1.
Quality
Strategy
Author:
Bulent
Yilmaz
Ver:
0.2
This
project
has
been
funded
with
support
from
the
European
Commission
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EMPATIC Quality Strategy forms Deliverable 3.1, in Work Package 3: Quality
assurance and impact.
The strategy sets out the quality and risk management procedures; together with the
impact assessment methods that the partners in the EMPATIC project will use to
ensure that all project outputs are of acceptable quality, that project risks are
identified and managed and that the impact of the project’s work and outcomes is
assessed and evaluated.
2
3. Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 4
1.1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
1.2. QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS .................................................................................... 5
1.3 RISK MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................... 5
1.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 5
SECTION 2: QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS .............................................................. 6
2.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES................................................................................................. 6
2.2
PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS ................................................................................... 6
2.3 ACTIVITIES AND PROCESSES ........................................................................................ 7
2.4 WEBSITE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ....................................................................... 8
2.5 PROJECT WORK PLAN ................................................................................................. 8
SECTION 3: RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 10
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 10
3.2 RISK QUANTIFICATION ............................................................................................ 10
3.3 RISK RESPONSE/MONITORING ................................................................................... 10
SECTION 4: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 13
4.1 ........................................................................................................................... 13
3
4. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
Within the project plan the objective of WP3 is to ensure that project outputs are of
acceptable quality, to manage project risks and to assess the overall impact of the
project.
The core objectives of the EMPATIC project are to:
• draw together and valorise the results of previous Information Literacy
initiatives and projects across the school, university, adult and vocational
learning sectors;
• use this evidence to influence policy makers’ perceptions and actions to support
a marked increase in piloting and mainstreaming of Information Literacy;
• have a significant impact on validating new learning paradigms and strategic
thinking on curriculum reform.
The major outputs of the project will be:
• A state of the art report on Information Literacy covering: the role information
literacy plays within respect to lifelong learning; definitions of information
learning; a summary of frameworks addressing information literacy and data on
the projects in the information literacy domain supported by the European
Union between 1994–2010. Section 3 of the report synthesizes the point of
view taken by the Empatic project which identifies three dimensions of
Information Literacy: Information Literacy as a discipline of study; as a social
objective; and as a cognitive acquisition of individuals. This theoretical
background sets the scene for the subsequent work on the policy
recommendations.
• A report outlining strategic models for Information Literacy which suggests a
conceptual, generic and tentative framework for the strategy/strategic model of
Information Literacy development. It is not a model of Information Literacy
itself, but a strategy for Information Literacy development.
• A Report detailing 20 illustrative case approaches pertaining to the 4 sectors:
schools, Higher Education; adult education and vocational training (5 for each
sector).
• A series of 4, one day, workshops - one for each sector, to validate the models
through round-table discussion and to which leading European experts are
invited.
• 4 structured online report on Information Literacy models and case approach
trials, one for each sector, validating or modifying the findings to date by
means of expert input from a) active policy makers and other key stakeholders
and b) expert practitioners in the field.
• A series of illustrative good practice case studies of Information Literacy in
action at each level (schools, higher education, adult education and vocational
training) with links to key IL resources across Europe which will be used to
support the exploitation and dissemination strategies.
4
5. • An interactive web environment will provide state-of -the art support for the
whole range of EMPATIC’s dissemination and information activities. It will be
underpinned by a stakeholder distribution database, chiefly drawn from the
policy making community.
• An advocacy framework covering: planning, explanations of the various
advocacy methods and materials available, information about their deployment
and use, together with an illustrative range of advocacy materials which
campaigners can customise and build on, aimed at policy makers.
• A Strategy and set of Recommendations setting out ways and means to
improve the spread and level of Information Literacy at both transversal level
and across the four sectors; and proposing a future means of stakeholder
community ownership and maintenance of the portal environment. The
Declaration from the Final Policy Conference will be added after the conference.
• Final policy conference, for up to 150 policy makers and representatives of
national and international associations representing the four learning sectors
and also IL.
1.2. Quality of project outputs
TKD will be responsible for assuring the quality of project outputs by putting in place
and implementing appropriate peer review mechanisms, using the project’s
‘basecamp’ file sharing and communications facility. Working with MDR, the co-
ordinator, it will also ensure that any modifications to the nature or timing of
deliverables are agreed by the PMB and reported to the Agency.
