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