This  project  has  been  funded  with  support  from  the  European  Commission  

 

       

           

     

Quality  Strategy    Author:  Bulent  Yilmaz    

 Ver:  0.2  

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.

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  

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.

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.

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

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 with the EC

Satisfactory

Communication with the stakeholders

Other – the work of the first year is necessarily largely preparatory (creating the initial materials). Communication largely kicks off in second year.

Internal communication within the project team

Satisfactory – basecamp established and well used

General quality management according to the general principles

Satisfactory

Setup of the project team and planning, distribution of tasks

Satisfactory – some tasks re-scheduled at PMB meeting in June 2010

Responsibilities of project team members are clear

Satisfactory – partners are clear about their roles and responsibilities

Regular reviews and meetings of the project team members

Satisfactory – regular online communication and 3 PMB meetings held

Quality assurance of deliverables

Satisfactory – has taken place either face-to-face during meetings or electronically

Document Satisfactory – basecamp and website successfully

8

exchange internally and externally

established

Timely delivery of tasks and deliverables as according to the work plan

Satisfactory – project schedule and timing of some deliverables adjusted as workloads involved became clearer at June PMB meeting

Official reporting (with regard to LLP Standard)

Needs improvement – slightly late at end of first period

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:

9

WP No

Type Title Start Finish

1 Development Desk research 1 4

2 Dissemination Dissemination 3 24

3 Quality Plan Quality assurance and impact 3 24

4 Exploitation Strategic modelling 5 11

5 Exploitation Validation 12 16

6 Exploitation Resource development 17 21

7 Exploitation Exploitation strategy 17 23

8 Management Project management 1 24

The work plan and some delivery dates were revised as follows at the June PMB meeting:

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

activities or deliverables Med Low

2 Unexpected costs arise or cost overspends

Low Med

3 Conflicts between partners Low Med

4 Project approach found to be unsuitable

Low High

5 Required information unavailable

Low Med

6 Project resources not good quality/suitable

Low Med

7 Difficulty involving policy makers and stakeholders

High Med

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

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.

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.

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?  

 

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

1

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.