1.3 Risk management
Continuous monitoring and management of the risks faced by the project is essential
for project success. Potential risk factors can include both internal factors (e.g. lack of
commitment, poorly defined goals; resource problems, delays, personal or
professional issues) and external factors (e.g. lack of target group willingness or
capacity to cooperate, lack of interest of policy-makers, lack of knowledge in some
countries about information literacy and its positive impact). TKD have drawn up a
risk management framework which covers: risk identification; risk quantification; risk
response; and risk monitoring and control. TKD will use this to actively monitor and
manage project risks throughout the project.
1.4 Impact assessment
TKD, supported by MDR, have developed a clear set of criteria, measurements and
data collection tools for evaluating the impact of the work and outcomes of the
project. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches have been used. The
focus is on measuring, at various stages, the impact of the project’s work on policy
makers, their interest in and attitudes towards information literacy, and any changes
in their behaviour and actions as a result of the sequence of interventions by the
project. This involves the identification of sample and control groups of policy makers
whose responses can be tracked or surveyed throughout the timeframe of EMPATIC.
5
6. SECTION 2: QUALITY OF PROJECT OUTPUTS
2.1 General principles
In order to ensure the quality of the outputs in the project, all deliverables are subject
to a quality assessment review prior to finalisation. Each deliverable, as it nears
completion, is made available to the other partners for comment, adjustment and
improvement if necessary. TKD is responsible for ensuring that all deliverables go
through such a quality management review process. Working with MDR it will also
ensure that any modifications to the nature or timing of deliverables are agreed by
the Project Management Board and notified to the agency.
The overall quality management of the project and its outputs is ensured through two
main mechanisms:
1. the proactive participation of all partners in the regular project management
meetings;
2. the day to day co-operation and support partners give each other in ongoing
work, often remotely. This ongoing dialogue and co-operation is facilitated and
supported by the collaborative file sharing and communication system
(basecamp) which has been established for the project
2.2 Preparation of documents
A template has been created for project deliverables which complies with EACEA
requirements for project reporting. All project reports are presented in this format.
Each document:
• is presented in Verdana font (minimum size 11)
• has a title page which carries the logos of both EMPATIC and the EACEA, as
well as the lifelong learning programme, the project name and agreement
number, the deliverable number (where appropriate), and the title
• has a description of the status and provenance of the document
• an executive summary
• an clickable contents page
• and where appropriate:
o a selected bibliography
o references
o list of figures
o list of graphs
o list of tables
o list of abbreviations
o etc
6
7. All documents will be written in English, some will be translated during the project
– as stipulated in the work plan. Wherever possible all deliverables will be
presented to the Agency in pdf format (with paper copy as required).
2.3 Activities and processes
The partners will carry out a simple self assessment exercise of the activities and
processes at least twice during the course of the project. The results of the first self-
assessment exercise are summarised in the table below:
Activity Actions and assessment (Completed/satisfactory, Needs
improvement (what), Delayed (why/new date), Other
Communication Satisfactory
with the EC
Communication Other – the work of the first year is necessarily largely
with the preparatory (creating the initial materials).
stakeholders Communication largely kicks off in second year.
Internal Satisfactory – basecamp established and well used
communication
within the project
team
General quality Satisfactory
management
according to the
general principles
Setup of the Satisfactory – some tasks re-scheduled at PMB meeting
project team and in June 2010
planning,
distribution of
tasks
Responsibilities of Satisfactory – partners are clear about their roles and
project team responsibilities
members are clear
Regular reviews Satisfactory – regular online communication and 3 PMB
and meetings of meetings held
the project team
members
Quality assurance Satisfactory – has taken place either face-to-face during
of deliverables meetings or electronically
Document Satisfactory – basecamp and website successfully
7
8. exchange internally established
and externally
Timely delivery of Satisfactory – project schedule and timing of some
tasks and deliverables adjusted as workloads involved became
deliverables as clearer at June PMB meeting
according to the
work plan
Official reporting Needs improvement – slightly late at end of first period
(with regard to LLP
Standard)
2.4 Website and distribution facilities
The official website of the project is available at http://empat-ic.eu/eng/
It has been developed using the EzPublish open source content management system.
It is in English and the top level pages of the site will be translated into Turkish
(completed), Polish (part), Italian and Greek (shortly).
The site provides information about the project, the partners, the main activities and
links to events (the Validation Workshops and later the Final Conference).
As the first year of the project has been largely preparatory usage of the site is slight
to date, but this will change as the project enters its second year. Registration for the
4 validation workshops for example will be via the site and will drive awareness and
traffic.
