1
Project Title SEE Science
Project Number SEE/B/0048/1.3/X
Document Title FINAL EVALUATION
Document Version 0.1
Document Origin Lead Partner
Document Date 15 February 2014
Character of Document REPORT
Related Document(s)
(Origin Partner, Date)
Target Group SEE Science Steering Committee
Developed by Ms Éva Nádor, external expert
2
FINAL EVALUATION
1. April 2011- 15. February 2014.
February 2014.
3
CONTENT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
1. Project objectives and methodology
2. Brief summary of the mid-term and interim reports
3. Objectives and methodology of the final assessment
III. KEY FINDINGS
1. Management issues
- project design
- partners’ change
- project management
2. Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project
- Results in terms of outputs
- Achievement of projected result indicators and targets
- Budgeting issues
- Preliminary assessment of outcome/impact
IV. CONCLUSIONS
APPENDICES
SOURCES
4
I. Executive summary
The main objective of the final assessment is to determine the extent to which the objectives as
defined in the AF have been met and describe the extent project management helped project
implementation to achieve project goals.
The methodology of the final assessment was the combination of secondary and primary research.
Secondary research was relying on the previous analyses and the documents elaborated since the
interim report. The primary research also included personal interviews with the members of the LPMT
and interviews with the project partners with the help of a structured questionnaire.
Key findings
1.Management issues
Project design: The SEE Science project was entirely in line with the Application Form. Both the
methodology and the activities followed the revised implementation plan which was approved by the
Steering Committee at its first meeting. The content related issues have been discussed by the PCT.
The project design was mostly adequate to address the problems at hand however some issues have
been raised. At the beginning there were lots of methodological discussions, partners needed a more
pragmatic approach than first provided by the responsible partner. Work Package leaders and LPMT
made lots of efforts to clarify the project design for the partners what made the project partners more
comfortable with the methodology, the coherence of the different activities in the Work Packages.
Partners’ change: The extensive partner change caused permanent difficulties to to follow the work
plan of the AF. The replacing partners had to catch up with the tasks, what required more time than
expected causing scheduling problems. By the end of the 4th period most of the delays have been
covered. However the partners’ change caused delays in activities, it did not influence the final
outputs. The partners’ change primarily challenged the project management.
Project management: In overall the project management of the SEE Science project was good. After
the initial shortcomings significant improvement was noticeable during the implementation of the
project. After the partners’ changes the activities were better synchronized. The change in LP’s
internal team was beneficial, both the cooperation of the partners and the communication among the
partners improved. The recommendations of the mid-term and interim assessments helped the project
5
partners to improve the efficiency of their activities. The stronger internal relationships and the better
understanding of the project had a positive impact on the quality and the delivery of the outputs.
The partner level project management was satisfactory, although the competences of the project
partners were different most of the project partners were active and creative. During the project
valuable professional support was provided by PP3, PP4, PP12 and PP13. The external management
team provided professional management support during the whole project. Due to the long
procurement process and the internal management problems some of the partners had difficulties with
the process of reporting and the related deadlines.
SEE Science is characterised by significant underspending. The SEE Monitoring Committee has
already made a decision about the withdrawal of 111.000 euros. Considering the total budget set in
AF for the whole project, spending is at ~69% at the end of the 6th period. Taking into consideration
the forecasts given by the partners, SEE SC project will exceed the expected minimum (75%) level of
spent budget.
2.Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project
Results in terms of outputs : By and large the number of outputs was in line with the plan.
Based on the partners’ analysis Transnational State-of-the Art was created, SC Service portfolio was
developed. The network of SC agents has been developed, action plans for building or developing
local/regional strategic partnerships have been designed, strategic partnerships have been established.
SC agents coordinated small scale pilots targeted at children in early school age, students/ young
adults and businesses (innovation agencies, research institutes, large companies, SMEs). SEE Science
Centre as a virtual platform was developed, 3 successful Science Festivals have been organised.
Achievement of projected result indicators: Small scale projects and the science festivals increased
the project visibility and accessability. The small scale pilot activities were an opportunity for the
general public and especially children and students to be actively involved in activities a science centre
can offer for them. Partners agree that the SEE Science Festival series, and the small scale pilots
helped all the partners to increase their visibility towards new public.
Most of the other result indicators are close to the accomplishment, stakeholders have been involved
in regional roundtable discussions, local/regional strategic partnerships have been built and public
regional debate started on science, innovation and technology. The most problematic field is the IT,
which expected to be sorted out only by the end of the project.
6
Elaboration of result indicators as “Regional/ local policies improved or developed”, „Set of EU level
policy recommendations formulated” and „Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation” is in
progress, those papers will be discussed at the final event of the project and will be ready by the end of
the 7th period.
Preliminary assessment of outcome/impact: Based on the documents and the partners’ opinion the
primary objective of the project seems to be achieved. All of the project partners feel that the SEE
Science project brought important outputs for them. Most of the partners emphasized the importance
of beeing a part of the SEE Science network. Project partners with existing SCs discovered new
possibilities for their service portfolio, others without SCs feel stronger to establish a science centre. A
wide range of the targeted groups have been reached by the project raising interest for science,
innovation and technology.
WP5 and WP3/3 were fully dedicated to ensure financial / institutional and political sustainability.
This effort was supported by the project design. Strategic Partnerships have been established to
increase the range of funding available to SCs in the longer term based on mutually beneficial
cooperation with the business sector. Policy recommendations will be formulated both on national and
international levels.These will sustain key activities that connect SEE Science with society in raising
awareness and promoting a culture for innovation.
The organised SEE Science Festivals enhanced visibility and accessibility. The joint work and
cooperation of the partners envisage a good chance for the sustainability of the SEE Science network.
The SEE Science Centre will provide virtual access to visitors via online and digital technologies.
Partners are going to define a joint action plan to ensure the institutional and financial sustainability of
the transnational pilots as well as the SEE Science network.
The main guarantee for the sustainability of the project is the commitment of the project partners. At
the 5th PCT meeting ideas were collected which were built in a document commissioned by the Lead
Partner which show directions for further cooperation for SEE Science partnership. Partners are
looking for further funding opportunities to continue the cooperation.
7
II. Project background
II.1. Project objectives and methodology
According to the unanimous opinion of the experts it is obvious that capacity for innovation is a key
driver of economic growth. Key components of innovation are science and technology and promoting
them in the economy and society offers a positive approach to generating innovation and improving
human welfare. Due to several reasons – weak culture for innovation, lack of proper framework
conditions to bridge research, education and business – innovation scores low in SEE.
