in the future, we designed a carefully crafted plan to explain them the rules. The partners have been briefed several times by US staff from our financial Office, offering them particular examples. We normally manage Harmony through the project intranet, but we have set up a specific helpline email to deal with the questions regarding the financial documents to be submitted under Erasmus+.

We also agreed to establish a strict financial protocol. The protocol has several steps. First, the financial control is in the hands of the financial unit at US, which controls the budget implementation and has the final word in authorizing and making the payments. Interestingly, as a public university, the financial control of US has got even higher standards than those of Erasmus+. We have to comply with strict Administrative law in Spain, and we are implementing it across the whole project administration. in addition, we have used an external expert in quality control to make sure that the documentation produced meets the necessary standards. In this sense, and as foreseen in the budget of the original proposal, we have already hired one external expert in quality control who checks the quality of all the documents produced. This expert was hired by US , and Voronezh, the other co-coordinator, will do the same in May, in order to share responsibility during the second half of Harmony implementation, as we are very committed to partners' ownership of the project. The novelty is that the quality control exam and evaluation not only includes academic documentation produced, but also the financial documentation that the partners submit, such as the staff conventions and the worksheets. Everybody has to send the documentation to the external experts for checking first. Once approved, they are submitted to the financial services at US for processing. This ensures consistency and accuracy. Original documents submitted were sometimes incorrect, however, with this quality control in place, we have managed to ensure that all the documentation submitted is well drafted and the costs underlying are eligible. US has even slightly modified the EACEA documents adding to their current draft an extra page with other information that is required under Spanish domestic law to justify the payments, and which could be used easily in other Erasmus+ projects for clarification.

The final step of this process is the resort to an independent Auditor who is working from day 1 together with US. The Auditor has already certified a first period, coinciding with year one. And now the Auditor has made a second certification that is linked to this Intermediate Report. In previous projects the Auditors used to work only at the end, when there is no possibility of correcting the course if something has been done wrong from the beginning.


page 21

We are pleased to report that this financial protocol has been very effective. We honestly think that we have pioneered a new good-practice model for Erasmus +. We are not aware of any other project so far in which such a strict protocol has been implemented. In the Ecuator of its implementation, the results are so positive that US is extending it to the other ongoing projects and will incorporate it as an embedded feature in future proposals.

SECTION 4: RELEVANCE

1) Relevance in relation to project objectives In comparison to the original proposal, describe any change that may have affected the project relevance and added value for the partner countries involved.Explain or justify in particular: how the consortium dealt with internal and/or external constraints (e.g. legislative changes, labour market

needs, lack of motivation/commitment of partners, lack of availability of staff, cultural differences, visa issues, exchange rate fluctuations etc.);

to what extent the project is still relevant to their national context (how does it address the national strategies and policy development)

how the activities implemented are contributing to reaching the project objectives as specified in the proposal in accordance with the following topics:

o Improving quality of education and teaching (priority b)o Improving management and operation of HEIS (priority c) o Developing HE sector within society at large (priority d)

Harmony is fully relevant to the national context in the three beneficiary countries. The best proof of this is the abovementioned Conference to be held between 16-20 May (how does it address the national strategies and policy development) entitled "European Higher Education Area: agenda to move forward", that has been a significant addition to our range of activities.

The impact of Harmony in the HEIs of the three beneficiary countries is going to be significant. The sizable participation of sister HEIs in the questionnaires already circulated and the toolkits and recommendations that will follow once the data is processed and assessed guarantee success.

There have been no internal or external constraints. The only remarkable thing since the inception of Harmony has been the issues raised by macropolitics, that are beyond our control. In this sense, economic sanctions to some of our partner countries in obvious opposition to both EU and the Neighbouring countries' interest have fired back in the form of unaffordable visa costs that have to be assumed by individuals as they are not independently eligible. This, in turn already affects travel arrangements and accommodation expenses whose real costs have definitely been appraised in a very questionable way.

2) EU Education, Cooperation & Development policiesExplain: To what extent is the project aligned with the EU Higher Education objectives (cf Education & Training

2020, Bologna Process); How the project contributes to disseminating these policies and the tools attached to them (e.g. ECTS,

Diploma supplement, EQF, QA, etc.) in the partner countries; if applicable, provide concrete examples on the project contribution to visibility and attractiveness of the

European Higher Education Area ; To what extent does the project contribute to the EU Cooperation & Development policies;

The synergies created between this project and other on-going or planned cooperation activities between the EU and the Partner Country partners.


page 22

The project aims directly at improving internationalization in a systematic way, first in the beneficiary institutions and then later on in the respective countries as a whole. Indirectly, the project obviously fosters the EHEA. There are specific activities that involve EHEA concepts and categories. E.g. during the Rome meeting in March the partners were presented by experts with some key elements of the Bologna Process for them to apply in their institutions.Harmony also enhances overall cooperation between the EU and the Easter Neighbouring Area in accordance with the official EU policy.

SECTION 5: HORIZONTAL ISSUES

1) If applicable, explain how the recommendations given by the Agency (in the expert's assessment of the application, in the feedback from monitoring visits, in monitoring exchanges with the Agency, etc.) have been followed up

As expected, we have followed suggestions and recommendations coming from the EACEA or affiliates. In particular we have been in contact with our Project Officer to whom we thank for her support, whenever we needed some guidance. We have also received feedback from the monitoring visits to the beneficiary institutions.

Regarding the field monitoring, we have to start by thanking National Erasmus+ Offices for their positive evaluation, and have addressed the issues raised by them, regarding more involving of the Ministries --which is to come in the second part of the implementation of the project as we are moving East-- and also requesting some specific inter-project coaching (see below).

We are waiting to hear whether we can transfer the money originally allocated to the Russian Ministry of Education which they cannot use directly due to the Russian domestic law to the University of Voronezh.

2) If applicable, describe how and to what extent the project addresses transversal (/cross-cutting) issues relevant for the EU and its partner countries (e.g. gender balance, sustainable development, migration, unemployment, social cohesion, etc.).

