Rural Micro and Craft Enterprise Entrepreneurs: Sustaining Rural … · 2018-10-30 · Guidelines...

Rural Micro and Craft Enterprise Entrepreneurs: Sustaining Rural Europe

Test and Validation Report of MICRO Project

Project Partners

Project Partners; Irish Rural Link (Ireland), EEO GROUP SA (Greece), Maynooth University (Ireland), Community Development Institute (CDI) (Macedonia), Internet Web Solutions (Spain), IHF, Institut de Haute Formation aux

Politiques Communautaires ASBL (Belgium), and IDP SAS (Italy)

Authors: Siobhan Kinahan (Irish Rural Link, Ireland), with Michael Kenny (Department of Adult & Community Education Maynooth University, Ireland), Lorenzo Costantino, Igor Yury Paolucci (Institut de Haute Formation aux Politiques Communautaires asbl, Belgium), Sreten Koceski (Community Development Institute (CDI) Macedonia), Giulia Costantino, Francesca de Marchi (IDP European Consultants, Italy), Roberta Albertazzi, Francisco José Guijas Delgado, (Internet Web Solutions [IWS], Spain), and Maria Moschou (EEO Group SA, Greece)

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.

P a g e | 2

Contents Introduction 3 Test and Validation Planning 3 Test and Validation Activity 3 Training Activities 4 Summary of Feedback Received 5 Guidelines for Future Training 6 Fine-tuning Actions Taken 7 Conclusion 10 Appendix 1: Test and Validation Plan 12 Appendix 2: Test and Validation Feedback Template 17 Appendix 3: Feedback form used for Test & Validation on website and in face-to-face Training events 19 Appendix 4: Summary of Feedback from Partners 21 CDI 22 EEO Group 25 IDP 28 IHF 31 IRL/NUIM 34 IWS 37

P a g e | 3

Introduction The Test and Validation phase of MICRO aims to test the training courses developed during the project and validate that they address the specific training needs and capacity gaps identified in the assessment phase. All the MICRO project partners regularly train micro-enterprises and professionals and so they were able to integrate the MICRO training into their regular activities. The target was to train a minimum of 200 microenterprises and craft-type enterprises across the 6 countries represented in the partnership. The results of this Test and Validation phase of the project will allow the MICRO training content to be finalised. The feedback and comments from the participants involved in the pilot deployment of the MICRO training will then provide input to allow for fine-tuning of the MICRO web-based platform and the training content. Test and Validation Planning Irish Rural Link (IRL) is the lead partner for this work package and coordinated the activities of the partners. The first task of this phase was to develop a Validation Plan (see Appendix 1). This document sets out in a detailed way the schedule, activities and tools for partners to implement test and validation activities. This Validation Plan ensures that the activities carried out by the partners were done in a standardized and comparable fashion. The objective is to collect reliable inputs and feedback from the partners so training content and material collected will be an accurate reflection of the overall Test and Validation process. The Test and Validation Plan was presented at the Partner meeting in Malaga in January 2018 in preparation for the roll out of the pilot training. Test and Validation Activity The Test and Validation training period as laid out in the Validation Plan was to take place from February to August 2018. During a regular partner conference call in early July the partners discussed the progress to date and the likelihood of reaching our target by the end of August. At this point 100 participants had been trained across all MICRO partners, however it was clear that most partners would find it difficult to arrange training events during July and August. The partners agreed to adhere to the timetable set out in the Test and Validation plan regarding sending in feedback to IRL in order to facilitate the writing of the Test and Validation report, but training would continue through to October. Partners also agreed that any significant variation in feedback from these subsequent training events would be reported to Irish Rural Link (IRL) to be noted in the report. The partners carried out the training through face-to-face classes/workshops in order to complement the Online Educational Resource and facilitate the collection of feedback from participants. Feedback has been collected by partners from the training participants using a standardised feedback format. The same feedback form was used both on the online platform and in hard copy for completion by training participants. Each partner was then responsible for completing a feedback report summarising the feedback received according to a template developed by Maynooth University based on the Evaluation form outlined in the Test and Validation Plan (Appendix 2). Again the use of a common template ensures ease of consolidation of feedback across the six partners.

P a g e | 4

During the course of the MICRO project 368 micro-enterprises have been trained. Feedback from the training activities have formed the basis for this report. The numbers trained has been validated through use of signatures on sign-in sheets for each training event. Training events were organised by each partner according to their training schedules. The exact format of event was not defined but generally included a brief overview of the MICRO project, demonstrating the online platform where all training modules are freely available, followed by an introduction to one or more specific modules for the purpose of gathering feedback on content. Partners were encouraged to use a variety of modules to ensure all content was assessed. This is evident from the website statistics that show all modules in all five languages have been accessed multiple times. The presentation of the training modules took place either in the form of a PowerPoint presentation or directly from the platform where online facilities were available. Feedback was then collected by way of a mix of verbal discussion and/or filling out the feedback forms (Appendix 3).The feedback forms were designed to elicit feedback on:

The course content, o range of topics available, o usefulness of topics o open questions on most and least useful aspects of content o Additional comments

Structure of web-based platform o Ease of use o Ability to find and use content o Overall satisfaction o Additional comments

The feedback form was designed to be short, with a mixture of check-box answers and open questions to allow for more in-depth comments. Training Activities The target group for training was rural micro-enterprises and all six partners were able to successfully reach this target group with their training activities. There was also a wide diversity within those trained as they ranged from professionals, farmers, experienced entrepreneurs, aspiring entrepreneurs and recently started entrepreneurs to Business students. This means that we were able to get a broad range of views on the training content and platform. As all partners carry out training events in the normal course of their activities, they were able to integrate the MICRO training modules into their schedules. Some partners had to make special efforts to reach the target group required, for example EEO Group teamed up with the Association of Olive Oil Cooperatives of Epidaurus Limira, Laconia to help reach rural enterprises. Other partners are more rural based, IRL for example have on-going training activities across rural Ireland and were able to use these contacts to reach the target groups. In all cases the individual partner’s standing as training organizations in their local regions facilitated the organizing of the training activites.