The overall objective of the SEE Science project was to contribute to the image formation of the
SEE region as a place of innovation through increasing public awareness on the importance of
natural sciences, technological progress and innovation. The SEE Science project investigated how
Science Centres could improve in order to better serve the increase of public awareness on the
importance of natural sciences, technology and innovation as key determinants of economic growth.
The project concept was initiated by the Municipality of Debrecen as the Lead Partner inviting science
centres, local authorities, research organizations and universities as PPs. The SEE Science project was
a cooperation of 10 ERDF Partners and 8 Associated Strategic Partners. Among the ERDF partners
there were 3 partners with functioning Science Centres – ERDF PP3 MUSE, ERDF PP4 Science
Center Network Austria , ERDF PP12 CSE –. At this point it has to be mentioned that the planned
contribution of the Associated Partners could only be realised to a very limitied decree.
The project specifically aimed at waking the interest of young people for science, technology and
innovation by creating new methods to increase visibility and accessibility through science centres.
Implementation was broken down to 3 phases, with stakeholder involvement as a continuous overarching
activity.
1. Joint analysis of operation & services of SCs; benchmarking & knowledge building by appointed SC
Agents to create Transnational State of the Art Report and draft SC Service Portfolio.
2. Networking by SC Agents to develop cooperation with innovation actors; implement pilot actions to test
jointly selected SC services and to create & test main transnational outputs of SC cooperation.
3. Finalise core outputs: build pilot results into final SC Service Portfolio; define joint action plan to ensure
sustainability of transnational project outputs and the SEE Science network; finalize action plans for improved
SC operation/ strategies for setting up SCs at PP level.
8
The activities to achieve the project objectives were organised in 5 Work Packages, such as
- Work Package 1 Transnational Project and Financial Management - responsible - LP
- Work Package 2 Communication activities - responsible ERDF PP1- UniDeb
- Work Package 3 Improving the operational management and services of Science Centres in
SEE- responsible ERDF PP 11 SCSTI
(replacing LUDUS )
- Work Package 4 Improving the role of Science Centres as catalysts of innovation - responsible
ERDF PP4 SCN
- Work Package 5 Sustainable SEE cooperation of SCs for increased awareness on the role of
technical sciences on innovation- responsible ERDF PP3 MUSE
In the course of December-January 2013 a Mid-term assessment has been conducted. The main
objective of the evaluation was to provide the Joint Technical Secreteriat (JTS) South East Europe
Programme, the Lead Partner, the Municipality of Debrecen and the project partners an independent
review of the status, relevance and performance of the project as compared to the project documents.
The primary task of the Mid-term report was to determine the extent to which the objectives as defined
in the Application Form have been met as of the date of the assessement, and estimate the likelihood
of achieving them upon project completion.
In September 2013 an Interim report has been prepared. The main objective of the evaluation was to
provide the LP an interim review of the project progress based on the continuous monitoring activity.
The recommendations aimed to help the LP and the partners to make the necessary measures to ensure
the successful execution of the project.
II.2. Brief summary of the Mid-term and Interim reports
Methodology of the Mid-term evaluation
In order to achieve the goals of the Mid-term evaluation integrated research methods such as
- secondary and
- primary researches were applied.
The evaluation were based on the findings and factual statements identified from the review of the
relevant documents; Application Form “Boosting innovation through capacity building and
networking of science centres in the SEE region”, Implementation Plan, Progress reports/ Amended
9
Progress reports and AfR, Minutes of the Steering Committee and the Project Coordination Team
meetings, Applications for Reimbursement, the project website.
Besides secondary sources the evaluation also included field research. Visits and interviews with the
LPMT; the Overall Coordinator, the Project Manager, the Project Communication Manager and the
External Management Team members were interviewed personally. The project partners were
interviewed by the help of a structured questionnaire. The aim of the methodology was to be able to
gain opinions, expectations and vision of the project partners towards the achievement of its
objectives.
Evaluation criteria:
- Operation of the Project Management; Lead Partner (Project Management Team, External
Management Team), Steering Committee, Project Coordination Team - responsibilities, tasks,
documentation
- Implementation by the project partners; in terms of quality, timing, activity and spendings
- Activities, outputs by Work Packages, deviations in the plan.
Key findings of the Mid-term analysis
The Mid-term evaluation pointed out that the Partnership is relatively strong. The cooperation with the
LP and the LPMT is excellent, the cooperation among the project partners is good. The partnership
can be described by a good team work. Taking into account the strong commitment of the LP and the
expectations of the project partners the realization of the SEE Science project seemed to be feasible in
case the necessary changes in managing the process and finances will be made as intended. By and
large the Municipality of Debrecen, as Lead Partner, was managing the project efficiently. The internal
and external management was working closely together both on strategic and operational level. The
leadership of the project was in the hands of the Lead Partner’s Internal and External Project
Management Team having a wide range of competences and the capacity to guide the partners.
The assessment revealed also the key problems the SEE Science project. Due to some delay in the
official notification of approval from the JTS the actual project activities started 2 months later. 4
partners withdrew from the project after the kick - off meeting which caused a hiccup in the actual
project start. The detailed analysis of the activities in the Work Packages showed that there were
always significant deviations concerning timing compared to the timeframe of the AF. It caused
temporary difficulties in the implementation of the project for the partnership. The replacing partners
had to catch up with the tasks, what required more time than expected causing scheduling problems.
10
By the end of the 4th period (30. November 2012) most of the delays have been covered. The
performance of the Work Packages differed. The evaluation of the WP2 was contraversial. Although
the delay of activities was obviously affecting the communication the intensity of communication
could be improved. More proactivity and creativity was expected. WP3 management and operation
was satisfactory, problems arised regarding the SWOT methodology what caused significant delay in
implementation. Management of WP 4 and WP5 was strong. Major problem occurred in terms of
financing. SEE Science was characterised by significant underspending. The SEE Monitoring
Committee has already made a decision about the withdrawal of 111.000 euros. Some of the replacing
partners could not validate their progress reports by the National Controller. Partner change has also
contributed to the high level of underspending.
Key findings of the Interim report
Mid - September 2013 an Interim assessment has been conducted. The evaluation was based on the
findings and factual statements identified from the review of the relevant documents elaborated
between December 2012 and September 2013. Based on the Interim evaluation it was clear that the
partnership is strong, project partners are committed to the project success. LPMT is managing the
project efficiently. Although the major content related activities were going to be accomplished in the
6th and 7th period the realization of the SEE Science project seemed to be feasible in the period of the
Interim report.
