CriCoRM Project WP3: EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT Evaluation report.pdf2nd Evaluation report 4 This...
Transcript of CriCoRM Project WP3: EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT Evaluation report.pdf2nd Evaluation report 4 This...
2nd Evaluation report
1
1 INTRODUCTION 3
2 EVALUATION FORM 5
2.1 Internal evaluation 6
2.2 Status of the targeted achievements 7
2.3 WP1: Coordination of the project 8
2.4 WP2: Dissemination of the project 9
2.5 WP3: Evaluation of the project 10
2.6 WP4: Analysis of the communication processes 10
2.7 WP5: Guidelines development 11
3 EVALUATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT 12
3.1 Project management 13
3.2 Communication aspect 13
3.3 Coordination aspect 13
3.4 Timeliness 13
3.5 Questionnaire to the CriCoRM partners 14
3.6 Month 18 of the project 14
3.6.1 ASL BRESCIA 14
3.6.2 UNIBS 15
3.6.3 LMU 16
3.6.4 UMU 17
3.6.5 INOVA+ 18
3.7 Month 24 of the project 19
3.7.1 ASL BRESCIA 19
3.7.2 UNIBS 20
3.7.3 LMU 21
3.7.4 UMU 22
3.7.5 INOVA+ 23
2nd Evaluation report
2
3.8 Questionnaire to the CriCoRM WP leaders 24
3.9 Month18 of the project 25
3.9.1 WP1 - ASL BRESCIA 25
3.9.2 WP2 - ASL BRESCIA 26
3.9.3 WP3 - UNIBS 27
3.9.4 WP4 – LMU 27
3.10 Month 24 of the project 28
3.10.1 WP1 - ASL BRESCIA 28
3.10.2 WP2 - ASL BRESCIA 29
3.10.3 WP3 – UNIBS 30
3.10.4 WP4 – LMU 31
3.10.5 WP5 – UMU 32
4 COMMENT 33
4.1 Project management 34
4.2 Work package progress 34
4.3 General comment 34
5 ANNEXES: Independent Peer Assessment reports 35
2nd Evaluation report
4
This document is the second evaluation report that covers the second year of the
Crisis Communication in the area of Risk Management (CriCoRM) project. The
evaluation was made according to the methodology presented in the Evaluation Plan
approved by the consortium partners. The evaluation report confirms that the specific
objectives set for the second year have been reached in addition to the performance
indicators, and self-evaluation of individual work package (WP) leaders and partners.
Equally to the first year, the self-evaluation made by the partners and their comments
on the project represented an important contribution during the development of the
report both as a form of monitoring and as a means to suggest further improvements.
Data used in the evaluation were collected using different questionnaires and through
e-mails with partners. This report is made up of two parts: the Evaluation Form,
setting out the specific objectives, and the Evaluation of Project Management, giving
the results of all the yearly questionnaires regarding the management of the project.
Peer Review reports are also provided. These were produced by the independent
expert responsible for giving a professional analysis and assessment of the level of
content of the second year project deliverables and of their alignment with the Grant
Agreement (see Task 3.3).
A general overview and peer review of process and project achievements and interim
technical quality assessment (representing other activities envisaged within Task 3.3
of the Grant Agreement) are documented as a further attachment in the form of a
peer review report of the second year Project Interim Report. This is to ensure an
independent, external professional quality assessment and quality assurance for the
whole project, complementing and reviewing the evaluation exercise carried out and
documented within this deliverable and Evaluation Report.
2nd Evaluation report
6
2.1 Internal evaluation
Coordination of the project WP1
Dissemination of the project WP2
Evaluation of the project WP3
Analysis of the communication processes WP4
Development of guidelines WP5
Implementation of Web 2.0 tools for crisis WP6
Training WP7
Table 1: Table of the project’s specific objectives
In order to guarantee that each partner develops the specific objectives correctly, we
have chosen a set of indicators by which to evaluate each WP and the extent to which
each specific objective was successfully achieved. Most of the indicators were selected
specifically for each objective. We have drawn up a specific table of performance
indicators to evaluate the success of each specific objective. Each WP leader was able
to set the minimum (acceptable) and maximum (target) criteria at the beginning of
the WP. The status of all the indicators was monitored during the WP and was checked
on its completion. The proposed indicators for all the WPs/specific objectives were
divided into subsections. The WP achievements (i.e. scores given using individual
performance indicators) are described in three columns: Acceptable, Target and
Results. The Acceptable column represents minimum acceptable achievements that
are sufficient for the purpose of the WP. Target achievements are set as realistic goals
that could be accomplished within a given work package. For the indicators used to
monitor development of the objectives, we proposed a 3-level quality scale for
measuring the achievement of the criteria goals. A traffic-light type scale was used
where the colours represent project development: green would mean the indicator is
good or normal, yellow would indicate a minor departure from the established plans
(such as a postponed deliverable, or work that needs some further agreed
modifications), and red would indicate a potential problem for the objective (such as a
deliverable that misses a postponed deadline or an unsatisfactory result).