P a g e | 5

The training events were scheduled across the period from February to October depending on the on-going activities of individual partners. In order to facilitate the collection of feedback for the report partners were requested to carry out at least some of their activities by mid-July and return feedback to the lead partner, IRL. The length of individual training events varied depending on how many of the MICRO training modules were covered. IHF and IDP had events over 1, 2 or 3 days. Other partners had one-off events lasting one and a half hours up to a full day. The size of groups also varied with one of IRL’s groups being only 4 up to a larger group of up to 50 participants trained by IWS. All the partners reported that their activities had achieved the purpose of testing the training course and validating it. In all cases the participants were presented with an overview of the MICRO platform and content. The background to the project was discussed including the topics chosen and how they were selected by surveying micro-enterprises across the six countries. Participants were also shown the layout of the MICRO website and the various features available in relation to the training modules such as the ability to print or download the content, shortcut buttons to view videos, print and download content and how to listen to the content. In some cases participants were able to access the MICRO platform during the training event but this was not always possible. At least one module was presented to the participants, either by means of a PowerPoint presentation or directly from the website. Feedback was then obtained from participants with all partners using the standardized feedback sheets to collect written feedback. Partners also collected feedback through interaction and discussions with participant which also fed into the overall feedback obtained. Subsequently all partners reviewed their feedback and summarized it into a report for the lead partner, the partners’ reports are summarized in Appendix 4. Summary of Feedback Received Feedback was broken down into comments on the content of the units, the format of the units, the usefulness of the content and the usefulness of the MICRO online platform itself. Content In general the comments were very positive regarding the content of the training modules. They were seen as being interesting, appropriate, informative and useful. The use of links and the use of video presentations within modules to access further information were highlighted by IRL respondents. There were some contrasting comments regarding the level of information with some respondents finding it not so relevant to them and others finding it very relevant. This is a reflection of the diversity of participants that were trained ranging from would-be entrepreneurs to more experienced entrepreneurs. Format of Units The layout of modules was widely welcomed as being clear and user-friendly. Some commented on the good use of visual material, though others felt visuals could have been used more instead of written content. The way in which the content was divided into units was also mentioned by EEO Group as facilitating the study and understanding of the content. Usefulness of Content

P a g e | 6

The content being showcased in each training event varied and it is important to note that in all cases the most relevant modules were chosen by partners. Participants in all cases could not choose the most relevant or useful modules for their personal circumstances for the training event. That being said, the overall feedback was positive and most participants felt there were at least some modules of the range available that would be useful to them. There were positive comments on the fact of having a collection of a broad range of topics available in different languages in the one place. Usefulness of Online OER Platform There were very positive comments on the platform and the way it provided a wealth of knowledge across many topics in one place. The platform was commended for its logical structure and well organized contents. Some were amazed that such a platform was available for free. The flexibility of the platform was also welcomed as users could dip in and out of modules as they wished. The ability to hear the presentations was also welcomed by some as a good option. Dissemination of Content It was widely recommended that the platform should be promoted through social media outlets. Existing local networks were also mentioned by CDI and IRL respondents as being a good way to disseminate the content, for example the Local Enterprise Offices in Ireland. Guidelines for future Training In order to draw up guidelines for future training the partners looked at the aspects of the training content that the participants most liked and what they did not like so much. From this the partners could then recommend any changes, whether they were ones which could be made immediately or were ones that were beyond the immediate scope of this MICRO project. Many of the participants were very happy with the training content and how it was presented on the OER platform. IDP, IHF and IWS all reported that participants did not mention any aspects they did not like and consequently suggested no changes to the training content. It seems that these participants were very happy with the convenience of the platform offered and the fact that they could access the content freely, without the requirement to register, and that they could manage their training themselves. It is these aspects of the MICRO training offering that single this platform out from other available online training. The feedback from EEO Group participants suggested that they would like follow up modules in

addition to the ones they covered with more in depth or specialised information. The MICRO project

courses were specifically designed for microenterprises in rural areas to build their capacity and

overcome what are very often only informational or psychological barriers due to lack of knowledge

and tools on how to identify, access and exploit growth opportunities. It is encouraging to see that,

once these initial barriers are overcome that some entrepreneurs are looking for the next level of

course to increase their knowledge. EEO Group participants also emphasised the importance of ICT

knowledge in combination with some of the areas covered. The MICRO project had identified ICT as

a separate topic, but it may be useful to consider it in a more integrated way or at the outset to

introduce the ICT modules first when introducing the modules.