The SEE Science project was still facing considerable underspendings and due to that another possible
decommitment. The reason behind that was that some partners were not able to report costs in time or
costs cannot be declared in time.
In order to meet the project objectives further control of the activities in the Work Packages, based on
personal relationships, communication and output monitoring was suggested. The Interim analysis
also recommended the strict monitoring of the preparation of the interim financial report, keeping the
deadline of submission.
II.3. Objectives and methodology of the final assessment
The main goal of the final assessment is to determine the extent to which the objectives as defined in
the AF have been met and describe the extent project management helped project implementation to
achieve project goals.
The final assessment is focusing on the following issues:
1. Management issues-
11
Project design: Changes in context and review of assumptions: Is the project’s design
adequate to address the problems at hand? Does the project remain relevant considering
possible changes in context?
Changes in partnership: Has the partner changes any consequences on the partnership,
on the project implementation, the final outputs of the project?
Project management on project and partner level: To what extent the project
management helped the project implementation to achieve the project goals? Have the
project’s activities been in line with the schedule of activities as defined by the work plan
in AF? Have the project expenditures been in line with expected budgetary plans? What
internal and external factors have influenced the ability of the LP and the partners to meet
projected targets?
2. Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project
Results in terms of outputs achieved vis-á-vis projected targets (efficiency): Has the
project reached the expected number of outputs (i.e.. analysis, partner meetings,
conferences, transfer visits to be implemented etc?)
Achievement of projected result indicators and targets (effectiveness): What has the
performance been like with respect to the projected result indicators? Have there been any
unplanned effects?
Preliminary assessment of outcome/impact (effectiveness): Has the project generated
any results so far that could indicate that the implemented actions have had an impact on
the waking the interest of young people for science, technology and innovation and that
the visibility and accessibility of science centres were successfully increased in partner
cities.
Methodology
The final assessment adopted both secondary and primary research. Secondary research was relying on
the previous analyses – Mid-term and Interim reports – and the documents elaborated since the
Interim report – 5th PCT meeting, 5
th Progress report and project outputs –.
The primary research included personal interviews with the members of the LPMT and interviews
with the project partners with the help of a structured questionnaire.
12
III. KEY FINDINGS
III.1. Management issues
Project design
The SEE Science project was entirely in line with the Application Form. Both the methodology and
the activities followed the revised implementation plan. The content and administrative issues have
been discussed at the PCT meetings while strategic decisions were made at the SC meetings. At the
beginning there were lots of methodological discussions, partners needed a more pragmatical approach
than first provided by the responsible partner.
The project partners expressed that the project’s design was mostly adequate to address the problems
at hand however some issues have been raised. In the opinion of some project partners lower number
of participating partners could ensure bigger transparency and a more effective communication among
them. Another key issue is the selection of the project partners. In the opinion of some partners it is
crucial to select committed partners. It was also mentioned that higher involvement of the partners in
the project design and more meetings, conferences during the project could ensure better
understanding of the project methodology and contribute to the project success.
Partners’ change
4 partners withdrew from the project after the kick-off meeting which caused a hiccup in the actual
project start. The extensive partner change caused deviations in timing compared to the AF. It caused
temporary difficulties in the implementation of the project for the partnership. The replacing partners
had to catch up with the tasks, what required more time than expected causing scheduling problems.
By the end of the 4th period (30 November 2012) most of the delays have been covered.
However the partners’ change caused delays in activities, it did not influence the final outputs. The
partners’ change primarily challenged the project management. LPMT had to make lot of efforts to
handle the problem, to replace the former partners and to manage the administrative processes.
The project partners emphasized that the delays in activities did not change the final outputs, the catch
up of the new partners went smoothly, however they needed more time than expected.
13
Project level and partner level management
Organisational structure
TRANSNATIONAL PROJECT LEVEL TASKS
● LEAD PARTNER Responsible for the coordination, supervision and
management of the project. Reporting and setting
up and maintaining good working relations with the
programme authorities and the partners.
● LEAD PARTNER’s MANAGEMENT TEAM
(LPMT) (certain changes in the internal team
later)
- Internal (Overall Coordinator, Project Manager
(PM), Communication Manager (PCM), Financial
Manager (PFM)
- External (Project Manager, Financial Manager)
Appointed by the LP is responsible for the daily
management and coordination of activities.
External experts assist the internal team in the
efficient project management and implementation.
● PROJECT COORDINATION TEAM (PCT) LPMT and PPM form the PCT. PCT is discussing
both professional and operational issues regarding
implementation and results.
● PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (SC) SC members are appointed by the Project Partners.
SC is a strategic decision making body ensuring
that the project objectives are fulfilled. The major
task is to approve basic project documents, to
monitor implementation and take decisions on key
issues and intervene, if needed.
PARTNER LEVEL
● PARTNER LEVEL PROJECT
MANAGEMENT TEAMS (PPMT)
- Project Partner Manager (PPM)
- Project Financial Manager (PFM)
Responsible for the project implementation on
partner level.
In charge of project activities, reporting to the
National Controller and the LP (Partner reports etc.)
14
Project level management
Lead Partner’s Management Team
Municipality of Debrecen as Lead Partner, was responsible for the successful implementation of the
SEE SC project. The management team was composed of internal and external project management
team, working closely together. The ultimate performance of the project management was the result of
this cooperation.
Initially the Internal Management Team involved the overall coordinator, the thematic expert, the
project manager, the project assistant and the financial manager. There were significant administrative
changes at the LP. The project manager who was also in charge of communication left the project in
February 2013, the new project manager was active since then. The overall coordinator left the project
in June 2013. The new project manager successfully caught up to the project relying strongly on the
external project management working closely together.
Internal staff strengths: commitment, motivated employees, expertise in project management, good
relationship with the project partners and the programme bodies (VÁTI, JTS).
Internal staff weaknesses: heavy workload, other responsibilities, staff changes, lack of international
experiences, weak leadership in terms of motivating the project partners.
The work of the Lead Partner was supported by the External Project Management Teamand they
worked closely together, management issues were thoroughly discussed. LP was delegating part of its
responsibilities to the external consultant.
The External Project Management Team members have a long record in project management as such
and in EU Interreg programmes as well. The external advisor is characterised by professionalism, in
aware of the methodologies and procedures. The SEE Science program faced lots of difficulties what
could not be bridged without this problem solving capability.
External Project Management Team Strengths: professionalism, experience, expertise, good
management skills, good problem solving capabilities, good communication skills, efficient
relationship management, language skills, effective cooperation with the internal staff and the JTS.