2nd Evaluation report
7
2.2 Status of the targeted achievements
This task monitored how deliverables were produced, how timelines were met, and
how progress was achieved. Every 6 months, based on specific targets described in
the evaluation plan, an evaluation form was completed with data from partners’
progress reports and the completed questionnaires. An evaluation form was sent to
each WP leader as part of a monitoring process aimed at detecting potential
weaknesses in the project that would require timely reaction and improvement. This
included a section on performance of horizontal WPs, which involved all partners, and
another section on specific WPs, which involved each WP leader. The table shows the
achievements at month 24 of the CriCoRM project according to the objectives
established in the WP3 Evaluation Plan. In the Results column, we asked each WP
leader to fill in the results at month 24 of their WP for every target as follows:
“Achieved” if the target was reached;
“On time” if the target was still ongoing but was running to time and, if possible, to
estimate the percentage of the work completed;
“Late” if the target was still ongoing but there were potential problems in meeting
the deadline and, if possible, to estimate the percentage of the work completed;
“Not applicable” (n.a.) if the target was not expected to be reached.
2nd Evaluation report
8
2.3 WP1: Coordination of the project
Achievements
Month Acceptable Target Results
24 1. Achievement of milestones M1.3
and D4
2. Assurance that the other partners can achieve the set
milestones and deliverables: M2.4
and M3.3
3. Timely resolution of
possible conflicts between partners of
the consortium
4. Successful
organisation of 1 consortium meeting
5. Proper periodic
communication with
EAHC officer
1. Achievement of milestones M1.3 and D4
2. Assurance that the other partners can achieve the set milestones and
deliverables: M2.4 and M3.3
3. Timely resolution of
possible conflicts between partners of the consortium
4. Successful organization of
PMB3
5. Proper periodic
communication with EAHC
officer
Achieved
Achieved
N. A.
Achieved
Achieved
2nd Evaluation report
9
2.4 WP2: Dissemination of the project
Achievements
Month Acceptable Target Results
24 1. Achievement of
milestone M2.4
2. Completion of D1 second report
3. 300 leaflets issued
4. 4 posters issued
5. 1 articles in
newspapers and specialist magazines
6. Participation in 4
meetings,
conferences, trade fairs and field events
7. Website updates and
visitors
1. Achievement of
milestone M2.4
2. Completion of D1 second report
3. 500 leaflets issued
4. 5 posters issued
5. 2 articles in
newspapers and specialist magazines
6. Participation in 6
meetings,
conferences, trade fairs and field
events
7. Website updates
and visitors
Achieved
Achieved
Achieved (n. 2115)
Achieved (n. 70) Achieved (n. 8)
Achieved (n. 22)
Achieved
(Uploading of documents in some
sections of CriCoRM web sites; Creating
some sections of the CriCoRM web site in consortium
languages).
2nd Evaluation report
10
2.5 WP3: Evaluation of the project
2.6 WP4: Analysis of the communication processes
Achievements Month Acceptable Target Results
24 1. Achievement of
milestone M3.3
2. 2 evaluation reports
3. Majority of the
partners satisfied with the evaluation reports
4. Data from 4
questionnaires administered to each partner
5. 1 feedback form
administered to key stakeholders
6. 4 brief reports on questionnaires
1. All planned milestones
achieved
2. 2 evaluation reports
3. All of the partners satisfied
with the evaluation reports
4. Complete data from 4
questionnaires submitted to each partner
5. 1 feedback form submitted
to key stakeholders
6. 4 brief reports on questionnaires
Achieved
Achieved
Achieved
Achieved
Postponed
Achieved
Achievements
Month Acceptable Target Results
24 1. Completion of data
analysis and interpretation
1. Completion of data analysis
and interpretation
Achieved
This WP starts at month 1 and ends at month 19
2nd Evaluation report
11
2.7 WP5: Guidelines development
Achievements
Month Acceptable Target Results
24 1. Achievement of milestones M5.1 and
M 5.2
2. Completion of deliverable D5
3. Identification of at least 60%
stakeholders involved in the dissemination of the
guidelines
4. 1 report on guidelines feedback
1. All planned milestones achieved
2. All planned deliverables finalized
3. Identification of all stakeholders involved in
the dissemination of the guidelines
4. 2 reports on guidelines feedback
In time (50% achieved)
In time (80% achieved)
In time (30% achieved)
In time (20% achieved)
This WP starts at month 17 and ends at month 28
2nd Evaluation report
13
3.1 Project management
Project management was evaluated using specific questionnaires on the following
communication and coordination aspects:
timeliness of deliverables (measured as the number of deliverables delivered on
time, with an agreed delay, and with an exceptional delay) and accessibility to the
drafts of deliverables (measured as the number of deliverables available as internal
drafts);
cooperation/communication between WP leaders and the project manager
(evaluated through a questionnaire at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months);
cooperation/communication between partners within WPs (evaluated through a
questionnaire at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months)
3.2 Communication aspect
Communication was evaluated using a questionnaire that involves all the consortium
partners and regards cooperation and communication between WP leaders and the
project manager and among all the WP partners. Answers were rated on a scale of 1
(worst) to 10 (best).
