patch-world project monitoring system may 25th, 2009 qawra, malta 4 th meeting this project has been...
TRANSCRIPT
PATCH-WORLd Project Monitoring System
May 25th, 2009
Qawra, Malta
4th MeetingThis project has been funded with support from the European Commission.
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
PATCH-WORLd – PArenTs and CHildren Working, ORganising and Learning together 135285-LLP-1-2007-1-IT-KA3-KA3MPGrant Agreement 2007- 3620/001-001
Level Narrative Summary
Measurable Indicators
Means of Verification Important Assumptions
Goal -Project Monitoring System
- Evaluation
Purpose A
Output A.1
Output A.2
Output A.3
Purpose B
Output B.1
Output B.2
Output B.3
Outputs
123
Key Delivery Performance Indicators:
123
Classification of Outputs
HS S U VU
Assumptions Related to the Implementation of each outputs
123
Probability
High Low
Implementation Progress Summary Classification (IP): (A satisfactory or higher classification indicates, among other things, that the project will reach the foreseen outputs during the currently approved period)
[ ] Highly Satisfactory (HS) [ ] Satisfactory (S) [ ] Unsatisfactory (U) [ ] Very Unsatisfactory (VU)
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.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
Implementation Progress:
Highly Satisfactory (HS): Implementation of all project outputs is on schedule as envisaged in the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan and the quality of the outputs is good.
Satisfactory (S): Implementation of the significant outputs is on schedule as envisaged in the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan and quality is adequate. Implementation of outputs may require remedial actions, but they will not seriously (less than 15% of the existing timetable) affect or delay overall project implementation.
Unsatisfactory (U): Significant outputs are not in compliance with the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan or there is a problem with the quality of the outputs. A serious delay in implementation of the project may be occurring (over 15% of the existing timetable). Corrective actions are being applied which may produce results.
Very Unsatisfactory (VU): Most significant outputs are not in compliance with the original or revised implementation and sequencing plan and/or there is a problem with the quality of the outputs. No feasible corrective action has been identified or there is no agreement within the partnership on appropriate
corrective actions.
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.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
Highly Probable (HP): The project is expected to achieve or exceed its development objective(s)Probable (P): The project is expected to achieve most of its development objective(s)Low Probability (LP): The project is not expected to achieve a significant portion of its development objective(s)Improbable (I): The project is not expected to achieve its development objective(s)
Assumptions:
Purposes
123
Key Delivery Performance Indicators:
123
Classification of Purposes indicators
HS S U VU
Assumptions Related to each Development Objectives
123
Probability
High Low
Expected Achievement of Development Objective Classification (DO)
[ ] Highly Satisfactory (HS) [ ] Satisfactory (S) [ ] Unsatisfactory (U) [ ] Very Unsatisfactory (VU)
Briefly explain major factors taken into account to justify the DO Classification:
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.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
Check key reasons for Unsatisfactory/Very Unsatisfactory IP Classification or Low Probability/Improbable DO Classification and explain in the second part of the table
[ ] Organizational changes[ ] Subcontractor inefficacy[ ] Partner withdraw[ ] Partner not collaborative[ ] Inefficacy in management procedure[ ] Inefficacy in communication strategies[ ] Supplier/contractor performance[ ] Project/component design[ ] Contract condition compliance delays [ ] Procurement difficulties [ ] Cost overrun[ ] Insufficient budget[ ] Delay (explain)[ ] Technical issues[ ] Organizational changes [ ] Other
EXPLANATION
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.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
Progress to date in implementing each outputs (Include reference to IP assumptions, if applicable)
123
Current Status of each Assumption 123
Timeliness of Compliance with contractual conditions
Reformulation (If applicable): Date of last reformulation ……………. Briefly describe:
Lessons learned (If applicable):
Potential Problems (If applicable):
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.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
Issue Action Responsible Date Action to be taken
Completed
123
Thank you for your kind attention!
May 25th, 2009Qawra, Malta4th Meeting
PATCH-WORLd – PArenTs and CHildren Working, ORganising and Learning together 135285-LLP-1-2007-1-IT-KA3-KA3MPGrant Agreement 2007- 3620/001-001
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.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