The focus of many of the participants in IRL’s training workshops was the possibility of adding a

more localised dimension to the content of the platform that gives specific information about what

is happening in their area. One suggestion was a forum to run alongside the training to facilitate

P a g e | 7

networking and also allow discussion on the content offered. Participants also suggested ways to

make it easier to find and move between modules through the addition of a Keyword Search on the

website and adding links to related modules within the modules themselves.

For the participants of CDI’s training the focus was very much on information regarding EU funding.

As their country is an EU candidate country member there are some specific funds they would have

access to and participants would like more information and examples of projects that have utilised

these EU funds.

It is clear that there is an opportunity to further develop the online platform to accommodate some

of the suggestions from participants. This project has shown that the provision of online, freely

available training is welcomed by the target rural entrepreneurs. Possibilities to expand the scope of

the platform in future projects could include adding training modules with a higher level of detailed

information or adding to the functionality of the platform by including a forum for discussion of the

modules.

Fine-tuning actions taken

As a result of reviewing of the website by the MICRO partners and some of the feedback from

participants during Test and Validation activities, certain changes have already been carried out.

During the design phase of the modules there were certain fine-tuning activities on how the

modules would be presented on the website. Once the basic format of the presentations was agreed

upon, a test module was uploaded to the website so all partners could see the proposed layout of

the modules on the website and try it out.

The following were the changes carried out:

• Initially there was only an option to print out the slides as they appeared on screen and not

just the text on the slide which would take up less paper. A “Print Course” button was added to the

screen which brings up a user friendly version and is a more compact way of printing the course

material (Figure 1).

• It was noted that some presentations included links to short videos for further information.

These links were not active when viewed directly on the website. A separate “Videos” button was

added for those units with videos so they could be viewed separately. A line was also added directly

under the slides to indicate that the user should download the PowerPoint presentation in order to

click on any links or view videos (Figure 1).

• Initially the “Audio” function was displayed alongside the other shortcut buttons;

“Feedback”, “View PDF”, “Print course”. This audio function was a computer generated voice which

‘reads’ the text from the slides. Although it was agreed that this was a useful added functionality, it

was felt that for some users the expectation would be for a more developed function whereby a

human voice would talk you through the course slide by slide. It was agreed to move the function to

the bottom of the page and change it to “Listen to the course”. This would give a better indication of

what the function delivered.

P a g e | 8

Figure 1 Layout of Training fiche with Print Course and Video buttons

Figure 2 Example of Training Module with details of Units' content

P a g e | 9

• The course details initially just listed the unit headings. It was agreed that inserting a short

description and expected user outcomes and results for each unit would assist the user in making

the choice of module and unit to study (Figure 2).

• The feedback form that was available online and the feedback form used for the face-to-face

Test and Validation were synchronized so that both would be asked the same questions.

• Some fine-tuning was carried out on the Training page displaying the topic choices. The tiles

were re-ordered in a logical way so that, for example the EU related courses were side by side

(Figure 3).

• The suggestion of adding a Keyword Search was made in the early stages of the Test and

Validation process. This facility was added to the Training page (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Course tiles arranged logically and Keyword Search facility

P a g e | 10

• The question of adding localized content to the modules was discussed, as it was expressed

by several participants as being a desirable feature. It was agreed that it was possible for such

content to be added by individual partners within the presentations, for example by adding links to

websites with more country specific information. This is easily achievable by uploading edited

presentations with additional links through the MICRO Back Office portal.

Conclusion The purpose of the Test and Validation phase of MICRO was to test the training courses developed during the project and validate that they address the specific training needs and capacity gaps identified in the assessment phase. The feedback and comments from the 368 participants involved in the pilot deployment of the MICRO training provided the input to allow for fine-tuning of the MICRO web-based platform and the training content. The first task of this phase was to develop a Validation Plan outlining how the objective to collect reliable inputs and feedback from the partners was to be achieved. The Test and Validation training period as laid out in the Validation Plan took place from February to October 2018. The partners carried out the training through face-to-face classes/workshops in order to complement the Online Educational Resource and facilitate the collection of feedback from participants. The feedback has been collected by partners from the training participants using a standardised feedback format. The numbers of participants trained has been validated through use of signatures on sign-in sheets for each training event. The target group for training was rural micro-enterprises and all six partners were able to successfully reach this target group with their training activities. In all cases the participants were presented with an overview of the MICRO platform and content. The background to the project was discussed and participants were also shown the layout of the MICRO website and the various features available in relation to the training modules. Feedback was then obtained from participants with all partners using the standardized feedback sheets to collect written feedback. Feedback was broken down into comments on the content of the units, the format of the units, the usefulness of the content and the usefulness of the MICRO online platform itself. In general the comments were very positive regarding the content of the training modules. They were seen as being interesting, appropriate, informative and useful. The layout of modules was widely welcomed as being clear and user-friendly. The range of modules was seen as providing useful choices and the fact of having them available in five languages in one place was praised. There were very positive comments on the online platform and the way it provided a wealth of knowledge across many topics in one place. The platform was commended for its logical structure and well organized contents. It was widely recommended that the platform should be promoted through social media outlets. It seems that these participants were very happy with the convenience the platform offered and the fact that they could access the content freely, without the requirement to register, and that they could manage their training themselves. It is these aspects of the MICRO training offering that single this platform out from other available online training.

