date: in 12 pts assessment of applications. date: in 12 pts qualitative assessment relevance of...
TRANSCRIPT
Date: in 12 pts
Assessment of applications
Date: in 12 pts
Qualitative assessment
Relevance of mobility project• Internationalisation strategy• Types of mobility
Impact & dissemination• Impact on different levels• Dissemination measures
Quality of project design & implementation• Selection, support and recognition
Quality of cooperation• Previous experience• Definition of responsibilities & tasks
Date: in 12 pts
Relevance of mobility project• Internationalisation strategy 30pts• Types of mobility
• how Partner Country fits applicant's internationalisation strategy.
• how project reinforces capacities & international scope of participants. How mobility fits internationalisation/ development strategy(ies) of specific Partner Country HEIs chosen.
• explanations for requested incoming & outgoing mobility flows of staff (training/ teaching) &/or students (different cycles) w.r.t internationalisation strategies of HEIs.
Date: in 12 pts
Quality of cooperation• Previous experience 30pts• Definition of responsibilities & tasks
• planned cooperation arrangements. Previous mobility project with chosen Partner Country is an advantage, regardless supported by EU (e.g. Erasmus Mundus) or other funds.
• existence of previous or running cooperation agreements between applicant HEI & partners setting out respective roles & tasks
Date: in 12 pts
Quality of project design & implementation• Selection, support and recognition 20pts
Practical implementation of mobilities
• clarity, completeness & quality (prep., implementation & follow-up)
• participant selection incl. equal opps. & promotion of disadvantaged persons
• information & support prior to mobility, e.g. accommodation, agreements, insurance, visa, etc.
• recognition mechanisms envisaged for learning outcomes (e.g. ECTS or other)
• how HEIs recognise & reward outgoing staff mobility
Date: in 12 pts
Impact & dissemination• Impact on different levels 20pts• Dissemination measures
The evaluator will assess potential impact & dissemination of mobility flows with a given Partner Country in terms of:
• potential impact on individuals & HEIs, during & after project lifetime
• results dissemination at faculty & institution level, for all participants
• strategy for monitoring & evaluating the outcomes
Date: in 12 pts
To be eligible for funding
≥70% per set of mobility flows by Partner Country;
≥ half of max. points per award criterion.
Thresholds
Date: in 12 pts
Min. 1 expert (internal or external)
NA briefs about eligible flows, respecting
(1) Programme Guide,
(2) any secondary criteria
(3) available Heading 1 funds for DCI countries
Expert briefing
Date: in 12 pts
Expert tasks
Flag ineligible flows
Score each set of mobility flows per Partner Country according to 4 quality criteria
Give a range of advice to NA
Date: in 12 pts
Expert Recommendations
1. retention of entire set of mobility flows for a Partner Country.
2. retention of only certain mobility flows
3. reduction of some/all mobility flows
4. rejection of entire set of mobility flows for a Partner Country
Date: in 12 pts
Each NA produces 10 ranking lists (1 per budget envelope)
Evaluation committee makes proposal for flows to be accepted, partially accepted, rejected
Funding allocated according to available budget by envelope in order of merit – exceptions to be duly justified
Selection process
Date: in 12 pts
Q. What constitutes "duly justified" exceptions to depart from the ranking order?
A. Avoiding overconcentration of budget on particular popular countries within budget envelopes
E.g. (BR/MX; CN/IN; RS; UA; EG)
Geographical balance?
Date: in 12 pts
Example of adjustment
Ranking for IPA envelope in Slovenia (€211,853)
U Ljubljana Serbia 88% €50kU Nova Gorica Serbia 86% €52kU Primorska Albania 84% €60kU Maribor Serbia 82% €45kU Maribor Kosovo 80% €48kU Nova Gorica Bosnia 79% €26kU Ljubljana Bosnia 75% €50k