3.3 Coordination aspect
Coordination was evaluated using a questionnaire that involves all the consortium
partners and regards coordination between WP leaders and the project manager and
among all the WP partners. Answers were rated on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best).
3.4 Timeliness
Timeliness was evaluated using a questionnaire that involves all the consortium
partners and regards coordination between WP leaders and the project manager and
among all the WP partners. Answers were rated on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best).
2nd Evaluation report
14
3.5 Questionnaire to the CriCoRM partners
Each partner was asked to evaluate the WP leaders they worked with during the
second year. Their answers concerning specific targets, described in the evaluation
plan as Timeliness, Coordination and Communication are shown in the following
tables.
Data were collected until 9thJanuary 2014 and until 28thMay 2014.
Answers were rated on a scale from 1 (worst) to 10 (best) or “NA” (not applicable)
3.6 Month 18 of the project
3.6.1 ASL BRESCIA:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how
available was he or she to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you
were given?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet your expectations?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
15
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
3.6.2 UNIBS:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how
available was he or she to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet your expectations?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the
project as CRiCoRM project manager?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
16
3.6.3 LMU:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how available was he or she to help, and how would you
rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet
your expectations?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the
project as CRiCoRM project manager?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP1 10
WP2 9
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
17
3.6.4 UMU:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the
project?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how available was he or she to help, and how would you
rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet your expectations?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the project as CRiCoRM project manager?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
18
3.6.5 INOVA+:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 8
WP2 8
WP3 8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP1 8
WP2 8
WP3 8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how available was he or she to help, and how would you
rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
WP1 8
WP2 8
WP3 8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet
your expectations?
WP1 8
WP2 8
WP3 8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the project as CRiCoRM project manager?
8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP1 8
WP2 8
WP3 8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
19
3.7 Month 24 of the project
3.7.1 ASL BRESCIA:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how
available was he or she to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you
were given?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet your expectations?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP leader?
WP3 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
20
3.7.2 UNIBS:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how
available was he or she to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you
were given?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet your expectations?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the
project as CRiCoRM project manager?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP leader?
WP1 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
21
3.7.3 LMU:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If you had deadlines to meet by the WP leaders
you work with, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP5 10 If score is less than 7, please specified the kind of the problem
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How do you rate the coordination capacity of the WP leader?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP5 10 If score is less than 7, please specified the kind of the problem
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If you made any questions to your leaders, how do
you rate the availability, timeliness and clarity in the answers?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP5 10 If score is less than 7, please specified the kind of the
problem
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How do you rate the activity of your WP compared to your expectations?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
WP5 9 If score is less than 7, please specified the kind of the problem
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the
project as CRiCoRM project manager?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
22
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How do you rate the communication aspect with your
WP leader? WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
WP5 9 If score is less than 7, please specified the kind of the
problem
3.7.4 UMU:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how available was he or she to help, and how would you
rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet your expectations?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the
project as CRiCoRM project manager?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
23
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP1 10
WP2 10
WP3 10
WP4 10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
3.7.5 INOVA+:
TIMELINESS
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
If your WP leader set you a deadline, do you think
you had enough time to prepare the answers?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COORDINATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How capable was the WP leader of coordinating the project?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
When you asked your leader any questions, how available was he or she to help, and how would you
rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: WP Rate (1-10)
How far did your experience as a WP partner meet
your expectations?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
As a partner of a consortium, how well did ASL Brescia coordinate the project as CRiCoRM project manager?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
24
COMMUNICATION
Question: WP Leader Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your
WP leader?
WP1 9
WP2 9
WP3 9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
3.8 Questionnaire to the CriCoRM WP leaders
The questionnaires were sent to the WP leaders who had started their activities in the
first year of the project. In particular, each WP leader was asked to evaluate the level
of collaboration of their WP partners according to Timeliness, Coordination and
Communication, as described in the evaluation plan.