The Project does not have as a primary goal to reach a gender balance among staff trained. Furthermore, there is no need for specific gender-balance approach in this project. Offices of International Relations are usually staffed by women, whereas professors in the traditional International Departments or with international interest tend to be men. Participation in the implementation of activities is overwhelmingly undertaken by women.


page 23

STATISTICS AND INDICATORS

This section aims to gather statistical data and indicators of performance for the period covered by this "Progress report on implementation of the action"

NOTE: THIS INFO HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO ALL BENEFICIARY INSTITUTIONS. SO FAR BTEU DATA IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE. WE WILL PROVIDE MORE DATA IN THE FINAL REPORT

Main targets

Please indicate whether your project has links, targets or objectives related toYES

Teacher trainingVocational Education and Training

Bachelor levelMaster levelDoctorate level

Training and mobilities

(please note that this section DOES NOT INCLUDE data on students/staff mobilities covered by the Special Mobility Strand component)

Enter the code of the partner country concernedin the first lines and figures in the second and third:

Training of partner country staff and students(Country of origin:____________)

Number of academic staff from the partner country’s Higher Education Institutions trained/retrained

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of teaching staff (professors, assistants with teaching tasks, etc.) trained and/or retrained to the date of the report submission

Number Male

NumberFemale 2 1 2 2

and the percentage this represents as compared to your objectives at the end of the project

% compared to objectives

Number of non-academic staff from the partner country’s Higher Education Institutions trained/retrained

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number University administrative staff (librarians, staff from the International Office, IT specialists, etc.) trained to the date of report submission

Number Male

NumberFemale 1 1



Number of staff from the partner country’s non Higher Education Institutions trained/retrained

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of staff of non HEI (enterprises, NGOs, Chambers of Commerce, Government, local administration, etc.)

Number Male

NumberFemale


page 24

trained to the date of report submission:and the percentage this represents as compared to your objectives at the end of the project


Number of students from the partner countries who have attended programmes/courses developed in the framework of the project

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of students from the partner countries that have been trained and/or retrained in the programmes/courses developed by the project to the date of report submission:

Number Male

NumberFemale



Academic/administrative Staff mobility(Country of origin:____________)

Number of partner country – programme country mobility flows of more than 2 weeks

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Country

Code:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of partner country staff mobility flows from the partner country to the programme country to the date of report submission:

Number Male

NumberFemale



(Host country:____________)Number of programme country - partner country mobility flows of more than 2 weeks

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Country

Code:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of programme country staff mobility flows from the programme country to the partner country to the date of report submission:

Number Male

NumberFemale



(Country of origin:____________)Number of partner country – partner country mobility flows of more than 2 weeks

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Country

Code:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of staff mobility flows within the same partner country to the date of report submission:

Number Male

NumberFemale



And between two different partner countries: Number Male

NumberFemale




page 25

Student mobility(Country of origin:___________)

Number of partner country – programme country mobility flows of more than 2 weeks

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of partner country student mobility flows from the partner country to the programme country to the date of report submission:

Number Male

NumberFemale



(Host country:______________)Number of programme country - partner country mobility flows of more than 2 weeks

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of programme country student mobility flows from the programme country to the partner country to the date of report submission:

Number MaleNumberFemale



(Country of origin:____________)Number of partner country – partner country mobility flows of more than two weeks

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

CountryCode:

Please indicate the number of student mobility flows within the same partner country to the date of report submission:

Number MaleNumberFemale



And between two different partner countries: NumberMaleNumberFemale



Links to European Higher Education policies

Please indicate whether the project contributes to the introduction (/promotion) of one or more of the following elements in the Partner Country university(/ies).Please include a brief comment for each of the ticked items.

Diploma supplementAdoption of a system based on three main cycles, undergraduate (Bachelor), postgraduate (Master) and DoctorateIntroduction of double/multiple or joint degrees

N.B. VSU and EIU are in the process of negotiation on the issue of introduction of joint master programme in pharmacyEstablishment of an ECTS systemPromotion of quality assurance procedures at institutional or national levelQualification frameworksLifelong learning policies and approaches


page 26

Modular curriculum structureNew teaching and learning methodsE-LearningUniversity/Enterprise cooperationLinks between the labour market and degree programmesLinks with other EU education programmes

EQUIPMENT:TYPE OF EQUIPMENT ACQUIREDlist (multiple choice)a) books and pedagogic materialb) audio-visual equipmentc) Computers and softwared) lab materiale) others

We submitted to our Project officer the list of changes, and those approved are being purchased. As one example of that, is VSU. Type of equipment acquired from the side of VSU is b) audio-visual equipment and c) Computers and software. This equipment is planned to be used to launch facilities which serve to functioning of the Expert Community for Internationalisation of Higher education during and after the project. Formation of this Community is one of the project results and will ensure the exploitation and sustainability actions of the project. VSU provides premises which are planned to equip with a computer-aided design interactive system and a video conference set with all supporting equipment and servicing facilities necessary for their sustainable functioning. The equipped premises will be used for arranging and participation in video-conferences, webinars, consulting and advising on internationalization issues among the members of the Expert Community for Internationalisation of Higher education established by the project as well as for involvement of new actors and stakeholders that will allow to disseminate the project results. The target equipment will serve to maintaining on-line communication among the partners during and beyond the project lifetime for such purpose as joint proposal writing and negotiations on joint ideas for new initiatives under various Erasmus+ actions, collaborative arrangement of joint events focusing on internationalization and modernization aims (joint degree programmes, mobility activities, quality improvements in HEIs, enhanced intercultural awareness etc.). These activities will contribute to the project sustainability ensuring from the side of each institution.