P a g e | 11

Suggestions for future training included having follow-up modules with more in depth or specialised information. The possibility of adding a more localised dimension to the content of the platform was also mentioned. A forum to run alongside the training to facilitate networking and also allow discussion on the content offered was suggested also. Participants also proposed the addition of a Keyword Search on the website to help find relevant modules. During the design phase of the modules there were certain fine-tuning activities on how the modules would be presented on the website. These involved creating and re-labelling buttons to reflect the range of useful functions available for each module such as printing and downloading content. Other fine-tuning of the way in which the information on the available courses was displayed was carried out to help the user make informed choices on what course to access. This included adding a Keyword Search to the main Training page on the website. Adding localised content to the training modules was suggested and it is possible to do this. In conclusion the Test and Validation phase of the MICRO project was successful in gathering feedback from 368 micro and craft enterprises across the six countries. The feedback was very positive and confirmed that the training courses that the project had developed had succeeded in addressing the needs of the target group.

P a g e | 12

Appendix 1

Test and Validation Plan

Work Package 4: Test and Validation Detailed Test and Validation Plan

Guidelines for testing and validating the training modules and training courses

P a g e | 13

1. Introduction This document details the testing and validation activities to be carried out under work package 4 of the MICRO project.

1.1 The project (MICRO) The overall aim of the project is to sustain competitiveness of micro-enterprises in rural area across the European Union (EU) for enhanced growth and employment by analysing their capacity and training needs and developing tools and training courses that strengthen the increased capacity. The project is broken down into four work packages:

1. Development of an Open Educational Resources (OER) Platform 2. Capacity Gap Assessment 3. Training Courses (face to face and on line) developed in 5 languages 4. Test and validation of MICRO

This document focuses on work package 4, Test and validation.

1.2 Description of Work Package 4: Test and validation Work Package 4 (WP4) of the MICRO project focuses on testing and validating face to face training courses developed during the project (months 16-22) in the 6 Countries represented in the partnership for at least 200 representative micro-enterprises and craft-type enterprises in order to check their concrete relevance and user friendliness against specific training needs and capacity gaps. The 200 target group representatives that will be involved in the pilot deployment of the training will provide inputs, feedback and comments on the MICRO training (i.e. content, structure, user-friendliness, etc). All those comments and feedback will then allow the partnership to fine-tune the MICRO Training in their final version for full deployment and roll-out during and most importantly, after the end of the project. This document outlines the guidelines for testing and validating the training modules and training courses. Work package 4 is coordinated by Irish Rural Link and all partners in the project are expected to contribute to the implementation of the work package

P a g e | 14

2. Work- and time plan

2.1 Overall work plan The main project result is the interactive multilingual training courses: The partners will develop a set of training courses and material to be offered by most partners in the frame of their current activities. “Interactive” refers to the fact that the courses will be realised integrating traditional training methods with case studies, workshops, and interactive activities. The courses will be translated into 5 languages represented in the consortium. These training courses will be tested and validated in this way:

1. Each partner will organize the required number of training courses. 2. IRL sends to each partner this Validation Plan to ensure that T&V activities

are carried out by partners in a standardised and comparable fashion: this will allow coherence in the activities and reliability of inputs and feedback.

3. A minimum of 200 micro-enterprises will test the training courses. (A minimum of 20 training courses, totalling at least 200 participants, for the whole project.)

4. Upon completion of the training courses, the training course facilitator will carry out an evaluation with the course participants. The evaluation is carried out with the support of an evaluation guide, see next page for a draft evaluation form. Responses, comments, and suggestions for improvements are recorded using the evaluation form (Section 2.3).

5. Feedback and suggestions for improvements from all users will finally be summarized, translated into English, and sent to Irish Rural Link. A suggested format is provided below in Section 2.3 for the summary of the course evaluations.

Feedback from the users will be the basis for the development of the final version of training courses and material due by end August 2018. Partners will use the training courses for at least two years after the end of the project. Moreover, partners intend to integrate such courses into their current offer of training and services also beyond the two years after the end of the project.

P a g e | 15

2.2 Overall time-plan

Responsibility Action Dates

IRL Draft and Circulates the Test and Validation Plan October 31 2016

All partners Delivers face to face courses Jan 1 2018 – Oct 31 2018

All partners Sends to IRL feedback on Jun 30 2018

IRL Develop Guidelines for future trainings Sept 30 2018

2.3 Summary of evaluations (training courses) To be completed by each partner and sent to IRL. Date

Partner

No. of training courses

No. of participants

Female: Male:

Sessions/material that worked well

Session/material that need improvement

Trainer specific comments

Additional suggestions for improvements

Other comments

P a g e | 16

3. Deliverables According to the grant agreement, two deadlines are foreseen for work package 4:

A detailed test and validation plan: The plan will define the schedule, precise activities, and tools to implement the activities of WP4. The plan will be developed by IRL. (February 2018)

The final test and validation report: The final report will collect and illustrate the findings of the test and validation carried out during WP4. The final report will be developed by IRL. (October 2018)

P a g e | 17

Appendix 2

Test & Validation Feedback Template: Updated Evaluation form to be completed by each MICRO partner on completion of face-to-face training.