The conclusion of the Mid-Term analysis was that the LPMT is highly motivated, the project partners
are satisfied with the support provided by the LPMT however more direct contact was expected. The
overall impression was that a stronger leadership by the LP could be more effective. The performance
of the External Project Management Team was highly ranked by the project partners. Among others
15
the extensive knowledge of the SEE Programme and the good leadership qualities were highly
appreciated. At the same time some project partners mentioned that the split of the leadership between
the LP and Grants Europe is not explicit what is sometimes weakening the overall lead of the project.
The Interim monitoring report showed certain improvement, the direct involvement of the LP was
higher. The new project level manager established direct relationship with the project partners, mostly
in form of e-mailing. Another improvement in the project management was the newly introduced
output monitoring system what made the up-to-date monitoring possible. Lead Partner was able to
follow the status of the Work Packages’ outputs and to intervene if necessary.
Based on the PCT and SC minutes and the partners’ opinion the recommendations of the Mid-term
evaluation contributed to the improvement of the project implementation. The project partners agreed
that the recommendations have been taken into consideration. LPMT improved the communication
with the project partners, the links among the WPs were better explained, the project partners got more
explanation about the expectations regarding results and outcomes. Due to those changes the deadlines
were kept better than before,
Project Coordination Team (PCT)
The Project Coordination Team consisted of the members of the LPMT and PPMT. The PCT is the
overall operative, decision preparatory body of SEE Science, serving as a base for the whole
implementation of the project. During the SEE Science project 6 PCT meetings were planned. The 6th
meeting will be held in February 2014.
At the 1st meeting PCT Rules of Procedures were discussed. The key content issues presented by the
WP leaders and discussed by the PCT were the common SWOT methodology, the Communication
Plan, the Knowledge sharing strategy, the task of the SC agents, SEE Science Centre start-up activities
and the preparation for science festivals.
The 2nd PCT discussed the revised Implementation Plan, the Financial Management issues, the ASP
Management, the Science festivals’ methodology and the progress of SWOT analyses.
The 3rd PCT meeting among others discussed further the SEE Science festival methodology, the
benchmark visits, the upcoming events and included a website training a knowledge sharing session.
Formulation of pilot teams, first ideas for the small pilot actions and management issues were also
discussed.
The 4th PCT meeting discussed the key issues of the project implementation in WP3, WP4 and WP5.
Among others how the results of the TSAR are going to be utilised in the Operational Plans for
Improved Operation/Strategies for setting up SCs, how findings of the TSAR will be integrated to
Small Scale Pilots and Transnational Pilots, issues related to the project Policy Recommendations on
local level (Municipality or region or national level) and EU level, SC Agents and their network and
the operation of the Virtual Science Center.
16
On the agenda of the 5th PCT meeting there were general project and financial issues, among others
the Interim report and the financial issues regarding the project closure. PCT members reviewed the
final documents of the Work Packages and the tasks regarding SC agent network, strategic
partnerships, SC Science Centre and Science festivals. Partners agreed on the methodology of policy
recommendations and discussed the ways of sustainable cooperation.
In general the PCT was functioning well, the meetings were efficient, discussing content related
issues. Based on the minutes project partners participated on the PCT meetings and the activity of the
members was sufficient. PCT meetings were pragmatic in the sense that the upcoming tasks, deadlines
and responsible partners were always defined.
Steering Committee (SC)
The Steering Committee was the supreme decision-making body of the SEE Science Project. In
principle it involved decision makers of the project partners representing the decision making level of
the partner organisations. During the SEE Science project 3 SC meetings were planned, the 3rd SC
meeting will be held in February 2014.
The 1st meeting was attended by all project partners. The partners approved the Rules of Procedures of
SC, discussed and approved the Project and Financial Management Guidelines. The LP gave an
overview of the SEE Science Project. Furthermore the SC approved the revised Implementation Plan.
The 2nd
SC meeting discussed the financial issues and made recommendations for the partners.
Furthermore the results of the Mid-term analysis – making recommendations for the partnership –
have been presented and approved by the SC. Finally the partners discussed the possibility to join the
European Science Events Association (EUSEA) in terms of sustainability of SEE Science Festival and
the Virtual Science Center.
Considering the whole SEE Science project the project partners expressed a very positive opinion
regarding the LPMT. The efficiency of the internal team was improved with the help of the new team
members. The LP and its team provided a big support for the project partners in the daily project
management. They appreciated the professionalism, expertise and competence of the Grants Europe,
particularly its leadership, efficient trouble shooting, successful cooperation, quick response and
consultation on reports, spendings and management issues have been emphasized. Some negative
comments have been made too: some partners would expect more meetings, conference conversations,
better mediation of issues among the partners and stronger lead on content level. One partner was in
the opinion that updating of the implementation plan would be more efficient than new schedules
defined in the PCT memos.
17
All of the project partners agreed that significant improvement was noticeable during the
implementation of the project. After the partners’ changes the activities were better synchronized. The
change in LP’s internal team was beneficial, both the cooperation of the partners and the
communication among the partners improved. The recommendations of the Mid-term and Interim
assessments helped the project partners to improve the efficiency of their activities. The stronger
internal relationships and the better understanding of the project had a positive impact on the quality
and the delivery of the outputs.
Partner level project management
In overall the partnership became a good team, the competence profile of the partners was beneficial
regarding the projects’ objectives, balancing the different competences of the partners. However the
competences of the project partners were different most of the project partners were active and
creative. Valuable professional support was provided by PP3, PP4, PP12 and PP13.
Due to the long procurement process, the internal management problems, the strict rules regarding the
expenditures some of the partners had difficulties with the process of reporting and the related
deadlines. Despite the ongoing deviations from the original implementation plan by the 5th period
most of the activities have been in line with the schedule.
Majority of the partners assessed the partner level project management good, regarding timeliness and
contribution of the partners the number of good and satisfactory opinions were equal. Some of the
partners mentioned the lack of support from their local representatives and their heavy workload as
hindering factors.
Problems occurred during the project
However there was ongoing delay in the activities by the end of the 4th period most of the outputs have
been reached. There were both project and partner level reasons of deviations from the
schedule
defined in the AF. The delayed start of the SEE SC project, the extensive partners’ change and the
long administrative process of the partner changes caused constant delays in the activities. The new
partners had to catch up to the project what took more time than expected. Furthermore there were
some methodological issues to be solved, rather pragmatic than academic methods have been
expected. Less experienced partners needed some explanation on the project design, particularly on the
coherence among the Work Package activities.
18
Budgeting
According to the Progress Reports the SEE Science project generated substantial under spending
during the whole project. Due to the under spending in October 2012 a decision was made by the MC
about the de-commitment of 111.000 euros.