CONSORTIUM MEETINGSEstimated dates of consortium meetings until the end of the projects1) 12 - 15/01/2016 in Seville2) 4 - 6/05/2016 in Birmingham3) dd/10/2016 in Thessaloniki4) 28 – 30/03/2017 in Rome5) 26 – 28/09/2017 in Yerevan6) 5 – 7/12/2017 in Minsk

Erasmus+ KA2 Capacity Building in Higher Education Annex V - Technical Implementation Report (Progress report on implementation of the action)Project N. _______________________

page 27

TABLE OF ACHIEVED / PLANNED RESULTS

Title and reference number of the work package (WP)

Indicators of achievement and or/performance as indicated in the project proposal

Activities carried out to date for the achievement of this result:

Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date

Place Description of the activity carried out Specific and measurable indicators of achievement

Activities to be carried out for the achievement of this outcome (entire project period: 2 or 3 years)

Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date

Place Description of the activity to be carried out Specific and measurable indicators of progress

Changes that have occurred in this result since the original proposal:

Provide a briefdescription of

the activityInsert the activity

title as indicated in the project proposal

Insert the title and reference number as indicated in the project proposal

Insert the indicators of achievement and/or performance as indicated in the project proposal

Insert specific indicators (qualitative and quantitative) which

can help to measure the achievement of the activity result

Insert specific indicators (qualitative and quantitative) which help measure

progresses towards achieving the required result

Describe any change to the original activity plan described in the project proposal

State where and when the activity has taken/will take place

Act

ivity

nu

mbe

ras

indi

cate

d in

th

e pr

ojec

t pr

opos

alEXAMPLEUSE ONE TABLE

PER WORK PACKAGE:

ADD AS MANY

TABLES AS NECESSAR

Y


page 28

TABLE OF ACHIEVED / PLANNED RESULTS


WP1 METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT


Activities carried out to date to achieve this result:

Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date

Place

Description of the activity carried out Specific and measurable indicators of achievement

1.1. Methodological workshop on in-depth analysis

15-10-2015

31-01-2016

The aim of the methodological workshop was to define a scope of study through discussion among partners. The defined scope would be applied to the workplan of further survey and analysis. The workshop was also devoted to the development of a Questionnaire framework that will be followed by further questionnaire drafting. The framework was to define common and specific parts of the questionnaire.As the deliverable of the workshop the participants prepared a workplan of further survey and analysis, together with minutes of the discussion and Questionnaire framework.The two-day workshop was held in Seville in M1 Y1. To save costs, the workshop was carried concurrently with the Kick-off meeting (WP7) and a 4-day Study Visit №1 (WP2) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI and ICISTE, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 for the whole period. 1 representative from

1.1 Workshop on in-depth analysis in Seville.

Report: minutes of the discussion, a workplan of further survey


page 29

each PC Ministry and 2 external experts took part only in a Kick-off meeting and the workshop.

Responsible: US.The deliverable was carried out on 15 January 2016.The Workshop was duly carried out.

1.2. Questionnaire Development

15-10-2015

06-2016

After the Methodological workshop (M1Y1) where the partners reached an agreement on the frames and structure of the questionnaire - the instrument for carrying out one of the parts of the in-depth study – interviewing - the partners agreed to continue working at home on further drafting and then agreeing the final version.Questionnaire drafting was to be produced by partners from each Partner country: Armenia, Belarus and Russia as well as for EU countries in order to address the peculiarities of each side.The final version of the questionnaire was to be presented and approved at the methodological workshop targeted to agree the procedure of interviewing. Organised by Aston, the workshop took place in Birmingham over 2 days in M5 Y1. The partners were represented by 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE. To save costs the workshop followed the 1st Project Coordinating Meeting (WP7) and a 4-day study visit II (WP2).Minutes of the Methodological workshop on questionnaire development, Methodological materials, to be used by the partners for questionnaire drafting and Final version of the questionnaire were produced as deliverables.

1.2 Methodological workshop on questionnaire drafting in Birmingham.29 people attended the meeting in Birmingham.

The real time of delivery of both questionnaires, the long and short versions took place in July 2016.

Previously, US and BSU had provided a report on June 30, 2016 with the methodology follow for the final versions of the questionnaires.

A new external version questionnaire developed after the first experiences applying it was reputed necessary and it was delivered on November 1, 2016.


page 30

Responsible: BSU and US.The activity was carried out properly and in particular, the questionnaires were also finished. They were prepared in an Excel auto-executed format in order to make it easy to process data and facilitate quantitative analysis.

It was agreed that two types of questionnaires were going to be elaborated. A first long version for the partner institutions, and a shorter (external) version to be sent to sister HEIs in each of the three beneficiary countries.

The initial delivery time was November 30, 2015. The shifted time for delivery was May 25, 2016.

At the start of the project we planned to have just one questionnaire but in Seville it was agreed to have two questionnaires: a long one to be used internally within the consortium and a short one to be used by the programme countries.

Bearing in mind the previous projects for mapping of internationalisation (eg. IMPI; QUATMI; MINT, PICASA), our intention was to make this project innovative and unique by presenting an overview of all these approaches, as well as our critical view and a model that we recommend to be followed in the partner countries.


page 31

This is a screen shot of the SAQ software developed:

The external questionnaire was initially applied to Belarus HEIs by BSU. Later on in the last year it


page 32

was also extended to sister HEIs in the Russian Federation and Armenia, and the data was collected by SFedU, VSU, PSU, ICISTE, RAU and EIU before December 16, 2016.

Activities to be carried out to achieve this outcome (before the end of the project)


None


WP2 SURVEY AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS



Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


2.1. Desk and field study of EU HEIs best practice

15-10-2015

15-12-2016

To study the best practice of EU universities in implementation of internationalisation strategies partners were to carry out desk and field studies. Field studies were carried out in:1) Study visit I in M1 Y1 in Seville. To save costs the 4-day Study Visit №1 was carried out concurrently with the Kick-off meeting (WP7) and the Methodological workshop on in-depth analysis (WP1) during one trip. Participants: 2

2.1 Study visits to USE, AstonU, ATEITN,

Reporting took place as follows:Report: analytical materials,


page 33

persons from each partner HEI + 2 from ICISTE, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12.2) Study visit II in M5 Y1 in Birmingham. To save costs the 4-day Study Visit №2 was carried out concurrently with the 1st Coordinating meeting (WP7) and the Methodological workshop on Questionnaire Development (WP1) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE.3) Study visit III in M10 Y1 in Thessaloniki. To save costs the 4-day Study Visit №3 was carried out concurrently with the 2nd Coordinating meeting (WP7) and the 2-day Conference (WP2) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE.EU partners provided information and advice on desk study to PCs organizations.The results of the desk and field study will be accumulated in analytical materials and provided as deliverable, as well as the minutes of 3 study visits.