The tables show the answers given in the two WP leaders’ questionnaires. Data were
collected until 9th January 2014 and until 28th May 2014.
2nd Evaluation report
25
3.9 Month 18 of the project
3.9.1 WP1 - ASL BRESCIA
TIMELINESS
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your
expectations?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP partners?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet
them?
8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Some partners didn’t
fulfill the established deadlines.
2nd Evaluation report
26
3.9.2 WP2 - ASL BRESCIA
TIMELINES
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness
and clarity of the answers you were given?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your expectations?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP partners?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet
them?
8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
2nd Evaluation report
27
3.9.3 WP3 - UNIBS
TIMELINES
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available
were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your expectations?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP
partners?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
3.9.4 WP4 - LMU
TIMELINESS
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet them?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Some partners didn’t
fulfill the deadlines.
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet them?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
2nd Evaluation report
28
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available
were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
8
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your
expectations?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP partners?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
3.10 Month 24 of the project
3.10.1 WP1 - ASL BRESCIA
TIMELINESS
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness
and clarity of the answers you were given?
10
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet them?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
29
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your
expectations?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP partners?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
3.10.2 WP2 - ASL BRESCIA
TIMELINESS
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available
were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your
expectations?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet them?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
2nd Evaluation report
30
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP
partners?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
3.10.3 WP3 – UNIBS
TIMELINES
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available
were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your
expectations?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP
partners?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet
them?
9
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
2nd Evaluation report
31
3.10.4 WP4 - LMU
TIMELINESS
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness
and clarity of the answers you were given?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your expectations?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP
partners?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet
them?
N.A.
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
2nd Evaluation report
32
3.10.5 WP5 - UMU
TIMELINESS
COORDINATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you asked your partners any questions, how available
were they to help, and how would you rate the timeliness and clarity of the answers you were given?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
How far did the activity of the WP meet your
expectations?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
COMMUNICATION
Question: Rate (1-10)
How good was the level of communication with your WP partners?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem experienced
Question: Rate (1-10)
If you established any deadlines, did your partners meet them?
10
If score is under 7, please specify the kind of problem
experienced
2nd Evaluation report
34
4.1 Project management
Results of the two questionnaires show that, overall, the partners were very satisfied
with the progress of the project and with the cooperation they received. Very good
results were achieved relating to communication and coordination. All the partner
confirmed their satisfaction with ASL Brescia as project manager.
4.2 Work package progress
The results of the second year of the project are on schedule or achieved according to
the targets established by the WP leaders. There is only a minor deviation to be noted
concerns the feedback form to be submitted to key stakeholders. This target has been
postponed after the end of WP5, expected at month 28 because it is necessary to
complete the implementation of guidelines before sending them to the stakeholders
and consequently have a feedback from them.
4.3 General comment
In general, the results of questionnaires sent at the 12th and 24th month are
satisfactory and there are no important problems to be underlined. There is an overall
increase in the scores for all the specific targets described in the evaluation plan such
as Timeliness, Coordination and Communication between the two periods of data
collection.
2nd Evaluation report
36
Date: 30-06-2013
D8 – 2nd Evaluation Report
Peer review report
Author: Alberto Bonetti
Work package n° 3 – Evaluation of the project
Task 3.3 Periodic independent assessment
1. Basic Information
Deliverable Reference: D2
Deliverable Title: Evaluation Report (2nd version)
Main Author/Editor: University of Brescia
Peer Reviewer (Institution, Person): Studio di Ingegneria Bonetti Alberto
2. Length of the deliverable
Is the length of the deliverable justified?
The deliverable, as applicable already for its previous version at month 12, has been
prepared as a concise document, well balanced with the expected level of assessment and
evaluation results.
It reflects appropriately the content and guidelines given in the deliverable D1 – Evaluation
Plan.
Are there any parts that result superfluous, irrelevant, redundant, unspecific and/or are
written in flowery language? (considering principles of precision and conciseness)
The focused character of the deliverable does not leave any room for redundant or
irrelevant content. It’s precise and concise.
2nd Evaluation report
37
3. Content
Does the deliverable report meet the objectives of the deliverable as described in the
CriCoRM project Grant Agreement technical attachment (Description of the action)?
If not, parts where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable includes evaluation findings deriving from the suitable application, in the
second year of the project, of the procedures and provisions for self-monitoring of the
achievements of the project that were already documented within the initial Evaluation
Plan.
The deliverable presents sound evidence of how the CriCoRM consortium has self-evaluated
the achieved objectives for the second year of the project and has carefully monitored and
detected any potential project weakness.