Considering the total budget set in AF for the whole project, spending is currently only at ~69% at the
end of the 6th period.
The main reasons of the under spending were the followings:
- The actual start of the project was 2 months later than officially announced.
- The extensive partner change caused delays in the activities, most of the
events have been postponed.
- Due to the problems related to National Controls some partners were not
able to report costs in time or costs cannot be declared in time.
- ASP participation in the SEE Science Project is far less active than planned.
The travel cost of ASPs was supposed to be financed by the project
partners. Lack of those activities is also decreasing the level of under
spending.
There are significant differences in the spending of the project partners. They mentioned several
problems regarding budgeting. Some partners were not able to report costs on time in lack of clear
assignments and staff member selection. Others mentioned the long procurement process locally. In
other cases the different financial systems, strict national rules regarding staff costs made the financing
more difficult. For the Greek partner the necessity of pre-financing resulted a limited spending.
Taking into consideration the forecasts given by the partners, SEE SC project will exceed the expected
minimum level of spent budget (75%). The only one partner not able to spend the budget due to lack
of pre financing possibilities is CSE. LP has already given notice to JTS about the remaining 120 000
euros at CSE.
The SEE Science project was entirely in line with the Application Form. In overall the project
management of the SEE Science project is good. After the initial problems significant improvement
was noticeable during the implementation of the project. The LPMT helped the project partners to
feel more comfortable regarding the methodology of the project. The extensive partners’ change
caused delays in activities. The partners’ change primarily challenged the project management.
LPMT had to make lot of efforts to handle the problem, to replace the former partners, to manage
19
the administrative processes and help the new partners to catch up. Due to several reasons SEE
Science project generated substantial underspending during the whole project.
III.2. Results regarding the defined objectives of the SEE Science project
The main objective of the SEE Science project was to wake the interest of young people for science,
technology and innovation by creating new methods to increase visibility and accessibility through
science centres. A detailed analysis of its implementation follows below.
III.2.1. Results in terms of outputs
The assessment of the results is based on the outputs of the content related Work Packages. (WP3-4-5)
The activities in the WP3, WP4 and WP5 were closely interrelated.
Work Package 3 Improving the operational management and services of Science Centres in SEE
Responsible partner: ERDF PP11 - SCSTI
This activity served as a base for the other content related Work Packages, therefore its role was
crucial regarding the performance of WP4 and WP5.
Science centres are the main pillars of SEE Science project due to their potential to become main
communicators of innovation and technology development for the public and awaken interest of the
young. The activities in WP3 were aiming to enable SCs in being more efficient in their operation and
in fulfilling this communicator role, and intended to combine the complementary strengths of
individual SCs in the SEE area. For the partners currently not operating SCs it gave a strategy how to
set up a SC and how to ensure its efficient operation.
Based on the conclusions of the Transnational State-of-the-Art Report (TSAR), the finalised SC
Service Portfolio and the Strategic Partnership Action Plan the project partners prepared their Action
Plans for Improved SC Operation (existing SCs) and Strategies for setting up SCs in case where SCs
do not exist yet. This way SCs could fulfil their potentials as catalysts of innovation.
Activity 3.1:State of the Art
The work started with creation of SWOT and/ or Feasibility studies of each project partner and SEE
Science Benchmark Studies on good practice in European science centres. Based on the regional data
a SEE Science Transnational State-of-the-Art Report(TSAR) was created defining common
development opportunities for the SCs in SEE.
20
Activity 3.2: SC Service Portfolio
Project partners developed a SC Service Portfolio, what means an inventory of efficient services,
awareness raising tools and methods for Science Centres collected from practices of other science
centres and from the partners’ small scale pilot activities.
Activity 3.3: Stakeholders and policy makers
To successfully promote the role of the SCs in facilitating innovation and increasing public awareness
roundtable discussions were organized by the project partners. The actual value of the stakeholders
involved in regional roundtable events and consultations is close to the targeted. The roundtable
discussions proved to be very efficient involving representatives from the fields of business, education
and policy level such as enterprises, universities, schools, research institutions, NGOs, government
bodies.
One key result of the SEE SC project will be the policy recommendation what is based on the key
messages of local SWOTs and the TSAR, the conclusions of small-scale pilot reports, the evaluation
of Science Agent activities and the Science Centre Service Portfolio. All will be channelled into policy
recommendations with the aim to result in effective policies at local and EU level which contribute to
improved environment for functioning of the SCs so that they better fulfil their mission. Development
of policy recommendations for policy makers and funding programme authorities on partner level is in
progress, 4 policy recommendations have already been prepared.
Based on the partner level recommendations a EU level policy recommendation will be elaborated in
the 7th period.
Work package 4 Improving Role of SCs as catalysators of innovation
Responsible partner: ERDF PP 12 - SCN
The key actors of WP4 were the SC Agents and their network. In line with the overall project
objectives, the mission of SC Agents was to help SCs extend their competences and functions,
strengthen linkages with regional SEE innovation actors and build up a network of SCs based in SEE
and beyond, contribute to the visibility of SC activities.
Activity 4.1 Knowledge building of SC agents
SC Agents have been appointed by the project partners. After the SC agents have been appointed and
the knowledge sharing strategy was finalised an in-house training of SC agents was organised. The SC
agents gathered a solid knowledge base through benchmark visits, training sessions and sharing of
experience within the transnational SC network. SC agents conducted more than 25 benchmark visits
21
to science centre institutions. The results fed partly into the SEE Science Service Portfolio, but also
contributed to the internal profile development and improvement of partners’ operation with a focus
on innovation.
Activity 4.2. Knowledge sharing within the partnership and the SC agents network
Internal knowledge sharing workshops in partners’ organisations - PP4 SCN, PP3 MUSE, PP13
SEERC, PP14 CRA - and a transnational knowledge sharing session were organised.
Activity 4.3. Developing strategic partnerships to promote innovation
One of the key tasks of the SC Agents was to establish strategic partnerships through networking.
Strategic partnerships enable SCs to enhance the effectiveness of cooperation with innovation actors
and to increase the efficiency and significance of SC services offered. Such partnerships are also
envisaged increasing funding possibilities (business and public) for SCs, and the dialogue with
stakeholders will contribute to creating supportive policy frameworks.
Based on the methodology elaborated by PP13 SEERC SC agents were drawing up their Action Plans
for building and/or developing local/regional strategic partnerships (PP13 SEERC, PP3 MUSE, PP4
SCN, PP8 BM, PP10 UniOr, PP11 SCSTI, and P14 CRA).