Project work plan:Field study: 3 study visits to HEIs of EU partnersDesk study: presentations of IR structure made by EU partners at the kick-off meeting for PC partners with the aim of analysis.As a tangible result with contribution to dissemination, exploitation&sustainability.Joint publication of articles concerning analysis of IR systems in partner universities

Responsible: Instituto Politecnico de Tomar (IPT).

minutes of 3 study visitsIPT provided report on 1ststudy visit in June 2016IPT provides report on 2ndstudy visit up to 15 December2016IPT provides report on 3rdstudy visit up to 15 December2016.


page 34

Time of delivery. According to the project work plan:1st study visit: November 20152nd study visit:February 20163rd study visit: July 2016

According to shifting of the project start:Full completion July 31, 2016

The actual date of delivery was, respectively:13-15 January 2016;4-6 May 2016 and25-27 October 2016Full completion of the field study took place in December, 15 2016

2.2. Study of EU and National policies in education, research, invitation

15-10-2015

15-12-2016

The consortium conducted analysis of the HEIs reports of internationalisation of education, research and innovation to National Ministries and other relevant official papers in each Partner country (Armenia, Belarus, Russia) and EU countries.EU partners provided information and advice on Study of EU and National policies to PCs organisations.The results of this study will be accumulated in analytical materials resulting from the study of EU and National policies and provided as deliverable.

Responsible: Eurasia International University

2.2 Analysis of EU& national policy in education, research and innovation.

2.3. Interviewing and data collecting

15-10-2015

20-01-2017

There were 3 target groups of interviewees: students; teachers; and managers & administrative staff.The data collecting and interviewing of representatives of the target groups was implemented on the basis of key universities according to the Ministry ranking.List of the key universities according to the PCs and EU

2.3 Survey produced.


page 35

Ministries ranking, List of interviewees in PCs and EU universities (with contact information), as well as a Description of the survey results will be produced as a deliverables.

In brief:Target groups: students, teachers, administrative staff- Interviewing on the basis of key universities according to the Ministry ranking- Digital external questionnaire massively disseminated among HEIs of participating countries- to present results of the survey in a descriptionUrgent task: collection of external questionnaires before December 15, 2016

Responsible: Eurasia International University.

According to the project work plan:May 31, 2016According to shifting of the project start:September 30, 2016.

Revision of SATs November 7, 2016Collection of external SAT December 15, 2016Report:list of the key universities,list of interviewees, description of the survey resultsJanuary 20, 2017

2.4. SWOT analysis 15-10-2015

15-02-2017

The SWOT analysis of the level of internationalisation of higher education in countries participating in the project was implemented on the basis of study of both the official documents and reports, as well as thesurvey conducted. The analysis was done by 4 sides (EU, RU, BY, AM) in order to

2.4 Workshop on SWOT analysis.

Analytical materials under 2.1


page 36

reflect the specific features of the countries involved.

The results of SWOT analysis were presented during the two-day conference in Thessaloniki in M10 Y1 and immediately followed by a discussion on analytical materials. To save costs the Conference was carried out concurrently with the 2nd Coordinating meeting (WP7) and the 4-day Study Visit №3 during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE for the whole period. 1 representative from each PC Ministry took part only in a Conference and the 2nd Coordinating meeting.SWOT analysis, E-book of analytical materials and Minutes of the conference were produced as deliverables.

Responsible: Instituto Politecnico de Tomar.

Eurasia International University provided data on national policies from EU partners Data about RU, BY national policy.Report: analytical materials resulting from the study of EU and National policies.EIU to provide report by January 20, 2017

Report: SWOT analysis, e-book of analytical materials,minutes of the conference.IPT to provide SWOT analysis by February 15, 2017

Hovhannes Harutyunyan listed the documents needed from each partner university to submit for SWOT analysis (6 points at the university level; 4 points of the country level; 3 points at the international and regional level; student councils association)

and 2.4 (good practice ininternationalisation + state-of the-art in PCs). Proposed collaboration consists of a publication in peer review journal ‘The Vestnik VGU’ special issue, at Voronezh.


page 37


None


WP3 DEVELOPMENT OF FRAMEWORK OF COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONALISATIONSTRATEGY



Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date

Place

Description of the activity carried out Specific and measurable indicators of achievement

3.1. Development of a Framework and Action Plans by project partners

15-10-

2015

30-10-

2016

Based on results on WP1&WP2 (Questionnaire development, survey, study of EU and PC National policies, desk and field study of best practice, SWOT analysis results), a Framework of a Comprehensive internationalization strategy will be developed. It will include tools of educational programmes modernization and digital learning materials (inter alia tools of development and recognition of joint programmes and double (multiple) degrees, credit transfer); tools of development of international mobility, research and innovation etc.Action Plans of Internationalisation based on a Framework will be outlined by project partners during the Methodological workshop in Minsk on Internationalisation Action Plans development

3.1 Methodological workshop on Internationalisation ActionPlans development.


page 38

(M12 Y1).First versions of the Internationalisation Action Plans for Project Expert Board evaluation will be drafted by partners at PC universities on the basis of the outline developed during the methodological workshop.During M3Y2-M12Y2 the PC HEIs will be supported by advice and consultations of the EU partners on the issues of Actions Plans implementation. PC HEIs will produce reports on bottlenecks of the Action Plans and present at the Progress seminar in M12Y2 (WP3, D3.3). That will allow to update&finalise the Framework and Action Plans.To save costs the Methodological workshop on a Framework and Internationalisation Action Plans development in Minsk (M12 Y1) will be carried sequently with the 3rd Coordinating meeting (WP7) and the 2-day Retraining session №1 (WP3) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE for the whole period. 1 representative from each PC Ministry will take part only in a Methodological workshop and the 3rd Coordinating meeting.Framework of a Comprehensive internationalization strategy, Drafts of PC HEIs Action Plans of Internationalisation and Minutes of the Methodological workshop in Minsk will be produced as deliverables.