The deliverable represents a well-structured and appropriate evaluation report for the
second year of the CriCoRM project, including clear and quantitative indications on the level
of achievement of the project objectives, expressing suitable performance indicators and
reaching a comprehensive internal evaluation.
The time plan for evaluation of the project tasks has been duly respected in the second
year, witnessing a diligent and competent evaluation management.
The resulting evaluation report is effective and clear.
In terms of achievement of the relevant targets related to the second year of the project,
D8 offers evidence that most of the indicators and parameters reached a successful level of
achievement.
The combination of internal, external and independent peer reviewing has allowed for a
quite comprehensive self-assessment exercise, useful to identify possible areas for
improvement, problematic as well as successful aspects of the project.
The tabular reporting and presentation of the level of achievement of each single indicator
per workpackage allows also in this second year version of D8 (as already evident in the
previous release) a quick and synthetic understanding of the level of success and
achievements.
Quite extensive has been also in the second year the effort spent on the assessment of the
level of quality and internal appreciation of project coordination and management activities.
The sound and overall very positive level of response confirms also in the second period of
the project the high level of project coordination and continuous support to the project
deployment.
Is the content of the deliverable focused and presented in a precise and to-the-point
manner? If not, parts where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable is complete, focused and addressing all relevant issues.
It is appreciated that, answering to the last year peer review reporting, more effort has
been devoted to a more critical analysis and understanding of the meaning of the results.
In this way, the deliverable does not only witness a diligent work of collection and
assessment of parameters and indicators, but also an initial analysis and critical
understanding of the evaluated parameters, although not particularly detailed.
This is useful in order to understand better what is behind partial achievements, although
deserves further effort in the next and last period of the project.
Focus is and should be even further in the next period on the analysis of what is behind the
successful achievement of targets, in order that the revealed good practice is well
understood by the constituency and by those who are interested to replicate the CriCoRM
experience and approach.
Does the deliverable require substantial revision or rewriting?
If yes, concrete suggestions how to improve the deliverable should be given.
There is no need of any revision or rewriting of this version.
2nd Evaluation report
38
However, still there is the need (already pointed out last year and only partially applied in
the new version of the deliverable) to reach a fully effective “narrative” character, in order
to “tell the story” more clearly. This is expected in the month 36 version of this deliverable.
Grammatical errors and/or typographical errors and/or incomprehensive sentences should
be identified.
The deliverable is carefully and well written, clear, understandable, simple and correct.
4. Review Summary
The overall rating of the deliverable is [ 4 to 5: good to excellent]:
1: poor
2: below average
3: average
4: good
5: excellent
The current version of the deliverable is [ 1 ]:
1: applicable and ready to be submitted to the CHAFEA, if required;
2: applicable, but requires minor revisions;
3: inapplicable and requires substantial revisions.
Is it necessary for the revised deliverables to be reviewed again before submitting it to the
EAHC (1:Yes, 2: No)? [ No ]
Other remarks:
The effort spent also in the second year of the project in terms of evaluation and assessment
procedure and of identification of objective and measurable parameters has to be well
appreciated and should be even strengthen in the next and final period of the project, in order
to meet fully the initial contractual expectations.
Particular attention should be put on the Web2.0 application assessment, that will deserve a
significant effort and benchmarking exercise in the final phase of the project.
The final version of the deliverable should also offer a fully substantiated set of lessons
learned, sustained through quantified, measurable and objective parameters that should
reflect the initial expectations and represent a relevant benchmark for other similar
programmes and projects.
Finally, it is essential to stress again that evaluation should primarily serve impact assessment,
preparing the field for exploitation and deployment of the CriCoRM results, aiming at
replication and continuous adoption of the approach, concept, methodology and tools.
2nd Evaluation report
39
Date: 05-06-2014
D1 – 2nd Dissemination Report
Peer review report
Author: Alberto Bonetti
Work package n° 2 – Dissemination of the results
1. Basic Information
Deliverable Reference: D1
Deliverable Title: Dissemination Report (2nd version)
Main Author/Editor: ASL Brescia
Peer Reviewer (Institution, Person): Studio di Ingegneria Bonetti Alberto
2. Length of the deliverable
Is the length of the deliverable justified?
The deliverable replicates nature, structure and content of its previous first version. It is
equally suitably focused and presents an appropriate length and level of content and detail,
matching well its intended scope.
It reflects the initial sharp and focused character of the very first deliverable D1 –
Dissemination Plan – based on which this deliverable has been conceived and prepared.
Relevant dissemination tools have been duly monitored and commented also in the second
year of the project (leaflet, posters, articles, website, conferences and events).