MICRO Training Course Test & Validation Guidelines

The Task: MICRO O4: 200 Microenterprises trained in 6 Countries MICRO Test & Validation has 3 required outputs

1. O4/A 1 Validation Plan 2. O4 / A 2 Train micro and craft-type enterprise entrepreneurs + collect feedbacks 3. O4 / A 3 Guidelines for future training

Let us deal with each separately

A. O4/A 1 Validation Pl (prepared by IRL - O4/A1)

B. The collection of feedback (Is ongoing from microenterprises, craft-type enterprises and is provided in a partner feedback report (- O4/A2))

C. This feeds into A3 Guidelines for future training (- O4/A3)

The Feedback report The report requires the following

1. Detail of respondents and the feedback collection

process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents?

b) How was the process organised?

c) Schedule and duration?

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation?

2. What was presented to the respondents Completed

a) Content presented?

b) How was it presented?

3. What feedback was collected Completed

a) How was written feedback collected?

b) How was spoken feedback collected?

P a g e | 18

c) Was there other means of feedback?

4. Summary of Feedback Completed

a) Feedback comments on the content presented?

b) Feedback comments on format of units?

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content?

d) Feedback comments on the usefulness of the online OER (Open Education Resource) for micro and craft-type enterprise entrepreneurs?

e) How should the online training content (OER) be effectively disseminated?

5. Guidelines for future training Completed

a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like?

b) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they not like?

c) What changes are recommended, and

d) How does this partner recommend that these changes are made with the MICRO Project

6. Other

a. Any other comments

b. Attach primary feedback documents

c. Attach pictures of feedback session

P a g e | 19

Appendix 3

Feedback form used for Test & Validation on website and in face-to-face training events. MICRO Project Feedback Questions: TRAINING CONTENT

Please rank the following aspects of the training

materials on a scale from Strongly Agree to

Strongly Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Don’t

Know

1. The range of topics is relevant

2. I can use course contents in my business

3. I acquired new knowledge and skills

1. What aspects of the training do you think are most useful for your business?

2. What aspects of the training do you think are least useful for your business?

3. Please help us improve the MICRO Training by providing additional comments

Page 1 of 2

P a g e | 20

Page 2 of 2

STRUCTURE OF THE WEB-BASED PLATFORM

Please rank the following aspects of the training

materials on a scale from Strongly Agree to

Strongly Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Don’t

Know

1. The web-based platform is easy to use and

navigate

2. The Training material is easy to find and use

3. Overall I am satisfied with web-based platform

Please help us to improve the web-based platform by providing additional comments

P a g e | 21

Appendix 4 : Summary of Feedback from Partners

P a g e | 22


Summary Feedback Report of CDI


process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents? The 23 participants were representatives of local rural companies, social enterprises, municipalities, business chambers.

Yes

b) How was the process organized? The event started with introduction presented by CDI representatives on aims of the project, and envisioned activities. It was explained the idea behind the project, and how this project could contrite towards enhancing of the competitiveness of microenterprises in rural areas.

Yes

c) Schedule and duration? 3.5 hours approximately

Yes

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation? Yes, we believe the purpose has been achieved, all courses were reviewed, emphasizing EU program awareness in relation to use of EU funding.

Yes


a) Content presented? At this event, primarily the training courses designed by the CDI were discussed, and in addition, the rest of training courses were also presented to the auditorium. The attention was mainly on access to non-grant funding and Business planning.

Yes

b) How was it presented? For this purpose, the LCD and IT equipment has been used. Since it was in remote area, back up of the content has been prepared with courses developed by the CDI. There was a presentation but at all time open for discussion with questions and answers.

Yes

P a g e | 23


a) How was written feedback collected? By filling forms in Macedonian language.

Yes

b) How was spoken feedback collected? They are summarized and included in the minutes from the event.

Yes

c) Was there other means of feedback? In the end there was discussion among the participants on topics related to the trainings. Since the participants didn’t have IT equipment with them, they promised to fill in the forms online once they get back home.

Yes



During the event, there was lively discussion for different aspects. The participants suggested all info to include also application form for funding, rather than funding guidelines, and narrative description how to fill in the application form.

It is good that there are on-line courses available on line, so one could easily access the web site at any time from home.

Yes

b) Feedback comments on format of units? This was not mentioned, neither discussed, it was just simply accepted by the participants.

Yes

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content? For senior (older) participants, the OER are difficult in general, because their IT knowledge is not so good. The younger (by age) participants, expressed their satisfaction. Use of English language – the participants from older generations (not so good in English language) had remark that we should identify appropriate translation of the words from English language

Yes


The comment were in direction that these kind of platforms are very useful, especially for remote rural areas and people with less opportunities. It is recommended the content should be specifically focused only to the EU funding instruments available for Macedonia as EU candidate country.

Yes

P a g e | 24

The navigation is easy, but the languages should be changed also if you are in one course and if you change the same course in another language.


The municipal and business chamber representatives (those that have kind of HUB characteristics) were asked to use their channel of communication and to disseminate info about the MICRO project. It was also mentioned that use of social media could be useful, but there are so many advertisement there so it Is recommended to look for other opportunities and alternatives.

Yes


a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like? In case of CDI, info on EU funding was key moment. This issue attract great interest.

Yes

b) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they not like? They didn’t emphasize some point that they didn’t like.

Yes

c) What changes are recommended

The participants suggested additional info on IPA funds, cross border cooperation and Erasmus + funds. Some links to other projects and experiences. In this regards, they were talking specifically about Macedonia as EU candidate country member.