Deadline according to the original plan was October 31, 2016According to shifting of the project start: March,


page 39

2017Sapienza and SFedDU are leading the consortium in this deliverable. The first results were produced during the Methodological workshop in Rome, 27-31 March 2017.The milestones were the following:

Report: Minutes of the Methodological workshopReport: Draft of Framework of a Comprehensiveinternationalization strategy with usage of analytical materials prepared under WP2

Drafts of PC HEIs Action Plans of Internationalisation developed at methodological workshop in RomeMarch 2017

As stated, the drafts were prepared and presented to the project partners at the workshop at Sapienza University of Rome. The approved drafts will be presented by SFedU at the Voronezh event devoted to EHEA (16 – 20 May 2017) to the delegates of the leading Russian HEIs and research institutes as well as local authorities.

In particular, SFedU wants to point out that while developing the framework of comprehensive internationalization the project contact persons from SFedU formed up two Task Forces: 1. Internationalization working group, 2. Recruitment working group.The first Task Force will be engaged in the development of the strategic plan of internationalization of the university. Its members are the representatives of internationally-oriented


page 40

faculty, researchers, and administrators. The international officers have browsed the Internet and studies different models of comprehensive internationalization and action plans of the European and American universities and tried to take into account the best practice in this field. A special attention is paid to the university leadership role. The clearly formulated commitment from the leadership of Russian universities is indispensable for the success of internationalization.The second group has been formed with the aim of developing a recruitment strategy for international students as part of the comprehensive internationalization strategy. This group consists of international officers and a few faculty international coordinators. All the group members are responsible for one or two countries and for a specific aspect of the recruitment process (promotion team, landing web page for international applicants, market research, social media, webinars and master classes). SWOT analysis has been conducted and the key selling points of the university have been defined. Different channels have been explored ( preparatory courses, webinars on how to successfully pass exams and become a student, master classes for school children, presentation materials, social media groups, Olympiads in different subjects and so on). Testing of the developed instrument has been done in Mongolia during the Russian education fair. Now the group is working on formulating indicators, market description to insert into the comprehensive Action plan on internationalization.


page 41

3.4. Staff up-skilling in

management

15-10-

2015

01-01-

20183) Retraining session №3 on Recognition of study periods in M6 Y2 in Yerevan.To save costs the 2-day Retraining session №3 will be carried sequently with the 5st Coordinating meeting (WP7) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI + 1 from ICISTE.4) Retraining session №4 on Leaning outcomes in M12 Y2 in Tomar. To save costs the 2-day Retraining session №4 will be carried sequently with the 6st Coordinating meeting (WP7) and Progress seminar (WP3) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE for the whole period.5) Retraining session №5 on Joint programme terminology will be held in M4 Y3 in Voronezh. To save costs the 2-day Retraining session №5 will be carried sequently with the 7st Coordinating meeting (WP7) and Methodological workshop (WP4) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI + 1 from ICISTE.A deliverable of the training trips will be minutes, programmes and teaching materials of 5 training courses.According to the project workplan:November 2016March 2017September 2017

According to shifting of the project start:1st training workshop:March 2017 in Rome2nd training workshop:

3.4. 5 Retraining sessions PCs HEIs


page 42

October 2017 in Minsk

The consortium has agreed in the following training workshops:1st training workshop:27-31 March 2017 in Rome

2nd training workshop:25-29 September 2017 in Minsk. It will build both on deliverables 3.4 Staff up-skilling in managementand 7.3 Coordination Meetings

3rd training workshop:4-8 December 2017 in Yerevan. It will build both on deliverables 3.4 Staff up-skilling in managementand 7.3 Coordination Meetings

As stated before, on May 16-20, 2017 we will be holding a meeting in Voronezh, originally not planned, that will bring together the following activities:1. International conference on European identity2. Training workshop on financial management of the Erasmus+ projects3. Public event4. Inter-project coaching



page 43


Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


3.2. Approval of Action Plans by HEIs Administration, regional authorities, National Ministry

15-10-2015

30-11-2016

Internationalisation Action plans developed under task 3.1 and evaluated by Project Expert Board the will be presented to administration of HEIs and regional authorities responsible for higher education. The presented Action Plans will be discussed at the university level and adopted by the university administration with consulting from side of regional authorities.The action plans will be also presented to the National Ministries of Education for their review and approval.The deliverable of this activity is Action Plans adopted and approved.

3.2 Presenting and discussing of the Internationalisation Action plans

3.3. Implementation of Pilot Internationalization Action Plans of HEIs

15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Internationalization Action plans developed under task 3.1 and approved under task 3.2 will be presented for testing and adaptation at partner universities.Thus the developed Action plans will be implemented in the framework of routine university activities that will allow to reveal bottlenecks of the Action Plans and give an opportunity to modify them and the Framework of Internationalisation Strategy. Meanwhile, this testing and adaptation process will identify best practice and allow to conduct case studies.Progress seminar on piloting of Internationalization Action Plans in project partner HEIs will be held in M12 Y2 in Tomar. To save costs the Progress seminar will be carried sequently with the 6st Coordinating meeting (WP7) and 2-day Retraining session №4 (WP3) during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from each partner HEI, 3 persons from the team of coordinator and co-coordinator (USE and VSU) and 3 from P7, P9, P12 + 1 from ICISTE for the

3.3. Progress seminar on piloting of Internationalization Action Plans


page 44

whole period.The deliverables of this task are reports of HEI management on the piloting process with specific emphasis on bottlenecks and positive outcomes that might be used for case studies; and Minutes of the Progress seminar.


None


WP4 TOOL KITS FOR HARMONISATION OF INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY IN HE,RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN EU AND PCs



Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


4.1. Drafting tool kits for harmonization of internationalization strategy

10-01-2018

30-04-2018

A methodological workshop will be arranged with the aim to develop a methodology and adopt a workplan, to define the tool kits and frames of recommendations. The workshop’s results will become a basis for partners’ work on drafting tool kits and recommendations. The workshop will be held in Voronezh in M4 Y3. To save costs the 2-day methodological workshop will be carried sequently with the 7st Coordinating meeting (WP7) and 2-day Retraining session №5 during one trip. Participants: 2 persons from

4.1 Methodological

workshop


page 45

each partner HEI + 1 from ICISTE + 1 representative from each PC Ministry (who will participate only at the Workshop and the Coordinating meeting, without training).On base of the results received during the previous stages of work BY, AM, RU and EU Universities and following the agreed during the workshop workplan the project partners will develop a Draft version of the Tool kits for harmonization of internationalization strategy and Recommendations to PCs National Ministries for harmonization of internationalization strategy at their home universities during the following 4 months communicating each with other mainly via skype, e-mail and phone connection.Deliverables: minutes of the methodological workshop, Draft version of the Tool kits for harmonization of internationalization strategy, Draft version of the Recommendations to PCs National Ministries for harmonization of internationalization strategy.