Usage and referral statistics are presented below:
2.5 Project work plan
The project has a number of work packages:
8
9. WP Type Title Start Finish
No
1 Development Desk research 1 4
2 Dissemination Dissemination 3 24
Quality assurance
3 Quality Plan 3 24
and impact
Strategic
4 Exploitation 5 11
modelling
5 Exploitation Validation 12 16
Resource
6 Exploitation 17 21
development
Exploitation
7 Exploitation 17 23
strategy
Project
8 Management 1 24
management
The work plan and some delivery dates were revised as follows at the June PMB
meeting:
9
10. SECTION 3: RISK MANAGEMENT
3.1 Introduction
Continuous monitoring and management of the risks faced by the project is essential
for project success. Potential risk factors can include both internal factors (e.g. lack of
commitment, poorly defined goals; resource problems, delays, personal or
professional issues) and external factors (e.g. lack of target group willingness or
capacity to cooperate, lack of interest of policy-makers, lack of knowledge in some
countries about information literacy and its positive impact).
TKD have compiled a risk management framework which covers: risk identification;
risk quantification; risk response; and risk monitoring and control. They use this to
actively monitor and manage project risks throughout the project. Using the
framework the partners have identified a number of real and potential threats to a
successful project outcome and determined the activities required to minimise or
eliminate them.
3.2 Risk Quantification
Partners identified a number of actual or potential risks and quantified using the
following Summary Risk Profile (or probability/impact matrix):
Risk Likelihood Impact
1 Alterations to timing of Med Low
activities or deliverables
2 Unexpected costs arise or Low Med
cost overspends
3 Conflicts between partners Low Med
4 Project approach found to Low High
be unsuitable
5 Required information Low Med
unavailable
6 Project resources not good Low Med
quality/suitable
7 Difficulty involving policy High Med
makers and stakeholders
8 Project has limited visibility Low Med
3.3 Risk response/monitoring
For each risk identified above TKD has identified the following actions, designed to
either eliminate or mitigate the risk:
1. Timing of project activities and delivery of outputs to be monitored on an
ongoing basis by the project managers (MDR) and any significant or required
10
11. deviations discussed and re-planned if necessary by project partners, preferably
at PMB meetings but if necessary by email.
2. MDR will provide all partners with copies of the Grant Agreement and other
guidance from the Agency, MDR will seek to ensure that all partners understand
the cost ‘rules’ and will also ensure that all partners adhere to this when
submitting cost claims.
3. Project management activities, decision making processes and procedures for
dealing with any conflict are clearly articulated in the work plan:
• MDR will be responsible for co-ordinating the project’s work and
monitoring progress in order to achieve successful delivery of the
expected results and the accomplishment of the objectives, on time and
to budget, including:.
o activity planning and day to day management of the project, its
communication and its activities
o supervising the project’s management and decision-making
procedures
o communication with and reporting to the Agency in compliance
with its requirements
o effective management of the project’s finances and payment
procedure
o organising Project Management Board (PMB) and kick-off meetings
• Project decisions will be taken by the PMB, consisting of all partners, with
secretariat support provided by MDR. The PMB will meet on at least five
occasions during the project, where possible in conjunction with other
project events in order to minimise costs. . Telephone conferencing will
be used where interim decision making or problem solving is needed. The
PMB will be responsible for making all strategic decisions regarding the
project. Decisions of the PMB will be made by a majority vote (in case of
a tie, the Co-ordinator will have the casting vote). All PMB Meetings will
be notified at least 2 weeks in advance and will be formally minuted. A
lead partner is clearly indicated for each individual workpackage and will
be responsible for achieving the intended results in that workpackage,
reporting to the PMB.
• In the event of a conflict arising between any of the partners, MDR will
attempt to negotiate a resolution within the limits imposed by the
contract and will inform the PMB and where necessary the Project Officer
at the Agency of the of the situation. If negotiation fails, the matter will
be referred to the PMB for a simple majority decision on the action to be
taken. The decision of the PMB will be binding for all partners.
4. PMB will meet regularly and any failings or difficulties with the project approach
will be discussed. Ways to overcome the difficulty will be identified and if
necessary alternative methods will be devised and adopted to achieve the
required result.
5. This applies particularly to the initial desk research phase. CERIS as WP leader
and the other partners have considerable prior knowledge and expertise in this
area so the risk is anticipated to be low. However, should it be the case that
particular reports or details are unavailable to the project for some reason,
assistance will be sought from the Agency to encourage the organisation
involved to be more open about the information.
11
12. 6. Quality of project outputs will be assured by the processes outlined in Section 2
above.