Are there any parts that result superfluous, irrelevant, redundant, unspecific and/or are
written in flowery language? (considering principles of precision and conciseness)
There are no irrelevant or redundant sections.
2nd Evaluation report
40
3. Content
Does the deliverable report meet the objectives of the deliverable as described in the
CriCoRM project Annex to the Grant Agreement (Description of the action)? If not, parts
where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable represents the monitoring report of all dissemination activities carried out
in the second year of the project. It represents a document that is expected to further
evolve in the last year of the project.
The achieved dissemination targets are correctly reported and matched to the plans and
estimated outcomes. There is a sound evidence of an appropriate level of achievements.
Mayor stakeholders, already duly identified in the previous period, have been further
addressed through variegate dissemination measures.
As recommended in the last year peer review assessment, initial elements of a critical
analysis and understanding of the level of achievements and lessons learned from
dissemination activities have been included within D1, although still with limited argoments
in terms of potential impact of the planned dissemination activities.
A specific chapter on dissemination evaluation is included, comparing achievements with
expectations, but not entering in great detail in dealing with impacts and lessons to be left
for future similar exercises.
Is the content of the deliverable focused and presented in a precise and to-the-point
manner?If not, parts where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable is complete and focused.
There are no evident needed improvements to the actual version, although the authors are
invited to continue, also in the next period, to analyse even in higher detail and provide a
more comprehensive critical understanding of the effective impact of the various
dissemination measures deployed by the partners. Particular attention shall be put on
social media based dissemination initiatives, considering that this is the main focus of
CriCoRM.
Does the deliverable require substantial revision or rewriting? If yes, concrete suggestions
how to improve the deliverable should be given.
There is no need of any revision or rewriting at this stage.
There will be completions expected in the next scheduled Dissemination Report.
Grammatical errors and/or typographical errors and/or incomprehensive sentences should
be identified.
The deliverable is overall well written and understandable. There is evidence that effort has
been put on proof-reading and polishing, well improved in respect to previous versions.
4. Review Summary
The overall rating of the deliverable is [ 4: good ]:
1: poor
2: below average
3: average
4: good
5: excellent
The current version of the deliverable is [ 1 ]:
1: applicable and ready to be submitted to the CHAFEA, if required;
2nd Evaluation report
41
2: applicable, but requires minor revisions;
3: inapplicable and requires substantial revisions.
Is it necessary for the revised deliverables to be reviewed again before submitting it to the
EAHC (1:Yes, 2: No)? [ No ]
Other remarks:
The deployed dissemination activities have been of a good quality and well balanced with the
type of project. It is well appreciated the novel effort on appreciating initial elements linked to
the effective value and impact the dissemination measures will have on the addressed
constituency, although further effort should be devoted to these arguments, in the next period
and deliverable version.
This still represents, in fact, a relevant challenge to be faced also in the last year of the project
and duly reflected in the final version of this deliverable (scheduled by the end of the project).
Extra effort and focus should be put in the last year of the project to involve actively
stakeholders like end-user organisations and voluntary, consumers and patients’ associations,
considering the growing role this type of tertiary audience plays in the communication field and
in respect to the CriCoRM project in particular.
The final version of D1 should put particular evidence on a structured and detailed
understanding of the level of success dissemination activities have reached, in comparison to
initial expectations and reporting about each deviations commenting on reasons and
elaborating on any possible lesson learned, for the benefit of the partners but also of the Public
Health Programme constituency and future projects.
2nd Evaluation report
42
Date: 15-12-2013
D3 –State of the Art review report
List of key Stakeholder Identification
Data collection
Peer review report
Author: Alberto Bonetti
Work package n° 4 – Analysis of communication processes
1. Basic Information
Deliverable Reference: D3
Deliverable Title: State of the Art review report - List of key Stakeholder Identification -
Data collection
Main Author/Editor: LMU (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat)
Peer Reviewer (Institution, Person): Studio di Ingegneria Bonetti Alberto
2. Length of the deliverable
Is the length of the deliverable justified?
The deliverable’s length reflects appropriately the depth of the conducted analysis.
The level of detail is suitable for the scope and meets well the expectations.
Relevant literature references are included in support to an exhaustive and comprehensive
analysis of the state-of-the-art in crisis communication.
Are there any parts that result superfluous, irrelevant, redundant, unspecific and/or are
written in flowery language? (considering principles of precision and conciseness)
There are no irrelevant or redundant sections.
2nd Evaluation report
43
3. Content
Does the deliverable report meet the objectives of the deliverable as described in the
CriCoRM project Annex to the Grant Agreement (Description of the action)? If not, parts
where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable represents a final and comprehensive version of D3, and follows an initial
draft version released at month 12.