Yes


P a g e | 25


Summary Feedback Report of EEO Group


process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents? 20 farmers and micro entrepreneurs were trained in 2 Courses.

Yes

b) How was the process organised? These courses were conducted the Association of Olive Oil Cooperatives of Epidaurus Limira, Laconia –K.A.S.E.L.L

Yes

c) Schedule and duration? 2 Training Courses on the 6

th of July 2018 (time 18.00) in Sykea, a rural

area located in Laconia, Greece

Yes

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation? Both our Project Manager and a distinguished trainer in the field of funded projects and agronomy presented in depth the context of the 2 Training Courses.

Yes


a) Content presented? The presentations included “Marketing/Promotion“ and “EU wide tools and resources”.

Yes

b) How was it presented? All the units were presented and analyzed through the use of Power Points. Also, we used examples in order to strengthen our presentations and to facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the participants.

Yes


a) How was written feedback collected? In order to collect feedback from the participants we designed a detailed questionnaire with tailor-made sections regarding the relevant content of our Courses. The participants were willing to answer all the sections so as to facilitate our feedback collection.

Yes

b) How was spoken feedback collected? Detailed presentation and discussion

Yes

c) Was there other means of feedback? N/A

P a g e | 26


a) Feedback comments on the content presented? The Training Courses were really excellent as the participants had intense interest to the offered topics The participants had the opportunity to learn a lot of things regarding the ways and procedures of EU resources. We noticed that they had many doubts and concerns on how these tools work but after the detailed presentation and the discussion they were more able to understand all these procedures. Specifically, concerning the presented content we have highlighted from the comments of the participants that it covers the needs and the concerns of the relevant stakeholders and professionals. Both Courses are well-described with arguments and unambiguous content, which was comprehensible.

Yes

b) Feedback comments on format of units? They considered that the organization of the Courses were sufficient, the communication and the interaction were productive and that they acquired all the appropriate knowledge in order to be harmonized with the needs of their work area.

The format of the units was also well divided and the division of each part facilitated the participants to study and understand the content.

Yes

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content? Units of Marketing and e-commerce and sources and resources in support of microenterprises had been considered as the most important by the participants.

Yes


The participants gave us feedback for the usefulness of the online OER which make the courses accessible to every relevant stakeholder and professional.

Yes


The dissemination of the online training content could be effective through the use of social media post such as Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, Linkedin profiles.

Yes


a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like? What they liked more from the online training content was the comprehensive content and the effective division of the units. The online training content presented in this way, it was exactly tailor-made to the needs of the 20 participants.

Yes

b) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they not like? No comments made.

Yes

c) What changes are recommended, and Regarding the Training Course of “EU wide tools and resources” they highlighted that they need more specialized seminars on how to use and to

Yes

P a g e | 27

have access to funding tools. they made productive comments for future training in the Course of “Marketing & Promotion. Even if our Training Course was very comprehensive, they realized that they want to delve into this sector more as it is one of the most important tools of their work. Within this framework, they combined their ICT skills with the marketing sector. Due to the rapid technological development ICT skills are necessary for everyone. The 20 participants have identified their limited knowledge in this field and that ICT skills are necessary for the marketing & promotion (i.e use of social media). For this reason, they prefer more ICT training and tailor-made programs in order to eliminate this phenomenon and to be more productive and competitive.


P a g e | 28

Summary Feedback Report of IDP


process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents? MICRO T&V was carried out with two groups:

- Group 1: 18 young professionals (age range between 24

and 34) including prospective micro entrepreneurs (i.e.

entrepreneurs to be) primarily from rural areas (only 4 were

from urban areas)

- Group2: 7 microenterprises operating in service sectors (i.e.

professional services) and light manufacturing (the group was

composed of entrepreneurs and staff of microenterprises).

Dates of T&V activity: GROUP A: 7

th, 8

th and 27

th of March, 9

th and 20

th of April 2018

GROUP B: 17th/19

th of April 2018

X

b) How was the process organised? The contents were illustrated by the trainer, who constantly stimulated the students’ active participation. The trainer also presented the MICRO OER platform, browsing the various Modules and Units that were projected and used as teaching materials. Moreover, the trainer encouraged attendees to autonomously explore and browse the MICRO Platform for self-administered learning.

X

c) Schedule and duration? The attendees were trained on 4 MICRO modules. Each module included a minimum of 1 until a maximum of 4 units. The delivery of each unit took different amount of time: the duration varied depending on the Unit: some units required approximately 45 minutes and others required up to 2 hours. Different factors affected the duration of each Unit: topic, interest of the audience, follow-up questions, etc.