In order to build capacity in the South East Europe as a whole developmental block, a Joint action plan
for strategic partnerships has been devised in order to build strategic partnerships at the wider regional
and transnational level towards increasing the powerful impact of the SEE Science project outcomes.
Activity 4.4. Implementing small-scale pilots
The idea of the pilots was to develop and test innovative science centre services and activities, and
share experiences and advice within the partnership through peer visits. Small-scale pilots targeted 3
groups: children in early school age, students/young adults especially young women, innovator
agencies, research institutes, large companies, SMEs.
The small scale pilots were coordinated by the SC agents. 13 different pilot activities – based on the
state of the art analyses and good practices collected - were developed and implemented by the
partners. About 4000 individuals have been reached through the pilot activities so far and some peer
visits were accomplished too.
The small-scale pilot was successful not only in terms of numbers but the new workshop formats and
contents. New forms of science communication such as virtual workshops were tested and innovative
information materials for potential strategic partners and stakeholders were developed as hands-on
mini-exhibits etc.
22
WP5 Sustainable cooperation of SCs for increased awareness on the role of technical sciences on
innovation
Responsible partner: PP3 MUSE
Activities within WP5 contribute to the sustainable cooperation of SCs in SEE for increased awareness
on technical sciences to boost innovation by implementing two transnational pilot activities (SEE
Science Centre and SEE Science Festivals) and developing a Joint Action Plan for sustainable SEE
cooperation.
Activity 5.1: Transnational pilot 1: SEE Science Centre
The SEE Science Centre is a virtual platform that aims to strengthen existing relationships within the
SEE Science consortium and to create new ones through networking and the sharing of resources.
Inspite of some technical problems since the start of the platform in Spring 2012, the successful
operation of the platform could be indicadted by figures below:
10 educational activities, shared among the partners through the ‘library section’ of the portal;
16 video clips, 5 of which were specifically produced for the web portal, showing important
Science events in the SEE region;
22 picture galleries, containing more than 2000 original pictures with benchmark examples of
Science centre activities from all across Europe;
65 blog posts by all 10 SEE Science partners, covering a wide array of subjects from robotic
road show to zombie lab;
1 online Science Centre services portfolio, serving as an interactive database for innovative
Science Centre activities in the SEE region.
During the last 12 months the portal received more than 7000 visits from almost 4000 unique visitors
with an average visit time of 5 minutes.
The portal served also as a hub and showcase for all the other activities of the SEE Science project,
such as the SEE Science Festival series, the small scale pilot activities, and the Science Centre agent
network.
Activity 5.2: Transnational pilot 2: SEE Science Festival
The SEE Science Festivals were supposed to contribute directly to raising public awareness on science
and technology. These events created a more inclusive environment and made innovation more
accessible to the wider public. The most important aim was to turn these events into a sustainable
instrument to support the image formation of South-East Europe as a place of innovation and
economic growth.
23
During the project 3 Science Festivals have been organised: 18. October 2012. in Thessaloniki, 22
March 2013 in Debrecen and 26-27 September 2013 in Burgas. The 4th Science Festival will take
place 21 February 2014 in Trento. All festivals had different main topics, presented in different zones.
The festivals were succesful, with 1700, 3600 and 1000 visitors respectively.
In the opinion of the project partners the number of outputs – partner meetings, analyses, conferences,
roundtable discussions, trainigs, festivals – was in line with the plan. The only one shortage within this
activity was mentioned regarding the benchmark visit to Scientival in Ljubljana Due to the fact that
the study visit to Sciencetival (Ljubljana) could not been organised together with the kick-off meeting
less project partner had the budget to finance the travel to the study visit. That resulted in that fewer
participants attended the study visit (4 compared to 20 indicated in the AF).
Achievement of projected result indicators
However an entirely precise evaluation of the SEE Science project will be possible only after a couple
of month after the project end, there are still some results we can rely on to predict it now.
The previous point reviewed the activities of the Work Packages, evaluating the project efficiency in
terms of outputs and numbers. Another issue is the effectiveness of the project, what has the
performance been like with respect to the projected result indicators.
The AF contained the following result indicators:
- Public regional debate started on science, innovation and technology,
- Regional/ local policies improved or developed,
- Set of EU level policy recommendations formulated,
- Stakeholders involved in regional roundtable events and consultations,
- SC Centres with improved capacities raise awareness of and facilitate
innovation,
- Partners with improved capacities to set up SCs with innovation facilitator
role.
- Improved capacities of the staff through trainings and knowledge sharing ,
- Local/regional strategic partnerships built,
- SEE Science festival tool to increase the project visibility,
- IT infrastructure to increase the project visibility,
- Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation,
- Individuals directly reached by the transnational SEE Science Festivals.
24
The project partners evaluated the achievement of the result indicators. Most of the partners agree that
the following results have already been fully achieved by the SEE Science project:
- Stakeholders involved in regional roundtable events and consultations,
- Improved capacities of the staff through trainings and knowledge sharing ,
- Individuals directly reached by the transnational SEE Science Festivals,
- SEE Science festival tool to increase the project visibility,
- Partners with improved capacities to set up SCs with innovation facilitator
role.
Project partners emphasized the importance of small scale projects and the science festivals in the
increase of project visibility and accessability. The small scale pilot activities were an opportunity for
the general public and especially children and students to be actively involved in the „life” of the
Science centres. Partners agree that the SEE Science Festival series, and the small scale pilots helped
all the partners’s science centres to increase their visibility towards new public.
Most of the other result indicators are close to the accomplishment, local/regional strategic
partnerships have been built and public regional debate started on science, innovation and technology.
In the opinion of the project partners the most weak field is the IT, there are still lots of problems with
the IT infrastructure.
Elaboration of result indicators as “Regional/ local policies improved or developed”, „Set of EU level
policy recommendations formulated” and „Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation” is in
progress, those papers are going to be ready by the end of the 7th period.
Preliminary assessment of outcome/ impact
Based on the documents and the partners’ opinion the primary objective of the project seems to be
achieved. The science festivals attracted a great number of visitors, the roundtable discussions resulted
expanding relationships with the stakeholders. The pilot projects generated interest for science and
innovation and attracted new target groups as well.
The project partners agreed that thanks to the dissemination of information about SCs, the efficient
advertisement of the science festivals the visibility and accessibility of science centres were
successfully increased. The information available on the Virtual Science Centre also helped to increase
the visibility, giving information for students and stakeholders however there are still problems to be
sold.
25
On a 1-10 scale where 10 means that all of your expectations have been met, 1 means that none of the
expectations has been met project partners ranked the project 8 as average. However the overall
picture is positive both strengths and weaknesses could be mentioned.