It presents, with a sound level of detail, the available literature on crisis communication,
includes best practices, theoretical frameworks and empirical studies in the field.
It discusses a great variety of topics from organizational to finance issues related health
crises and offers an interesting and competent overview.
D3 gives a complete “state of the art” summary of the literature on crisis communication in
health related areas of the last years. It starts with a theoretical foundation of crisis
communication and discusses the difference between risk and crisis communication. Then,
the specific characteristics of crisis communication concerning health issues are explained.
Afterwards, the media’s role as communicator and information channel is analysed,
followed by an examination of chances and limits of social media in the area of crisis
communication.
The deliverable includes also the description of important frameworks on crisis
communication and reviews relevant empirical studies dealing with health crises. There is a
focus on studies regarding the H1N1 pandemic, but also papers concerning SARS and avian
influenza are discussed. The part about the empirical investigation of H1N1 is divided into
grey literature, content analyses and stakeholder surveys. Finally, D3 summarizes the main
results and draws some initial concluding notes.
A specific focus is put on the specific characteristics of crisis communication in the area of
public health and to social media deployment, in particular.
In respect to the initial draft, this final version of the deliverable include further details
related to the critical analysis of the collected evidence, state-of-the-art and stakeholder
survey, in terms of crisis communication.
Applying appropriately what observed and recommended within the peer review report
related to the draft version, the actual version of D3 goes appropriately beyond a diligent
monitoring exercise and desk study, including also a critical view and analysis of the crisis
communication perspectives, in particular in terms of potential impact of the different
measures and available approaches.
The review of relevant literature revealed in fact several research gaps. First, the use of
social media in crisis communication has only been considered for the US, European
countries have not been taken into account yet. Second, focusing on risk and crisis
communication, no broad comparison of more than two countries could be found. Only
communication strategies of the US and China were compared. Third, no study has tracked
the crisis communication process through several stages. Not more than two channels (e.g.
press release and media coverage) have been considered so far. An analysis and
comparison of three different communication channels (such as press releases, news
coverage and online discussions) is still missing, even though this would be essential for
understanding the diffusion of information and the public opinion-building process in crises.
These are quite informative findings, witnessing a through conducted analysis.
However, the work has also revealed some limitations (duly recognized by the same
authors). These are mainly related to the online survey, where a comparison of different
cultural groups wasn’t possible because the participants were distributed unevenly across
the single countries. Further, the participants resulted to be very heterogeneous regarding
their nationality and the type of organization they belonged to. Nevertheless, the results
remain a valid indicator for the perspective of European stakeholders involved in crisis
communication.
2nd Evaluation report
44
Another aspect that revealed some limitations is the content analysis. Here, a definitive
proof of a causal effect of media coverage on vaccination behavior and mortality is not fully
provided. Furthermore, only ten European countries and two newspapers per country have
been examined. Thus, the results are somewhat limited and cannot be inferred to media
coverage in European countries in general (although the leading newspaper in each country
and countries covering more than 70% of the European population have been considered).
Similarly, only press releases of the most important health authority in one country have
been coded, neglecting information provided for example by local or regional health
authorities (although these might have been influenced by national press releases again).
Overall, despite the indicated methodological limitations, this study still provides clearly
important practical implications for communication in health crises, representing a solid
basis for next project phases.
Is the content of the deliverable focused and presented in a precise and to-the-point
manner? If not, parts where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable is complete, focused and addressing all relevant issues (although with few
limitations already argued in the previous section).
There are no evident needed improvements to the final version, considering the added
details, in respect to the previous draft version of month 12, and the included analysis and
critical understanding of the effective impact that the various crisis communication
approaches imply.
Does the deliverable require substantial revision or rewriting? If yes, concrete suggestions
how to improve the deliverable should be given.
There is no need of any revision or rewriting.
Grammatical errors and/or typographical errors and/or incomprehensive sentences should
be identified.
The deliverable is well written and understandable.
There is no need of further proof reading. It is accurate and suitable to be disseminated to
a professional but also to a wider non-specialistic audience. It is in fact sufficiently self-
standing and self-explanatory.
4. Review Summary
The overall rating of the deliverable is [ 4 to 5: excellent ]:
1: poor
2: below average
3: average
4: good
5: excellent
The current version of the deliverable is [ 1 ]:
1: applicable and ready to be submitted to the CHAFEA, if required;
2: applicable, but requires minor revisions;
3: inapplicable and requires substantial revisions.
Is it necessary for the revised deliverables to be reviewed again before submitting it to the
EAHC (1:Yes, 2: No)? [ No ]
2nd Evaluation report
45
Other remarks:
The deployed activities, analysis of crisis communication state-of-the-art and stakeholders
survey are of an overall very good quality and well balanced with the expectations.