X

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation? 4 MICRO Modules were illustrated to 25 people

X


a) Content presented? The MICRO contents have been illustrated as follows: Business planning and management skills (Group 1, 7

th and 8

th of March)

Unit 1: Planning of operations in business Unit 2: Budgeting

X

P a g e | 29

Unit 3: Monitoring of implementation of Business plans Unit 4: Business Management Essentials Building capacity in rural micro-enterprises (Group 1, 27

th of March; Group 2, 17

th

of April) Unit 4: Leadership and team working for micro enterprises EU programme awareness (Group 2, 18

th and 19

th of April)

Unit 1: Accessing LEADER Funds Unit 2: An introduction to EU programmes that support rural micro entrepreneurs Unit 3: Bringing an idea to fruition through EU Funding programmes Unit 4: Basic directions on how to complete a funding application EU wide tools and resources (Group 1, 9

th and 20

th of April)

Unit 1: The EU Small Business Act Unit 2: Sources and resources in support of micro-enterprises I Unit 3: Sources and resources in support of micro-enterprises II Unit 4: Real life examples of excellence The Micro OER Platform was also illustrated.

b) How was it presented? Face to face delivery in classroom using the MICRO Platform

X


a) How was written feedback collected? No written feedback was collected due to time and logistical constraints: the trained gauged the level of satisfaction with both content and format of the MICRO training through direct exchanges with the participants (also during the delivery of the training, especially for what pertains the format and delivery mode of the training to test the responsiveness of the web-based learning capability of the Platform).

X

b) How was spoken feedback collected? The feedback from students was on average very good across the board for all the modules.

X

c) Was there other means of feedback? The feedback were collected through “focus group” approach: the trainer asked the audience for their comments on the content (structure, relevance, depth, etc), format and delivery means of the MICRO training.

X


a) Feedback comments on the content presented? The students considered the contents very appropriate and accessible

X

b) Feedback comments on format of units? The format has been judged very user-friendly

X

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content? Students think that this course has a high educational level

X

d) Feedback comments on the usefulness of the online OER (Open X

P a g e | 30

Education Resource) for micro and craft-type enterprise entrepreneurs?

We received only positive comments on the user friendliness of the delivery means and the ability to have such a wealth of knowledge available.


Online dissemination.

X


a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like? The students appreciated the possibility to access the contents from everywhere and at any time, following their own needs.

X

b) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they not like? No aspects were mentioned.

X

c) What changes are recommended, and No changes were recommended.

X


No suggestions.

X

P a g e | 31

Summary Feedback Report of IHF


process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents? We tested MICRO contents with two groups of attendees:

- the first one (GROUP A) constituted by 12 young

professionals including prospective micro entrepreneurs (i.e.

entrepreneurs to be) primarily from rural areas (only 4 were

from urban areas)

- the second one (GROUP B) by 5 and 6 microenterprises

operating in service sectors (i.e. professional services) and

light manufacturing.

Dates of T&V activity: GROUP A: IHF tested the MICRO with the first group over a period of three days on February 5, 6 and 7 2018 GROUP B: the second group was involved in four days on 10, 11, 12 and 13 of April 2018. Thanks to the extended duration of the training sessions, IHF was able to test and validate a considerable number of modules and units of the MICRO training. In addition, the length of the training allowed to go into the details of the MICRO Platform. Moreover, IHF used the MICRO Project as a “case study” for EU projects and grants in support of entrepreneurship and territorial development

X

b) How was the process organised? IHF embedded the MICRO content in training courses delivered in the Spring of 2018. The MICRO oer platform was presented while the training contents were illustrated. The attendees were invited to individually browse the MICRO platform.

X

c) Schedule and duration? IHF delivered the MICRO training in the context of two training courses of a long duration, respectively three and four days in the Spring of 2018. The first group was trained in the period of February 5, 6 and 7: the number of attendees was 12 people for the whole course and IHF tested MICRO content in the three days, hence for the purposes of quantification of the Test and Validation efforts, a total of 36 participants are accounted for. The second group was trained in April 10, 11, 12 and 13: in this instance the training lasted for eight hours a day (with the exception of April13 when the training lasted five hours). In this instance, the MICRO content was embedded in this training course and MICRO training modules and units were presented each day of the training for a varying duration. A total of 22 users involved in Test and Validation is accounted during this training, as six participants attended the

X

P a g e | 32

training on April 10 and 11 and five participants attended the training on April 12 and 13. Each module (including 3 or 4 units), lasted 2 days of course, each day corresponding to about 4 hours.

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation? IHF achieved the purpose of the test and validation activities: the delivery of face to face training was instrumental in gauging the reaction of the trainees. A considerable advantage of this round of validation was the “diversity” in the cohort of participants, that represented various age groups at different stages in the “entrepreneurship journey”.

X


a) Content presented? The attendees were trained on the following contents: Pathways to market Unit 1: Customer identification Unit 2: Market Identification Unit 3: Online selling channels for Rural Micro Enterprises EU programme awareness Unit 1: Accessing LEADER Funds Unit 2: An introduction to EU programmes that support rural micro entrepreneurs Unit 3: Bringing an idea to fruition through EU Funding programmes Unit 4: Basic directions on how to complete a funding application EU Single Market Unit 1: The EU Single Market in a nutshell Unit 2: How to tap into the EU Single Market Unit 3: Using COSME and other EU financial Instruments The Micro OER Platform at large was also illustrated, presenting the variety of training resources available, the browsing functionalities, the multi-language versions, etc.

X

b) How was it presented? Face to face delivery in classroom using the MICRO Platform The trainer used a very proactive and engaging teaching approach to ensure the participation and involvement of the trainees.

X


a) How was written feedback collected? No written feedback was collected

X

b) How was spoken feedback collected? Students were asked about their impression on contents provided. The response was very positive on all the courses. They found the contents very interesting and they were surprised to know that contents were freely available online.

X

P a g e | 33

c) Was there other means of feedback? No.