WP4 is co-cordinated by Kassel and ICISTE.

4.1 is a deliverable currently in progress. Actually, the Actually, the Structure of the tool kits is prepared for discussion during workshop on drafting of PC HEIs Action Plans of Internationalisation in Rome (27-31 March).


Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


4.2. Approval of the developed tool kits by

10-01-

30-06-

The drafted tool kits and recommendations will be presented to the Expert Board in M8 Y3. The Expert Board

4.2 Presentation of the drafted tool kits to the Expert Board


page 46

an Expert Board 2018 2018 will review and evaluate them during M8Y3 - M9Y3 and on the base of this analysis will perform its recommendations on further development of the deliverables or approve the current versions.The final version of the Tool kits for harmonization of internationalization strategy and Final version of the Recommendations to PCs National Ministries for harmonization of internationalization strategy will be approved by the PC Ministries and presented to EACEA as a deliverable.Tool kits and Recommendations will be presented to a wider audience at the Project Final Conference (WP6) in M11 Y3 in Moscow.


None


WP5 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN



Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


5.1. Quality Control Action Plan

15-10-2015

05-2016

In accordance with our application, Quality control was to be an integral part of the project to ensure that objectives are met in the most effective way. At the beginning of the

5.1 Quality control

Report: Quality Control


page 47

project Quality Control Action Plan with specific results was developed and presented as a deliverable.The QCAP has been prepared as referenced before in the narrative part.

Responsible: Aston University / Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University

According to the project work plan: October 31, 2015According to shifting of the project start: March, 2016

The Quality Control Plan was prepared by Veronika Aghajanyan, Suzanna Shamakhyan and Selena Teeling.Some excerpts;:" Quality control is an integral part of the project and aims to ensure that objectives are met in the most effective way. This Quality Control Plan (QCP) defines the general approach to quality control, internal and external evaluation and the procedures to be followed by the partners for effective communication as well as production and documentation of the Project deliverables. The document outlines the strategy for how the quality control mechanisms will be applied so that the operational, management and working procedures are comprehensively monitored and improved throughout the project duration.

The QCP contains a set of scheduled activities and defines the objectives, roles and responsibilities. The QCP includes established indicators, methodology and procedures for evaluation of project activities and results. For each task it determines the responsible partner(s), timeframe and tools of implementation, the expected results or products, as well as the respective quality criteria."

The QCP document is accompanied with 5 Annexes with

Action Plan.

RAU and Aston Universitypresented the final QC ActionPlan at Birmingham meetingMay 2016, and uploaded to the project Dropbox.


page 48

templates (a sample reproduced earlier in the narrative part):Annex 1 – Work packages and deliverables

Annex 2 – Project meetings/events

Annex 3 – Project communication tools

Annex 4 – Progress of the project

Annex 5 – Impact of the project

5.2. Internal Evaluation 15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Day-to-Day Internal Evaluation of the project: A Quality Control Committee (QCC) was set up during the Kick-off meeting (M1 Y1) comprising contact persons of PCs and EU partners (1 from each). QCC will evaluate the project implementation process on a day-to-day basis and reports during the Coordinating meetings on the quality of work.The nomination took place during the Kick-off meeting in Seville (M1 Y1) (WP7).

Deliverables: List of the participants of the Quality Control Committee, Reports of the QCC as a part of the minutes of each Coordinating meeting.

Responsible: Russian-Armenian (Slavonic) University

Aston University conducted nomination of Quality ControlCommittee in May 2016

5.2 Evaluation by Quality Control Committee

5.3 External Evaluation 15-10-2015

30-09-2018

External evaluation of the entire project was to be conducted by two independent experts -

5.3 External evaluation independent experts


page 49

The first external expert has been contracted and has been working from the inception of the contract. During the month of May 2017 Voronezh State University will use the money for subcontracting to hire the second expert to continue the support.Mid-term project evaluation report, Final project evaluation report.The first of the independent experts is already working on the project evaluation as stated in the narrative.

5.4. Project Expert Board 15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Project Expert Board was nominated in order to perform an evaluation of the analytical materials produced by the partners (WP2, WP3), as well as the tool kits developed (WP4). Established during the Kick-off meeting (M1 Y1), it is comprising: Senior representatives of PCs and EU partners including representatives from Ministries of Education of PCs (1 from each) + External experts. Project Expert Board is the main strategic body for quality control & monitoring and will monitor and approve the quality of the planned project results against established qualitative & quantitative indicators of progress (LFM). It will meet in person 3 times during the project duration: 1. M1Y1 Seville; 2. M2Y2 Rome; M4Y3 Voronezh (work to be done mainly via e-mail or video conference). It will produce reports and recommendations in correspondence with the Project Work and QC plan.

Deliverables: List of the participants of the Project Expert Board, PEB Reports and recommendations in correspondence with the Project Work and QC plan.

The list of the participants of the Project Expert Board was provided on 15 January 2016.

5.4 Evaluation of analytical materials


page 50

This is the list of the Expert Board Members:

Miguel Angel AdameHelen HigsonGabriele GorzkaAntonella CammisaGraziella GaglioneMaria CatrogaThomas ThomidisHovhannes HarutyunyanSuzanna ShamakhyanAlexander RytovLyudmila MisnikovaOleg BelenovElena FedotovaSergei VasinSergey RomaniukIrina Kuklina

5.5. Inter- Project Coaching 15-10-2015

31-10-2018

Peer-review and consultations with the current ongoing Tempus & Erasmus plus projects focusing on internationalization will be carried out via videoconferencing or meetings in person.Minutes and reports on the meetings (virtual or in person) will be produced as a deliverable.