In the next period, the CriCoRM project should build appropriately on the findings from D3, in
particular in connection to the lessons learned from the appreciation and critical review of the
various possible communication strategies deployed within the deliverable, that should be used
to define the best approaches that the CriCoRM project should adopt and follow.
The main focus should be to ensure an effective communication, value and impact of the
project on the addressed constituency and community at large.
2nd Evaluation report
46
Date: 30 -06-2013
2nd Interim Report
Peer review report
Author: Alberto Bonetti
Work package n° 1 – Coordination of the project
Task 3.3 Periodic independent assessment
1. Basic Information
Deliverable Reference:
Deliverable Title: Interim Report (2nd version)
Main Author/Editor: ASL Brescia
Peer Reviewer (Institution, Person): Studio di Ingegneria Bonetti Alberto
2. Length of the deliverable
Is the length of the deliverable justified?
The deliverable is of an appropriate length. As for its previous version, also the second
interim report is well detailed, well-structured and offers a suitable level of detail in terms
of achievements of the project in the second year of operation of the project.
It is concise and with a level of detail well balanced with the expected level of management
activities.
Are there any parts that result superfluous, irrelevant, redundant, unspecific and/or are
written in flowery language? (considering principles of precision and conciseness)
The focused character of the deliverable does not leave any room for redundant or
irrelevant content. It’s precise and concise.
2nd Evaluation report
47
3. Content
Does the deliverable report meet the objectives of the deliverable as described in the
CriCoRM project Grant Agreement technical attachment (Description of the action)? If not,
parts where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The Interim Report
The deliverable includes appropriate details on achievements reached during the second
year of the project, comparing them accordingly with expectations and initial plans.
It represents an informative overview of the project status and results, also with a critical
assessment of results achieved.
The Interim Report is structured following appropriately the due template. The presentation
of achievements per workpackage is sufficient, although not very detailed.
There is no evidence of particular deviations in respect to the plans and neither of
significant delays or drawbacks.
The sound cooperative spirit within the consortium is confirmed also in the second year of
the project, witnessing an appropriate deployment of the respective roles and a diligent
fulfillment of the allocated duties.
The work done
The work has followed well the plans. A sound effort has been devoted to promotional and
dissemination activities also in the second year of the project, through the website,
newsletters and articles.
The project meetings revealed to be affective, well prepared and supportive for the project
deployment.
The effort
The claimed resources are overall well in line with the plans, well balanced with the level of
achievements and well in line with the workplan and the needs of the different tasks.
The remaining effort is appropriate for the scope and well balanced with the activities
needed to complete the project.
All necessary conditions for a successful completion of the project are in place, with a
suitable potential of attainment of the final envisaged objectives, although the last period is
quite demanding, in terms of activities to be completed and deliverables to be finalised.
Crucial and critical will be the validation activity of the CriCoRM tools. Most of the project
value, success and findings depend from this validation activity.
Is the content of the deliverable focused and presented in a precise and to-the-point
manner? If not, parts where improvement is necessary should be indicated.
The deliverable is complete, focused and addressing all relevant issues.
There are no evident needed improvements.
Does the deliverable require substantial revision or rewriting? If yes, concrete suggestions
how to improve the deliverable should be given.
There is no need of any revision or rewriting.
The deliverable will be followed by a similar final management report at month 36.
Grammatical errors and/or typographical errors and/or incomprehensive sentences should
be identified.
The deliverable is well written, clear, understandable, simple and correct, and witnesses of
a further effort devoted to proof reading and polishing, as recommended within the peer
reviewing of last year management reporting.
2nd Evaluation report
48
4. Review Summary
The overall rating of the deliverable is [ 4: good ]:
1: poor
2: below average
3: average
4: good
5: excellent
The current version of the deliverable is [ 1 ]:
1: applicable and ready to be submitted to the EAHC, if required;
2: applicable, but requires minor revisions;
3: inapplicable and requires substantial revisions.
Is it necessary for the revised deliverables to be reviewed again before submitting it to the
EAHC (1:Yes, 2: No)? [ No ]
Other remarks:
The project is entering into the final very demanding period. A wide piloting will represent the
major scope of the last part of the project.
It will be essential to pilot and validate accordingly the developed Web 2.0 tools for health
crisis communication, that should demonstrate in an objective manner to represent an
effective two-way communication with the public, other than an interesting real-time
assessment of the impact of public health messages.
In the end, CriCoRM should and has all the potential to demonstrate and validate a relevant
benchmark and best practice in the field, as expected and anticipated at the start of the
project.
The Final Report is expected to bring evidence and solid arguments, in this respect.