In the opinion of the partners the major strength of the project was that the primary objective have
been met, the interest on sciences and innovation have been raised. This is due to the engaged and
committed project partners, the good cooperation among most of the partners. The small scale pilot
projects, the SC agents, the festivals helped to establish a strong and reliable network. By the end of
the project a strong and proactive partnership was established.
The project partners mentioned a couple of weaknesses, among others the great bureaucracy and the
different legislative systems of the partners’ countries. In view of a few project partners a lower
number of project partners and a higher ratio of project partners with Science Centres might be more
efficient.
All of the project partners feel that the SEE Science project brought important outputs for them. Most
of the partners emphasized the importance of beeing a part of the SEE Science network. Project
partners with existing SCs discovered new possibilities for their service portfolio, others without SCs
feel stronger to establish a science centre. The research documents, analyses, action plans developed
both on project and partner level will be utilised in the phase of the development of a science centre.
Science festival methodology made the partners more confident and motivated in organising science
festivals. SEE Science Festival methodology, the SC service protfolio, the SC agent network and the
policy recommendation roundtables are highly appreciated by the project partners.
Besides the achieved results problems regarding the website were mentioned. In partners’ opinion it is
still not easily accessable for uploads.
Sustainability
SEE Science emphasizes on creating durable project outcomes and results: WP5 and WP3/3 were fully
dedicated to ensure financial / institutional and political sustainability. This effort was supported by
the project design. Strategic partnerships have been established to explore the range of potential
funding available to SCs in the longer term based on mutually beneficial cooperation with the business
sector. Policy recommendations will be formulated both on national and international levels.These will
sustain key activities that connect SEE Science with society in raising awareness and promoting a
culture for innovation.
26
The organised SEE Science Festivals enhanced visibility and accessibility. These will ensure
sustainability of the SEE Science network. The SEE Science Centre will provide virtual access to
visitors via online and digital technologies. Partners are going to define a joint action plan to ensure
the institutional and financial sustainability of the transnational pilots as well as the SEE Science
network.
Almost all project partners believe in the sustainability of the project. They see certain guarantees for
that. First of all the project partners’ commitment, the partners realized the importance of
sustainability. The confirmed need of SC’s to become catalysts of innovation and their confidence
through the SEE Science project will help to sustain the project results. At the 5th PCT meeting ideas
were collected on how to ensure and broaden future cooperation for SEE Science partnership. Several
recommendations – in line and beyond project requirements - have been made by the partners:
Carry on with SC Festivals, virtual SC Centre, SC Agent network
Networking with well-established associations (Eusea, Ecsite, other partners)
Identify new project ideas to strengthen current network and apply for future funding, training
opportunities, exchange of knowledge, exchange of staff, etc.
The positive attitude of the project partners is well demonstrated by the fact that except one all of the
partners are ready to participate in another EU project. They expect further know-how, new ideas,
competitive knowledge. In their opinion a transnational project helps to overcome the local limitations
and acquiring new perspectives. Partners are looking for special funding opportunities, Horizon 2000
initiative seems very promising.
The impact of the EU level policy recommendations and the joint action plan for sustainable SEE
cooperation can be seen only on a longer perspective.
Besides the positive remarks a few partners raised the question how to continue and fully capitalize the
established SC agent network. Another key issue is the support from local authorities.
By and large the number of outputs was in line with the plan. Targeted outputs have been delivered:
Transnational State-of-the Art was created, SC Service portfolio and the network of SC agents have
been developed, action plans for building or developing local/regional strategic partnerships have
been designed, strategic partnerships have been established. SC agents coordinated small scale
pilots, SEE Science Centre as a virtual platform was developed, 3 successful Science Festivals have
been organised.
Most of the other result indicators are close to the accomplishment. The SEE Science Festival
series, and the small scale pilots helped all the partners’s science centres to increase their visibility
towards new public. Elaboration of result indicators as “Regional/ local policies improved or
27
developed”, „Set of EU level policy recommendations formulated” and „Joint action plan for
sustainable SEE cooperation” is in progress, those papers are going to be ready by the end of the
7th period.The most problematic area is the IT, there are still technical problems to be solved.
Sustainability of the project is unquestionable, both the project design and the positive attitude of
the project partners make it likely.
28
IV. Conclusions
Continous thorough review of the SEE Science project and a longer record in this field make possible
to draw conclusions both on general and project specific level. The most important conclusion are
summarized below.
Project partners
Project partners are the key success factors. Committed, motivated and knowledgeable project partners
are the main guarantees of a successful implementation. It shows how important the selection of
project partners is from the very beginning of project design.
Although the SEE Science project had a long preparation phase some project partners were forced to
withdraw due to unforeseen financial difficulties after the Subsidy Contract was signed. The modified
partnership includes partners with same motivations and visions, however, the number of function
Science Centres was decreased.
Despite the problems mentioned above SEE Science project is clearly successful. Due to the
professional project management, the experienced Work Package leaders and the outstanding
cooperation among the partners the problems faced the project have been successfully solved.
Project design
Good design is the base for a successful project implementation. It should be comprehensible for all of
the project partners. Project partners should understand the objectives, the methods, the tasks, the
coherence among the different activities. Therefore the greater the involvement of the partners, the
easier the implementaion of the project is.
The structure designed for the SEE Science project is a rather complex one because of the
interlinkages between the different Work Packages and activities. This complexity was not easily
comprehensible and applicable for the partners in the implementation phase of the project.
Methodological problems also occured, especially when theory needed to be turned into practice,
hindering timely implementation of the project.
According to the Mid-term report recommendations more discussions have been made on those issues,
Work Package leaders and LPMT made lots of efforts to clarify the project design for the partners.
This way the project partners became comfortable with the methodology, the coherence of the
different activities in the Work Packages.
29
Project management
Basic elements of a good project management are the followings: commitment, expertise, leadership,
good communication skills, effective cooperation with the project partners. In case this capacity in not
available internally, it is suggested choosing experienced external advisors.
SEE Science Centre project management met those requirements. It was committed, especially the
new members of the internal team were open to communicate with the partners. The external team is
characterised by professionalism, in aware of the methodologies and procedures. The SEE Science
project faced lots of difficulties what could not be bridged without its excellent problem solving
capabilities. The LPMT helped the project implementation to achieve the project goals. The
management bodies – SC and PCT – were functioning well, members actively participated in the
meetings.
Budgeting
Records show that majority of the transnational cooperation projects face budgeting problems. In
general the main reason is the different regulation system and procurement process in the countries.