Following recommendation from the National Erasmus + Office in Armenia, inter-project coaching has taken place with Tempus Picassa.

HARMONY project is the successor of Tempus PICASA project (544125-TEMPUS-1-2013-1-AM-TEMPUS-SMGR "Promoting Internationalisation of HEIs in Eastern Neighbourhood Countries through Cultural and Structural Adaptations Project Number") which aimed to promote

5.5 Peer-review and consultations with the current ongoing Tempus & Erasmus plus projects


page 51

recognition of Eastern Neighboring Area HE systems through development and integration of internationalization dimensions into structural and cultural components of HEIs management.Within PICASA project internationalization criteria for research and scholarly collaboration, indicators, criteria and procedures for quality assurance (QA) of internationalization were developed for Internationalization Framework by EU and Partners Country institutions.

We have already shared Harmony experience among PICASA colleagues during the 2nd conference held in November 2016 at TSU (Georgia) (see presentation and respective article by L.Slivinskaya published in conference proceedings).

In spring this year it is planned to have the final coordination meeting of PICASA project. BSU will present Harmony project outcomes during this meeting as well and in particular the results of the national survey we have done via Harmony external assessment tool.

During the Rome meeting, Harmony participants will discuss the main PICASA features.

As stated before, on May 16-20, 2017 we will be holding a meeting in Voronezh, originally not planned, that will bring together the following activities:1. International conference on European identity2. Training workshop on financial management of Erasmus+ projects3. Public event4. Inter-project coaching with Erasmus + project “COMPLETE- Establishment of Centers for Competence and Employability Development”; with staff that was


page 52

involved in Tempus “InterEULawEast - European and International Law Master programme Development in Eastern Europe”; and with the EHE PRS Jean Monnet project, UNIQUE Centre.


As stated before in the narrative part, inter project coaching has also been conducted with Erasmus + "Boosting Armenian Universities Internationalization Strategy & Marketing (BOOST)” during the kick-off meeting of the project in Yerevan, Armenia on 20-21 February 2017.The project objective is to foster and promote further internationalization of Armenian Higher Education through development of national and institutional policy framework and tools, and has many common outcomes with HARMONY project.It has been agreed that HARMONY project will be sharing the intermediate results of the project, especially the methodology and external surveys among Armenian universities, which will enable BOOST project to reach wider outcome on national level using the results of HARMONY project.

The SFedU project leader has presented the project to the university competitiveness group that defines the strategic development of the university. The project contact person advised the faculty international coordinators on the project aims, expected outcomes and the main events.Elena Fedotova, the Head of International office, presented the Harmony project to the following USA universities during her 3- month stay in the USA:Indiana University, January - Fabruary, mainly ISSO staff


page 53

Cornell University: March, Center for European Studies, associate director, Office of Provost for International affairsColumbia & Yale- International offices - March & April


None. Deliverables 5.4 and 5.5 are ahead of schedule.


WP6 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION



Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


6.1 Project Information Materials

15-10-2015

01-12-2016

Development & dissemination of Project`s Materials including a Project Book «The Approaches to harmonization of a comprehensive internationalization strategies in higher education, research and innovation at EU and Partner Countries», and a comprehensive project marketing package (incl. project logo, posters, leaflets, brochures, pennants, DVDs, standard press releases);Development & regular update of Project Web-site as a platform for e-presentation of the project, external & internal dissemination & efficient communication. It will be created by P6 jointly with P9. It will include Intranet to ease distance communication & partners` interaction, download area, detailed information about the Expert

6.1 Development & dissemination of Project`s Materials including a Project Book, Project website.


page 54

Community for Internationalisation of Higher education; The parties will agree on the protocol for its regular-update and maintenance.Designed the dissemination plan to be implemented during the projectNewsletter Publishing (e-newsletter) published every 6 months.E-library on Internationalisation will be created on the Project’ website and can be used by interested audience.(Draft to create the E-library for the Internationalization on the official webpage).

Responsible: Belarusian Trade and Economics University of Consumer Cooperatives

The first flyer and logo were provided by BTEU in February 2016. The first newsletter was provided by BTEU in August 2016.There have been several press releases, eg. by US inJanuary 2016 and by Aston U in May 2016.

As stated in the narrative part of this report, there was a temporary webpage set up by US. The final and current ongoing webpage was developed by Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki as scheduled.

6.2. Project public events 15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Project public events: conference in Thessaloniki (WP2); five training sessions on internationalisation managment (WP3) and the Final Conference. It will be organized in M11 Y3 in Moscow. To save costs the meeting will be carried concurrently with the 8th Coordinating meeting (WP7). Participants: 3 persons from each partner HEI + 1 from ICISTE + 1 representative from each PC Ministry.

6.2 Final conference, Reports on public events


page 55

Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events will be produced.Deliverable: Minutes of the events; Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events.It has already mentioned on this point above.

The Thessaloniki meeting took place as scheduled. The Rome meeting took place between the 27-30 March 2017. The Rome meeting coincided with the first training workshop (whilst the second training workshop, as scheduled, will take place in October 2017 in Minsk).

As stated before, on May 16-20, 2017 we will be holding a meeting in Voronezh, originally not planned, that will bring together the following activities:1. International conference on European identity2. Training workshop on financial management of the Erasmus+ projects3. Public event4. Inter-project coaching


6.4. Development & signing of collaboration agreements between partner universities

15-10-2015

01-02-2017

Development & signing of collaboration agreements between partner universities as a basis for exploitation of results & continuity of actions tested during the project. EU and HEIs from the PCs will aim at increasing their future cooperation through bilateral and multilateral cooperation agreements on future student/staff exchanges or/and joint cooperation & research activities.

6.4 Collaboration agreements between partner universities


page 56

List of collaboration agreements between partner universities will be produced as a deliverable.

The original deadline for 6.4 was August 31,2018. Yet, a number of collaboration agreements have already been signed ahead of schedule. First, US proposed a framework agreement in October 2016, conceived as a memorandum of understanding to be signed initially by all Rectors in the educational institutions.. Then ATHEITH proposed an extended agreement text agreed to be used for establishment of Network for internationalisation on October 27, 2016.This framework agreement was signed in March 2017, during the meeting in Rome.