7. The partners anticipate that it might be difficult to engage policy makers and
other stakeholders. For this reason there are already built into the workplan a
number of strategies to help minimise this problem. For example, the project
will devote considerable effort and attention to producung case study and
advocay materials that Information Literacy (IL) campaigners, activists and
practioners can use in various circumstances to to engage and influence policy
makers and decision makers. In addition activities such as the Final Conference
and the prior circulation and consultation about the projects recommendations
will specifically target policy makers and other influential stakeholders. These
activities will be monitored by TKD and also discussed at the regular PMB
meetings as well as virtually as required to ensure they are as effective as
possible.
8. The workplan includes four work packages (4,5,6 and 7) which focus on
exploitation and a number of activities designed to ensure that the project has
both impact and credibility are included in the plan. Exploitation begins with
WP4 with the production of strategic models, standards and performance
measures and illustrative case approaches which are then validated in
workshops and 'road-tested' in real world trials in WP5. The learning and new
information acquired from these will be applied in WP6 when advocacy
materials are created and finalised case studies produced. These will be
published on the project website and, following a consultation period they will
be presented at the Final policy conference along with a set of
recommendations designed to stimulate action and emulation of good practice
at national and sector levels. EMPATIC aims to ensure optimal use of results
beyond the project by achieving sustainability for its web portal. These
activities will be monitored by TKD and also discussed at the regular PMB
meetings as well as virtually as required to ensure they are as effective as
possible.
12
13. SECTION 4: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 Introduction
In the project work plan we state that:
TKD, supported by MDR, will develop a clear set of criteria, measurements and
data collection tools for evaluating the impact of the work and outcomes of the
project. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative approaches will be used. The
focus will be on measuring, at various stages, the impact of the project’s work
on policy makers, their interest in and attitudes towards information literacy,
and any changes in their behaviour and actions as a result of the sequence of
interventions by the project. This is likely to involve the identification of sample
and control groups of policy makers whose responses can be tracked or
surveyed throughout the timeframe of EMPATIC.
4.2 Impact on policy makers
However, during discussions around the planning and creation of this document it
became clear that the main tools and processes which the project expects to influence
the policy makers (the advocacy materials and recommendations) will not be available
until near the end of the project – and will not in fact be presented to policy makers
on a wide scale until the final policy conference which takes in the penultimate month
of the project. Therefore it is difficult to see how we might reasonably assess the
impact on policy makers in any quantitative way.
What we can and will do is begin to engage with policy makers and other influential
stakeholders at each of the 4 sectoral workshops taking place in early summer 2011.
Each workshop will involve up to 30 invited policy makers and other expert
stakeholders (including researchers and representatives from the learning/teaching
professions) to discuss and further define major issues against a backdrop of the
EMPATIC findings to date. The organisers will seek to ensure that participation is
regionally and otherwise representative of different policy environments across the
EU. The mode of the workshops will be open and highly interactive but will start with a
summative presentation of EMPATIC's work and results to date. The results of theses
workshops will be presented in 4 separate reports (one for each sector) detailing the
outcomes and showing how the case study materials were either validated or modified
as a result of input from policy makers and experts. These reports will be available in
September 2011. The learning and new information acquired from these workshops
will be applied during WP6 to the creation of advocacy materials and the production of
modified and finalised case studies.
Attendees at the workshops will be asked to complete a short questionnaire (to be
devised nearer the time) but it might include questions about, for example:
Were
you
aware
of
the
best
practices
included
into
the
report?
13
14. Can
you
use
the
information
included
into
the
report
in
your
work?
If
yes,
how?
Are
there
any
techniques,
methods
which
you
felt
would
be
particularly
useful?
Do
you
feel
that
the
report
has
gaps
or
need
further
investigation
in
any
specific
area?
How
do
you
think
we
might
best
encourage
the
inclusion
of
Information
Literacy
classes
in
the
curriculum
What
are
the
main
barriers
that
prevent
Information
Literacy
skills
being
widely
taught
at
the
moment
Etc
The Final Policy Conference will also provide a platform at which the project’s outputs,
including the Recommendations and the Exploitation Strategy (which will set out the
ways and means to improve the spread and level of Information Literacy) will be
disseminated and where we can promote their exploitation and wider take up.
4.3 Project indicators
In addition we will monitor:
• Number of relevant case studies introduced
• Number of registered stakeholders
• Number of best practices collected
• Number of EMPATIC presentations on various events
14
15. http://empat-ic.eu/eng/
Project funded by the European Commission
under the Lifelong Learning Programme
This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be
held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
1