SEE Science project also faced budgeting problems. The project is characterised by underspendings.
Its major reasons rely in the partners’ changes and the different regulatory environment.
Therefore careful planning, preliminary review of the procurement processes and regulations is
inevitable.
Outputs, results
In overall most of the outputs have been already reached and it is evident that the objectives defined in
AF will be achieved upon project completion.
SEE Science established the sustainable cooperation of SCs in SEE through intensified transnational
cooperation, improved the operation and built the capacity of the SCs, developed tools and activities to
raise awareness and generate interest in science, technology and innovation amongst communities,
enterprises and decision-makers, particularly focusing on the young people as primary target group.
Within individual SEE Science partner countries infrastructure exists at local level to promote
innovation. Connecting this infrastructure through cooperation at transnational level will not only
increase capacity to advance innovation but increase visibility of SCs by working with new partners to
target new audiences. This will increase the quality and relevance of the services of the SCs.
30
31
Appendix 1
Project Partners participating in the survey:
LP Municipality of Debrecen
PP1 Debrecen University -UniDeb
PP3 Natural Science Museum of Trento - MUSE
PP4 Science Center Network Austria - SCN
PP8 Burgas Municipality – BM
PP10 University of Oradea-UniOr
PP11 Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information - SCSTI
PP 12 Centre for Science Education – Patras Science Centre
PP13 South East Europe Research Center - SEERC
PP14 Centre for Research & Analysis, Sofia, Bulgaria
32
Appendix 2
QUESTIONNAIRE
for final- evaluation
of the SEE SC project
PROJECT PARTNERS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1. How do you evaluate the project level management regarding its support to meet the project’s
objectives! Please evaluate it on a 1-5 scale! ( 5 means very supportive, 1 means lack of support!)
1 2 3 4 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did you appreciate in the LP’s project management activities? Please give examples!
………………………………………………………………………………............................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
What would you critisize in the LP’s project management activities? Please give
examples!………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………
2 . How do you evaluate your partner level project management regarding the followings?
Timeliness/ delivering on time □ good □ satisfactory □ fair
Cooperation with project partners □ good □ satisfactory □ fair
33
Participation / activity
on project level (PCT, events, etc.) □ good □ satisfactory □ fair
Contribution to project outcomes/ results □ good □ satisfactory □ fair
What were the major negative factors (external, internal) influencing your performance?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
3. Arriving to the end of the project do you feel that the project’s design was adequate to address
the problems at hand?
□ fully
□ mostly
□ to some extent
□ no, it was not
If you would start it again what kind of changes you would suggest in terms of project design?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………
4. Looking back to the beginnings did you notice any changes in the project design compared to
the Application Form?
YES NO
If yes, what kind of changes and for what reason?
……………………………........................................................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
34
5. In your opinion did the partner changes influence the project implementation, the final
outputs of the project?
□ YES □ NO
If your answer is yes, please describe the influences!
...................................................................................................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………..
6. Did you notice certain improvement during the implementation of the project? (delivery on
time, quality, internal relationships, cooperation etc.)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
7. Please describe the extent the recommendations of the mid term report was taken into
consideration!
□ fully □ to some extent □ not at all
If your answer is fully or to some extent, please describe the impact of the recommendations on
project results!
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If your answer is not at all, please explain why!
POJECT EVALUATION (RESULTS, EXPECTATIONS)
1. What is your evaluation of the SEE Science project in terms of outputs?
Has the project reached the expected number of the major outputs?
35
number of analyses □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
number of partner meetings □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
conferences □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
number of benchmark visits □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
number of roundtable discussions □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
number of trainings □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
number of festivals □ yes □ to some extent □ far less than expected
2. Has the project generated any results so far that could indicate that the SEE Science project is
going to wake the interest of young people for science, technology and innovation by creating
new methods to increase visibility and accessibility through science centres? You can give more
answers!
□ more visitors at functioning Science Centres,
□ growing number of visitors at the Virtual Science Centre,
□ high number of visitors at the Science Festivals,
□ expanding relationship with schools, higher education
□ others: ………………………………………………………………………………………...
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Have the project’s activities been in line with the schedule of activities as defined by the work
plan in AF?
□ most of the activities have been in line with the schedule
□ only few activities have been in line with the schedule
□ hardly any activites have been in line with the schedule
What were the main reasons of those deviations in your opinion?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
36
4. What were the main problems leading to the significant underspendings and decommitment
regarding the project budget?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Do you agree with the statement that the visibility and accessibility of science centres were
successfully increased in partner cities?
□ I fully agree □ I agree to some extent □ I don’t agree
Why? Please give an explanation!.....................................................................
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6. What is your opinion about the result indicators? You find a list of the major result indicators
below, please cross the indicators have been achieved in your opinion!
□ Public regional debate started on science, innovation and technology
□ Regional/ local policies improved or developed
□ Set of EU level policy recommendations formulated
□ Stakeholders involved in regional roundtable events and consultations
□ SC Centres with improved capacities raise awareness of and facilitate innovation
□ Partners with improved capacities to set up SCs with innovation facilitator role
□ Improved capacities of the staff through trainings and knowledge sharing
□ Local/regional strategic partnerships built
□ SEE Science festival tool to increase the project visibility
□ IT infrastructure to increase the project visibility
□ Joint action plan for sustainable SEE cooperation
□ Individuals directly reached by the transnational SEE Science Festivals
7. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the SEE Science project in your opinion?
Strengths: ………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………...
Weaknesses: ……………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
37
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
8. How do you evaluate the SEE Science project on a 1-10 scale taking into account your
expectation towards the project? (10 means that all of your expectations have been met, 1 means
that none of your expectations has been met)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. What are the most important outputs/results for you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
10. Arriving at the end of the project are there any results you miss ?
□ YES □ NO
Please explain your answer!
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
11. Would you like to participate in another transnational project?
□ YES □ NO
Why?.................................................................................................................................
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
12. Do you believe in the sustainability of the SEE Science project?
□ YES □ NO
If your answer is yes, what are the main guarantees?........................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………….
If your answer is no, why are you sceptical?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
38
39
SOURCES:
SEE Application Form
Partnership Agreement
Project Management Handbook
Financial Management Guideline
Implementation Plan
Communication Plan
Progress report 1.
Progress report 2
Progress report 3
Progress report 4
Progress report 5
Applications for reimbursement
Newsletters
Website
Project brochures
Minutes: Steering Committee Meetings, Project Coordination Team Meetings
Mid-term report
Interim report
10 Project Partners’ Questionnaires
Personal interviews