There are also so far two bilateral cooperation agreements, signed between US and VSU; and between ATEITH and VSU, both of October 2016.VSU and IPT and VSU and ATEITh have submitted 2 applications for Erasmus+ Action 1 credit mobility aiming at arranging master student mobility in a range of disciplines. US and VSU have submitted joint CBHE project focusing on improvement of student-centred approach implementation in joint master programmes whereas joint VSU and ATEITh proposal is targeted on looking for new potentials in entrepreneurship.Besides, they are jointly working to explore the possibility of submitting futher proposals for the next call. in early 2018.


Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


6.2 Project public events 15- 30- Project public events: conference in Thessaloniki (WP2); 6.2 Final conference, Reports


page 57

10-2015

09-2018

five training sessions on internationalization management (WP3) and the Final Conference. It will be organized in M11 Y3 in Moscow. To save costs the meeting will be carried subsequently with the 8th Coordinating meeting (WP7). Participants: 3 persons from each partner HEI + 1 from ICISTE + 1 representative from each PC Ministry.Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events will be produced.Deliverable: Minutes of the events; Reports on the participation of the wider audience in the project public events.

on public events

6.3. Expert Community for Internationalisation of Higher education

15-10-2015

The project will result in creation of the Expert Community for Internationalisation of Higher education. It will consist of the representatives of the Project Expert Board and PC HEIs staff trained during the project events targeted on the HEIs personal skills upgrading in internationalisation management. The Expert Community contact people list will be available on the Project website and all the representatives will be available for consultations and advice to interested audience. The Expert Community will ensure the exploitation and sustainability actions of the project.List with CVs of representatives of the Expert Community for Internationalisation of Higher education will be produced as a deliverable.

6.3 On-line list of representatives


None. Deliverable 6.4 is ahead of schedule.


page 58


WP7 PROJECT MANAGEMENT



Activity N°

ActivityTitle

Start date

End date


7.1. Overall Management & Reporting

15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Deliverable comprises among others setting & follow up of the plan for the implementation of project activities (workplan); regular reporting (every 3 months by project partners to USE & VSU (co-coordinators), mid-term reports to EACEA prepared by USE & VSU every 6 months and approved by SC); ongoing supervision concluding implementation of project activities in PCs (local project coordinators together with USE-VSU); continuous communication between the partners & potential trouble shooting.Besides specific planning/control techniques (already proven in previous projects) will be applied using scale planning (for 1 week, 1 month and 6 month).

Responsible: Voronezh State University.All the foreseen coordination meetings have duly taken place.Intranet was set up andpresented on 15 January2016 by USSteering Committee wasnominated on 15 January2016

7.1.Steering Committee (SC) set up; Agreements between partners signed


page 59

7.2. Contractual issuesand Project ProgressReports

15-10-2015

15-10-2018

USE is responsible for submission to the EACEA two Project Reports:1st - when 70% of the 1st prefinancing will be disbursed and no later than half-way through the Project start.2nd - two months after the Project end.The Project Coordinator will develop the financial part of the Reports and PC Local Coordinator - the content part.The Project Coordinator together with PC representatives (1pr/country) will participated in Erasmus + Meeting in Brussels in December 2015.

7.2.Regular Project management efficiently implemented

7.3. Coordination Meetings 15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Kick-off meeting (WP7) was held in Seville in M1 Y1.

1st Project Coordinating Meeting was organised in Birmingham in M5 Y1.

2nd Coordinating meeting was organized in M10 Y1 in Thessaloniki.

4th Coordinating meeting will be organized in Minsk (M12 Y1).

3rd Coordinating meeting was organised in Rome in M2 Y2.

5th Coordinating meeting will be organized in M6 Y2 in Yerevan.

6th Coordinating meeting will be organized in M12 Y2 in Tomar.

7th Coordinating meeting will be organized in M4 Y3 in Voronezh.

7.3. coordinating meetings implemented.All minutes of the meetings that have taken place already prepared and uploaded to the Project Dropbox for consultation.

Report:Minutes of 3 meetings:Kick-off meeting (January 12-15,2016)1st coordination meeting (May 6,2016)2nd coordination meeting(October 27, 2016)


page 60

8th Coordinating meeting will be organized in M11 Y3 in Moscow.

Each event has been and will be reported in Minutes.

2nd training workshop:25-29 September 2017 in Minsk. It will build both on deliverables 3.4 Staff up-skilling in managementand 7.3 Coordination Meetings

3rd training workshop:4-8 December 2017 in Yerevan. It will build both on deliverables 3.4 Staff up-skilling in managementand 7.3 Coordination Meetings

7.4. Day-to-day administration of the Project

15-10-2015

15-12-2018

Day-to-day Project administration has been carried out by all the project partners:

The Project Coordinator (USE) is mainly responsible for Project financial management, preparation the Project Progress Reports and communication with the EACEA.

The Local Coordinator (VSU) is mainly responsible for operating management of the Project.

Project Contact Persons of other consortium members organise Project activities on institutional level.

The report on day-to-day administration of the Project is produced by each partners and accumulated in one by the project coordinator.


Activity Activity Start End Place Description of the activity to be carried out Specific and measurable


page 61

N° Title date date indicators of progress7.1. Overall Management &

Reporting15-10-2015

30-09-2018

Continuation of the deliverable

7.2. Contractual issuesand Project ProgressReports

15-10-2015

15-10-2018


7.3. Coordination Meetings 15-10-2015

30-09-2018


7.4. Day-to-day administration of the Project

15-10-2015

15-12-2018



None

Please add as many tables as necessary.


page 62

CHECK-LIST

WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE SENT ?

Declaration, duly signed by the contact person and the legal representative of the co-ordinator (institution)

Report on implementation of the project

Electronic versions of the QA Plan, the "Dissemination and Sustainability Plan" and any other project output that may illustrate the activities implemented

Table on statistics and Indicators

Table of achieved/planned results

Statement of the costs incurred and, if applicable, the Request for Payment (excel file)

Date post:	06-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongkhanh
View:	223 times
Download:	1 times

A2 Report form_Interim report_Knowledge...

Documents