X


a) Feedback comments on the content presented? The student found the contents very informative and formative, with a good combination of theoretical knowledge with practical examples

X

b) Feedback comments on format of units? The students found the units format very user-friendly

X

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content? The students considered very useful the possibility to access contents in various language versions.

X


The students found very useful the ability to access the platform for remote areas. The contents into the platform have a logical structure and are well organised

X


Online dissemination.

X


a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like? They deeply appreciated the convenience of digital delivery, which allows them to manage the training on their own. They also liked the fact that the platform structure is very dynamic, allowing students to switch from a topic to another

X


X


X


No suggestions.

X

P a g e | 34

Summary Feedback Report of IRL/NUIM


process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents? 52 micro enterprises and prospective/budding entrepreneurs trained in rural areas.

Yes

b) How was the process organised?

The groups were gathered using several different methods using IRL contacts in the regions:

1. Contact with Western Development Company

2. Contact with Local Enterprise Offices

3. IRL Tutors

Yes

c) Schedule and duration?

Workshop format with a duration of approximately one and a half hours, plus informal networking time afterwards. This format is a mix of presentation and audience participation and discussion. This format allowed for participants to get an overview of the project and think a little about what their requirements as entrepreneurs are before being presented with one of the MICRO units. They were then asked to give general feedback in terms of what they thought was good about the module they saw and what was not so good. Feedback forms were also available for written comments.

Yes

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation? Yes, participants got an overview of the courses available and how to access them and also an idea of content of one module.

Yes


a) Content presented? An overview of all the available content was shown and the module on Building Capacity through Networks was presented in detail.

Yes

b) How was it presented? Module was presented as a PowerPoint presentation.

Yes


a) How was written feedback collected? Written feedback was obtained through use of MICRO feedback forms.

Yes

P a g e | 35

b) How was spoken feedback collected? Notes were taken of discussions and workshop sessions.

Yes

c) Was there other means of feedback? Observation of interactions of participants and networking opportunities after formal workshop sessions ended.

Yes



Participants were positive towards the idea of a central

website they could access information whenever they

wanted and embraced the concept of an online portal to

gain access to the information they were looking for

Availability of extra links useful for more in depth

information, and the videos were seen as very useful too.

Useful to know how long module will take before you

begin

More practical examples would make it more relevant and

more localized content would also help this.

Some found the level of information given was not always

appropriate to them due to the diverse range of

participants.

Yes

b) Feedback comments on format of units?

Clear layout of modules

Length of modules was good

Use of visual material welcomed

Some slides had too much information and could have

used more visuals

Yes

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content?

Idea of one place to go for information welcomed

Topics broadly in line with the needs of the participants

Yes


Flexibility of being able to dip in and out of different

modules very positive

Welcomed the idea of such a platform to access

information

Yes

P a g e | 36

Ability to be able to “hear” presentation useful


Through local networks

Yes


a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like? The main aspect they appreciated was the fact it was freely available to all anytime they wanted to access it. They liked the idea of a “one stop shop” to access information and also the flexibility of being able to dip in and out of different modules.

Yes

b) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they not like? Sometimes the content was too academic and not practical enough so they could not relate it to their experiences.

Yes

c) What changes are recommended, and

One suggestion was to make the website searchable by

keyword to facilitate finding particular courses.

Some suggested that a forum alongside the training content

would be good, this would facilitate networking as well as

allowing discussions of the content.

The addition of more localized content was also suggested

to increase the relevance.

It was also suggested to make it easier to move between

related courses by including direct links from within modules

wherever they were referenced.

Yes


Partners can add their own more localized information to the modules if they wish.

Yes

P a g e | 37


Summary Feedback Report of IWS


process including

Completed

a) Sign in sheets/date/ who were the respondents? Attendees were 30 entrepreneur-to-be in remote areas of Tanger - Morocco

X

b) How was the process organised? Micro oer platform was presented and training contents introduced

X

c) Schedule and duration? The total duration of the entire action was 2 hours

X

d) Did it achieve its purpose; Training Course Test & Validation? 30 students signed, and approximately 50 were trained

X


a) Content presented? Micro OER Platform in general + ICT Skills + Market/customer identification

X

b) How was it presented? It was a general introduction on key concepts of interest for our target group.

X


a) How was written feedback collected? No written feedback was collected due to time restriction

X

b) How was spoken feedback collected? Students were asked about their impression on contents provided. They found them interesting and catchy. They were amazed to know that contents were free and available online. The only aspect to be improved was duration, as they found it short.

X

c) Was there other means of feedback? No.

X


a) Feedback comments on the content presented? They found them interesting and catchy. The only aspect to be improved was duration, as they found it short.

X

b) Feedback comments on format of units? No specific comment was provided

X

c) Feedback comments on usefulness of content? X

P a g e | 38

They found contents extremely interesting and useful. They really liked the trainer approach.


They were amazed to know that contents were free and available online.

X


SEO strategies and online dissemination.

X


a) What aspects of the online training content (OER) did they like? The fact that contents were free, available online and that no login is required.

X


X


X


Keep on disseminating online contents.

X

Rural Micro and Craft Enterprise Entrepreneurs: Sustaining Rural … · 2018-10-30 · Guidelines...

Documents

Transcript of Rural Micro and Craft Enterprise Entrepreneurs: Sustaining Rural … · 2018-10-30 · Guidelines...